I think the most important thing is game apps on the ATV. I don't think it was coincidence that content (Netflix, Hulu Plus) has arrived on game consoles - the television industry understands that if a screen is used for playing a game, it is not making money for them. I think that the studios will be more amenable to content deals for iTunes or willing to provide their own app once they see that ATV presents alternative entertainment content.
I know a few people who bought one of these fancy new tv's. They have no idea that they can get Internet on it and just watch their foreign language cable channels on them.
My advice to everyone I talk to is to buy a dumb tv and get an apple tv, ps3, nice blu ray player, x box, boxee, roku or another box
I think the most important thing is game apps on the ATV. I don't think it was coincidence that content (Netflix, Hulu Plus) has arrived on game consoles - the television industry understands that if a screen is used for playing a game, it is not making money for them. I think that the studios will be more amenable to content deals for iTunes or willing to provide their own app once they see that ATV presents alternative entertainment content.
I believe that you are right.
Interesting that games (and other) apps on the iPad caused Comcast to develop an iPad app to receive streamed cable TV -- including live TV shows, events, etc.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Comcast app were made to run on AppleTV -- stream from the Comcast STB to the AppleTV STB...
Samsung makes the new Surface. It's now "hangable" on your wall for over $7,000.
Everyone seems to have trashed their CRT TV's for flat screens and their sizes are getting bigger. There is also technology to "spray-on" TV's to accommodate various odd shapes. Can you image a Mac screensaver running on 4 walls and a ceiling when AppleTV is in sleep mode! Perfect for tripping!
When Apple comes out with their version of Kinect, we can expect voice command to be bundled with it. No having to look for that remote control.
I don't think Apple's just waiting for the right moment. There just isn't a lot of room to move in this arena period. There probably never will be, so I just think they're putting out "something" to get iTunes to the TV. They've done a lot with a little and as flawed and frustrating as the new Apple TV is in many ways, it's also pretty cool for what it is at the price.
I'd be almost entirely satisfied with it if it output at 1080p. I don't get why they skipped over that ability in many ways. Well, I kinda get it, but in this day and age, I don't. They likely wanted to stick with one output format for everything, and most of the iTunes HD stuff is at 720p, so that wouldn't need to be "scaled" and it's less intensive to scale lower res stuff to 720p than to 1080p, but really, it's not that bad either. Surprisingly, I don't mind it as much for video as I do for photos that could really benefit from the extra resolution. But anyways, For the majority of users, that 720p output is getting scaled to 1080p on the TV, so why not just scale everything to 1080p out of the box so anything that's going through the box up to 1080 horizontal lines isn't scaled down and then scaled up again? Makes sense to me, and again, at $99 with 1080p output, I'd have no gripes. It's a nice little device.
I give Samsung a bit more credit than you. For a consumer electronics company, they're actually a ways ahead of many of the others. The fact that they have any sort of app store is ahead of the curve as usually your stuck with what a company decides to give you. Sony makes real nice Blu-Ray players, but you can only use what they give you, which in truth is quite a bit. They've had Hulu Plus for a long while already even. But you can't get rid of what they give you which can also be annoying.
My biggest pet peeve with all of these TV manufacturers comes down to one thing: "wireless ready." Stupid. People just get pissed when they need an $80 adapter. With Blu-Ray, wi-fi built in players tend to cost $20-30 more than a wi-fi ready model too. It's stupid. Just include wi-fi with everything at this point. Don't make it any more complicated. Maybe you make more money but you alienate the customer and make them dread buying these products. It's just a dumb move.
I agree that there isn't a whole lot that can be done besides making the TV a big computer screen that accesses the web and that's not what most people want on their TV. I'm not much of TV watcher at all and got the new ATV with the Netflix account to replace the Verizon FiOS TV and love it to watch a few movies and documentaries a month as well as streaming iTunes stuff (mainly music) from the iMac and a MBP I have at home. As my TV is 46" and I watch from over 10 feet away, the 720p spec seems just fine to me.
As for Samsung, as a Korean-American who grew up in Korea and have seen their dominance of Korea's economy, they still strike me as too much of a "me too" company that dabbles in way too many things - and I'm talking about stuff like refrigerators to rice cookers in their electronics division alone. As a Samsung conglomerate group, they build ships, construct apartment complexes, sell life insurance and operate department store and hotel chains amongst all kinds of other things. You can't go anywhere in Korea without their logo blaring in your face every few minutes.
I don't know... I just don't like them and how they do things. They represent over 20% of the entire South Korean economy. It's ridiculous. It's like they want to dominate every facet of the Korean citizens' lives over there (and the rest of the world as well). Their chairman Lee Kun-Hee (son of the founder and the richest man in Korea as a multi-billionaire) was indicted for tax evasion and then got a presidential pardon because of what he means to the Korean economy, national dignity and stuff like that. How sad would it have been to thrown him in jail...
But besides that stuff, you look at the sheer number of phones running Android, WP7 and their own Bada and how they just rush out things that are half-baked and they just strike you as a commodity vendor. But then, the same goes for LG, Sony, and all other other massive consumer electronics companies in Japan. That's basically what I meant in terms of their product development and marketing efforts; it's all so generic, often cheesy and sometimes outright shameless.
I read the Korean papers and browse the Korean sites and even Koreans there complain about Samsung just being an Apple copycat. Why do you figure that Apple is doing so well there (nearly 2 million iPhones sold in little over a year) despite the silly and at times vicious "let's be patriotic and buy Korean" marketing campaign that Samsung rolled out once the iPhone was announced for sale in Korea? See, that's the kind of stuff I don't like about them. Just make a better phone, damn it, instead of resorting to that kind of marketing crap to stem the sales of the iPhone there.
Samsung makes the new Surface. It's now "hangable" on your wall for over $7,000.
Everyone seems to have trashed their CRT TV's for flat screens and their sizes are getting bigger. There is also technology to "spray-on" TV's to accommodate various odd shapes. Can you image a Mac screensaver running on 4 walls and a ceiling when AppleTV is in sleep mode! Perfect for tripping!
When Apple comes out with their version of Kinect, we can expect voice command to be bundled with it. No having to look for that remote control.
Voice command? Have you ever been in a household with 3 teenagers --- voice command doesn't work on teens or TVs.
I bought Angry Birds for the Mac. It is on all of our iDevices and quite popular.
Big hit on the iMacs.
We have a Mini connected to the HDTV, so I installed it on that too -- and planned to use a Magic Trackpad to control it.
Sadly, it will not run on the Mini -- requires a OpenGL 2.0 capable GPU.
I find this odd, because AB requires less capability on iOS devices.
The AppleTV's A4 is capable of running AB -- all it needs is to be allowed (SDK, Store) by Apple, and support for touch input devices.
C'mon Apple, let's do this now!
This is a pretty tall order. Not so much for the way apps will look on an HDTV, but how you control it. I’ll use Angry Birds as the running example because it’s the EASIEST app of all to figure out its basic interactions.
AirPlay is the prime candidate so you can move your finger, hold/release, and tap as needed, but you need to have an app on iDevices to control it. Either an Angry Birds app given away on the iOS App Store that only works when integrating with the AppleTV, or have the AppleTV app also download a universal app that loads on iDevices so you can control the game play, and/or have an update for the regular iDevice Angry Birds app that will have a menu option for controlling iDevices or one that can sense when the AppleTV version is running. See, it’s already getting complex.
Now imagine if they make the controller require you to press and hold the display while you physically move the iDevice from the left to right and down to make it draw back the sling. That’s too much, but I wanted to cover all the major angles.
Then you just need some sort visual to show you are pulling the bird back in the sling. But not a mirrored representation of the HDTV display. Maybe an image of the bird in the sling close up, maybe with gauge to show angel and force since there is a disconnect between the device in your hand the HDTV in front of you.
This will make the feeling of interacting with the game very different, but I think it could still be viable. The problem with these simple controls for Angry Birds is there is still a lot of work that would need to go into the whole package to make it work.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
You are absolutely right that it is important that they get things right and that there is some complexity involved. It's just that the inevitability of ATV apps (and prior experience with other iDevices) should have the SDK close to at least a beta stage. You are also correct that it is just software so it can be released at any time. I just get anxious because I think this will move the ATV from hobby status to a bonafide product and, possibly, improve content acquisition.
You are absolutely right that it is important that they get things right and that there is some complexity involved. It's just that the inevitability of ATV apps (and prior experience with other iDevices) should have the SDK close to at least a beta stage. You are also correct that it is just software so it can be released at any time. I just get anxious because I think this will move the ATV from hobby status to a bonafide product and, possibly, improve content acquisition.
It?s easy to write code, it?s not easy to write good code.
Apple knows iOS in and out but remember that there is an entirely new UI for this version of iOS on the AppleTV. It might be Aqua-based like in the original AppleTV running on Mac OS, but that?s not the issue.
This is a pretty tall order. Not so much for the way apps will look on an HDTV, but how you control it. I’ll use Angry Birds as the running example because it’s the EASIEST app of all to figure out its basic interactions.
AirPlay is the prime candidate so you can move your finger, hold/release, and tap as needed, but you need to have an app on iDevices to control it. Either an Angry Birds extender app given away on the iOS App Store for the AppleTV, have the AppleTV App Store app also DL the iDevice helper apps, and/ot have an update for Angry Birds that will have a menu option for controlling iDevices or one that will simply see the AppleTV on the Angry Birds app when initiated on the network. See already getting complex.
Now imagine if they make the controller require you to press and hold the display while you physically move the iDevice from the left to right and down to make it draw back the sling. That’s too much, but I wanted to cover all the major angles.
Then you just need some sort visual to show you are pulling the bird back in the sling. But not a mirrored representation of the HDTV display. Maybe an image of the bird in the sling close up, maybe with gauge to show angel and force since there is a disconnect between the device in your hand the HDTV in front of you.
This will make the feeling of interacting with the game very different, but I think it could still be viable. The problem is even with this simple controller there is still a lot of work that would need to go into the whole package to make it work.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
An iMac with a magic mouse or magic pad handles this quite nicely with BT and graphics only on the screen...
Apple TV ships with a minimal remote-- menu, select, cursor, play/pause. That's it. Compared to every other remote in your house, it's a miracle of straight-forward ease of use.
I think the big holdup for apps on the Apple TV is the remote. We've already seen what a joke trying to ship a "fully functional" set top box remote looks like, with the Sony and Logitech versions of a keyboard plus a remote plus game controller. Apple will never do that.
And I can't see them adding functionality to the Apple TV that requires you to have an iPhone, Touch or iPad. Obviously, they will do that in addition to whatever other solution they come up with, but an Apple TV that is dependent on another expensive device to be fully functional isn't Apple's style.
So I have no idea what the solution is, unless they can make a super cheap iOS device with a touch screen that ships with the Apple TV or sells for less than $50 (really it should be closer to $30).
That's always been the problem with making the TV into a computer/internet device-- people can barely use their Comcast remotes, expecting them to master some kind of button crazy keyboard mission control thing so they can watch You Tube with the kids is a non-starter.
I've said it elsewhere, but Samsung's grotesque dog and pony show at CES is a joke. Their internet TV UIs are among the worst I've every seen, and that's just for toggling a few options. I guess they reckon Android will make everything awesome, but the more they pile on the super TV features the more likely it is that the whole thing will wind up an expensive failure-- or they'll just put the services on everything anyway and no one will ever use them.
EDIT: Goddamnit, I finally get around to finishing this post and I see Solipsism has covered the same ground. Rest assure, I started my post first and he stole my ideas by witchcraft.
He is forgetting that TV can't be the "hub" because it can't really edit anything without a computer inside. Camcorders can create content, but not edit. Ipods and iPhones can display content, but very limited in editing, despite iMoive and iWorks trying to change that. The Mac can edit everything, and every form of input from all of these devices, and then sync back to and between them. That is why it is a hub.
Apple TV ships with a minimal remote-- menu, select, cursor, play/pause. That's it. Compared to every other remote in your house, it's a miracle of straight-forward ease of use.
[?]
EDIT: Goddamnit, I finally get around to finishing this post and I see Solipsism has covered the same ground. Rest assure, I started my post first and he stole my ideas by witchcraft.
Nah, you focused on the remote control and I focused on the interaction hurdles.
Could Apple update there simple remote to include a useable accelerometer and gyroscope? Probably, but I?d imagine the logic board and battery would have to be bigger. The buttons could stay the same with a press/hold, drag, then release to play a game like Angry Birds, but as I stated in my previous post that?s a simple game.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
As for cost, we?ll we?ve seen people dish out $150 for an accessory for an aging XBOX 360 so I don?t think that would be an issue. Of course, the AppleTV is much cheaper than the XBOX 360.
Of course, people don?t tend to buy accessories looking at TCO and overall usage, but the cost of the accessory in comparison of the primary device. People would be up in arms if the remote for the AppleTV cost as much or more than the AppleTV itself.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
I like the universal remote idea. As you said, price would be the issue. Maybe a bundle with the ATV for $175 or so.
Hey, Dick A: I must be misunderstanding, but I got Angry Birds for my desktop, a new Mac Mini, and it runs just fine. I use our old HDTV, a Samsung, as my monitor . . . Is yours an older Mini??
Nah, you focused on the remote control and I focused on the interaction hurdles.
Could Apple update there simple remote to include a useable accelerometer and gyroscope? Probably, but I’d imagine the logic board and battery would have to be bigger. The buttons could stay the same with a press/hold, drag, then release to play a game like Angry Birds, but as I stated in my previous post that’s a simple game.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
As for cost, we’ll we’ve seen people dish out $150 for an accessory for an aging XBOX 360 so I don’t think that would be an issue. Of course, the AppleTV is much cheaper than the XBOX 360.
Of course, people don’t tend to buy accessories looking at TCO and overall usage, but the cost of the accessory in comparison of the primary device. People would be up in arms if the remote for the AppleTV cost as much or more than the AppleTV itself.
But I still think that it would unlike Apple to be selling an Apple TV that is more or less crippled until you buy the even modestly expensive accessory remote (I mean more or less crippled compared to what it presumably could do with apps and an appropriate controller).
Right? I can't think of anything else they sell that does that. Everything is its own experience, and then there are accessories that somewhat enhance that experience, not create it entire.
The weird thing about Apple TV is that it is sort of an accessory, in that it extends the utility of your iOS and Mac devices, and sort of its own thing. So is it like an Airport Express, where buying an iPod Touch makes it cooler because now you can stream music from your mobile device to your stereo? Or is it like an iPod Touch in and of itself, where you're looking for accessories to make it more fun?
Apple is basically selling a headless Touch that connects to big screens, but which is pretending to be kind of a passive receiver, so its a little confusing. However, it does seem inevitable that they'll come up with something eventually to leverage the potential, but it's hard to imagine what, exactly. I'm not sure a downsized Magic Pad screenless device would work, because some UI things can't have onscreen targets- pausing movies or music, changing setting on a slide show, etc.
For that, you need to be able to look down and see a (at least virtual) button, which means an actual touch screen, which means relatively expensive.
Anyway, my guess is that its exactly these issues that are keeping apps off ATV for now.
But I still think that it would unlike Apple to be selling an Apple TV that is more or less crippled until you buy the even modestly expensive accessory remote (I mean more or less crippled compared to what it presumably could do with apps and an appropriate controller).
Right? I can't think of anything else they sell that does that. Everything is its own experience, and then there are accessories that somewhat enhance that experience, not create it entire.
That's why I think that it makes more sense to bundle the ATV and a universal remote at a higher price. When you consider the pricing for some of the alternative products, this might be workable.
Another thing is that I think Apple's margins will improve for most their product categories (in spite of whatever they have guided). I think they could afford to eat some margin on a bundled device.
Comments
I don't know what Google, Samsung and the like are smoking to think that crap like this will take off in any way.
Apple is playing it smart calling ATV a hobby. That way if nothing comes of it, then who cares?
What do you want to see?
I think the most important thing is game apps on the ATV. I don't think it was coincidence that content (Netflix, Hulu Plus) has arrived on game consoles - the television industry understands that if a screen is used for playing a game, it is not making money for them. I think that the studios will be more amenable to content deals for iTunes or willing to provide their own app once they see that ATV presents alternative entertainment content.
My advice to everyone I talk to is to buy a dumb tv and get an apple tv, ps3, nice blu ray player, x box, boxee, roku or another box
I think the most important thing is game apps on the ATV. I don't think it was coincidence that content (Netflix, Hulu Plus) has arrived on game consoles - the television industry understands that if a screen is used for playing a game, it is not making money for them. I think that the studios will be more amenable to content deals for iTunes or willing to provide their own app once they see that ATV presents alternative entertainment content.
I believe that you are right.
Interesting that games (and other) apps on the iPad caused Comcast to develop an iPad app to receive streamed cable TV -- including live TV shows, events, etc.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Comcast app were made to run on AppleTV -- stream from the Comcast STB to the AppleTV STB...
...That appears to be at least 1 STB too many.
Samsung makes the new Surface. It's now "hangable" on your wall for over $7,000.
Everyone seems to have trashed their CRT TV's for flat screens and their sizes are getting bigger. There is also technology to "spray-on" TV's to accommodate various odd shapes. Can you image a Mac screensaver running on 4 walls and a ceiling when AppleTV is in sleep mode! Perfect for tripping!
When Apple comes out with their version of Kinect, we can expect voice command to be bundled with it. No having to look for that remote control.
I don't think Apple's just waiting for the right moment. There just isn't a lot of room to move in this arena period. There probably never will be, so I just think they're putting out "something" to get iTunes to the TV. They've done a lot with a little and as flawed and frustrating as the new Apple TV is in many ways, it's also pretty cool for what it is at the price.
I'd be almost entirely satisfied with it if it output at 1080p. I don't get why they skipped over that ability in many ways. Well, I kinda get it, but in this day and age, I don't. They likely wanted to stick with one output format for everything, and most of the iTunes HD stuff is at 720p, so that wouldn't need to be "scaled" and it's less intensive to scale lower res stuff to 720p than to 1080p, but really, it's not that bad either. Surprisingly, I don't mind it as much for video as I do for photos that could really benefit from the extra resolution. But anyways, For the majority of users, that 720p output is getting scaled to 1080p on the TV, so why not just scale everything to 1080p out of the box so anything that's going through the box up to 1080 horizontal lines isn't scaled down and then scaled up again? Makes sense to me, and again, at $99 with 1080p output, I'd have no gripes. It's a nice little device.
I give Samsung a bit more credit than you. For a consumer electronics company, they're actually a ways ahead of many of the others. The fact that they have any sort of app store is ahead of the curve as usually your stuck with what a company decides to give you. Sony makes real nice Blu-Ray players, but you can only use what they give you, which in truth is quite a bit. They've had Hulu Plus for a long while already even. But you can't get rid of what they give you which can also be annoying.
My biggest pet peeve with all of these TV manufacturers comes down to one thing: "wireless ready." Stupid. People just get pissed when they need an $80 adapter. With Blu-Ray, wi-fi built in players tend to cost $20-30 more than a wi-fi ready model too. It's stupid. Just include wi-fi with everything at this point. Don't make it any more complicated. Maybe you make more money but you alienate the customer and make them dread buying these products. It's just a dumb move.
I agree that there isn't a whole lot that can be done besides making the TV a big computer screen that accesses the web and that's not what most people want on their TV. I'm not much of TV watcher at all and got the new ATV with the Netflix account to replace the Verizon FiOS TV and love it to watch a few movies and documentaries a month as well as streaming iTunes stuff (mainly music) from the iMac and a MBP I have at home. As my TV is 46" and I watch from over 10 feet away, the 720p spec seems just fine to me.
As for Samsung, as a Korean-American who grew up in Korea and have seen their dominance of Korea's economy, they still strike me as too much of a "me too" company that dabbles in way too many things - and I'm talking about stuff like refrigerators to rice cookers in their electronics division alone. As a Samsung conglomerate group, they build ships, construct apartment complexes, sell life insurance and operate department store and hotel chains amongst all kinds of other things. You can't go anywhere in Korea without their logo blaring in your face every few minutes.
I don't know... I just don't like them and how they do things. They represent over 20% of the entire South Korean economy. It's ridiculous. It's like they want to dominate every facet of the Korean citizens' lives over there (and the rest of the world as well). Their chairman Lee Kun-Hee (son of the founder and the richest man in Korea as a multi-billionaire) was indicted for tax evasion and then got a presidential pardon because of what he means to the Korean economy, national dignity and stuff like that. How sad would it have been to thrown him in jail...
But besides that stuff, you look at the sheer number of phones running Android, WP7 and their own Bada and how they just rush out things that are half-baked and they just strike you as a commodity vendor. But then, the same goes for LG, Sony, and all other other massive consumer electronics companies in Japan. That's basically what I meant in terms of their product development and marketing efforts; it's all so generic, often cheesy and sometimes outright shameless.
I read the Korean papers and browse the Korean sites and even Koreans there complain about Samsung just being an Apple copycat. Why do you figure that Apple is doing so well there (nearly 2 million iPhones sold in little over a year) despite the silly and at times vicious "let's be patriotic and buy Korean" marketing campaign that Samsung rolled out once the iPhone was announced for sale in Korea? See, that's the kind of stuff I don't like about them. Just make a better phone, damn it, instead of resorting to that kind of marketing crap to stem the sales of the iPhone there.
Samsung makes the new Surface. It's now "hangable" on your wall for over $7,000.
Everyone seems to have trashed their CRT TV's for flat screens and their sizes are getting bigger. There is also technology to "spray-on" TV's to accommodate various odd shapes. Can you image a Mac screensaver running on 4 walls and a ceiling when AppleTV is in sleep mode! Perfect for tripping!
When Apple comes out with their version of Kinect, we can expect voice command to be bundled with it. No having to look for that remote control.
Voice command? Have you ever been in a household with 3 teenagers --- voice command doesn't work on teens or TVs.
Voice command? Have you ever been in a household with 3 teenagers --- voice command doesn't work on teens or TVs.
New "sport" - extreme channel surfing.
New "sport" - extreme channel surfing.
I like that -- real-time scoring & insult level attainment!
I bought Angry Birds for the Mac. It is on all of our iDevices and quite popular.
Big hit on the iMacs.
We have a Mini connected to the HDTV, so I installed it on that too -- and planned to use a Magic Trackpad to control it.
Sadly, it will not run on the Mini -- requires a OpenGL 2.0 capable GPU.
I find this odd, because AB requires less capability on iOS devices.
The AppleTV's A4 is capable of running AB -- all it needs is to be allowed (SDK, Store) by Apple, and support for touch input devices.
C'mon Apple, let's do this now!
This is a pretty tall order. Not so much for the way apps will look on an HDTV, but how you control it. I’ll use Angry Birds as the running example because it’s the EASIEST app of all to figure out its basic interactions.
AirPlay is the prime candidate so you can move your finger, hold/release, and tap as needed, but you need to have an app on iDevices to control it. Either an Angry Birds app given away on the iOS App Store that only works when integrating with the AppleTV, or have the AppleTV app also download a universal app that loads on iDevices so you can control the game play, and/or have an update for the regular iDevice Angry Birds app that will have a menu option for controlling iDevices or one that can sense when the AppleTV version is running. See, it’s already getting complex.
Now imagine if they make the controller require you to press and hold the display while you physically move the iDevice from the left to right and down to make it draw back the sling. That’s too much, but I wanted to cover all the major angles.
Then you just need some sort visual to show you are pulling the bird back in the sling. But not a mirrored representation of the HDTV display. Maybe an image of the bird in the sling close up, maybe with gauge to show angel and force since there is a disconnect between the device in your hand the HDTV in front of you.
This will make the feeling of interacting with the game very different, but I think it could still be viable. The problem with these simple controls for Angry Birds is there is still a lot of work that would need to go into the whole package to make it work.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
You are absolutely right that it is important that they get things right and that there is some complexity involved. It's just that the inevitability of ATV apps (and prior experience with other iDevices) should have the SDK close to at least a beta stage. You are also correct that it is just software so it can be released at any time. I just get anxious because I think this will move the ATV from hobby status to a bonafide product and, possibly, improve content acquisition.
You are absolutely right that it is important that they get things right and that there is some complexity involved. It's just that the inevitability of ATV apps (and prior experience with other iDevices) should have the SDK close to at least a beta stage. You are also correct that it is just software so it can be released at any time. I just get anxious because I think this will move the ATV from hobby status to a bonafide product and, possibly, improve content acquisition.
It?s easy to write code, it?s not easy to write good code.
Apple knows iOS in and out but remember that there is an entirely new UI for this version of iOS on the AppleTV. It might be Aqua-based like in the original AppleTV running on Mac OS, but that?s not the issue.
The issue is the logistics.
This is a pretty tall order. Not so much for the way apps will look on an HDTV, but how you control it. I’ll use Angry Birds as the running example because it’s the EASIEST app of all to figure out its basic interactions.
AirPlay is the prime candidate so you can move your finger, hold/release, and tap as needed, but you need to have an app on iDevices to control it. Either an Angry Birds extender app given away on the iOS App Store for the AppleTV, have the AppleTV App Store app also DL the iDevice helper apps, and/ot have an update for Angry Birds that will have a menu option for controlling iDevices or one that will simply see the AppleTV on the Angry Birds app when initiated on the network. See already getting complex.
Now imagine if they make the controller require you to press and hold the display while you physically move the iDevice from the left to right and down to make it draw back the sling. That’s too much, but I wanted to cover all the major angles.
Then you just need some sort visual to show you are pulling the bird back in the sling. But not a mirrored representation of the HDTV display. Maybe an image of the bird in the sling close up, maybe with gauge to show angel and force since there is a disconnect between the device in your hand the HDTV in front of you.
This will make the feeling of interacting with the game very different, but I think it could still be viable. The problem is even with this simple controller there is still a lot of work that would need to go into the whole package to make it work.
I think an AppleTV SDK and App Store will come but it will have to be well designed and interact well with iDevices (and maybe Macs since most are notebooks that have a multi-toch trackpad). The first step is already done with AirPlay and nobody is even close to matching that integration. This is where Apple can and should wait for this to be a solid 1.0 product before coming to market. Everything I’ve seen at CES is yesteryear thinking. I know you’re old but be patient.
An iMac with a magic mouse or magic pad handles this quite nicely with BT and graphics only on the screen...
... It could work the same on ATV.
I think the big holdup for apps on the Apple TV is the remote. We've already seen what a joke trying to ship a "fully functional" set top box remote looks like, with the Sony and Logitech versions of a keyboard plus a remote plus game controller. Apple will never do that.
And I can't see them adding functionality to the Apple TV that requires you to have an iPhone, Touch or iPad. Obviously, they will do that in addition to whatever other solution they come up with, but an Apple TV that is dependent on another expensive device to be fully functional isn't Apple's style.
So I have no idea what the solution is, unless they can make a super cheap iOS device with a touch screen that ships with the Apple TV or sells for less than $50 (really it should be closer to $30).
That's always been the problem with making the TV into a computer/internet device-- people can barely use their Comcast remotes, expecting them to master some kind of button crazy keyboard mission control thing so they can watch You Tube with the kids is a non-starter.
I've said it elsewhere, but Samsung's grotesque dog and pony show at CES is a joke. Their internet TV UIs are among the worst I've every seen, and that's just for toggling a few options. I guess they reckon Android will make everything awesome, but the more they pile on the super TV features the more likely it is that the whole thing will wind up an expensive failure-- or they'll just put the services on everything anyway and no one will ever use them.
EDIT: Goddamnit, I finally get around to finishing this post and I see Solipsism has covered the same ground. Rest assure, I started my post first and he stole my ideas by witchcraft.
Apple TV ships with a minimal remote-- menu, select, cursor, play/pause. That's it. Compared to every other remote in your house, it's a miracle of straight-forward ease of use.
[?]
EDIT: Goddamnit, I finally get around to finishing this post and I see Solipsism has covered the same ground. Rest assure, I started my post first and he stole my ideas by witchcraft.
Nah, you focused on the remote control and I focused on the interaction hurdles.
Could Apple update there simple remote to include a useable accelerometer and gyroscope? Probably, but I?d imagine the logic board and battery would have to be bigger. The buttons could stay the same with a press/hold, drag, then release to play a game like Angry Birds, but as I stated in my previous post that?s a simple game.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
As for cost, we?ll we?ve seen people dish out $150 for an accessory for an aging XBOX 360 so I don?t think that would be an issue. Of course, the AppleTV is much cheaper than the XBOX 360.
Of course, people don?t tend to buy accessories looking at TCO and overall usage, but the cost of the accessory in comparison of the primary device. People would be up in arms if the remote for the AppleTV cost as much or more than the AppleTV itself.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
I like the universal remote idea. As you said, price would be the issue. Maybe a bundle with the ATV for $175 or so.
Nah, you focused on the remote control and I focused on the interaction hurdles.
Could Apple update there simple remote to include a useable accelerometer and gyroscope? Probably, but I’d imagine the logic board and battery would have to be bigger. The buttons could stay the same with a press/hold, drag, then release to play a game like Angry Birds, but as I stated in my previous post that’s a simple game.
There is a the chance Apple could simply not include the remote but sell a wicked universal remote with a touch screen that could run all your devices and interact wirelessly with the AppleTV via AirPlay. I wonder if the new OS for the new iPod Nano could do this.
As for cost, we’ll we’ve seen people dish out $150 for an accessory for an aging XBOX 360 so I don’t think that would be an issue. Of course, the AppleTV is much cheaper than the XBOX 360.
Of course, people don’t tend to buy accessories looking at TCO and overall usage, but the cost of the accessory in comparison of the primary device. People would be up in arms if the remote for the AppleTV cost as much or more than the AppleTV itself.
But I still think that it would unlike Apple to be selling an Apple TV that is more or less crippled until you buy the even modestly expensive accessory remote (I mean more or less crippled compared to what it presumably could do with apps and an appropriate controller).
Right? I can't think of anything else they sell that does that. Everything is its own experience, and then there are accessories that somewhat enhance that experience, not create it entire.
The weird thing about Apple TV is that it is sort of an accessory, in that it extends the utility of your iOS and Mac devices, and sort of its own thing. So is it like an Airport Express, where buying an iPod Touch makes it cooler because now you can stream music from your mobile device to your stereo? Or is it like an iPod Touch in and of itself, where you're looking for accessories to make it more fun?
Apple is basically selling a headless Touch that connects to big screens, but which is pretending to be kind of a passive receiver, so its a little confusing. However, it does seem inevitable that they'll come up with something eventually to leverage the potential, but it's hard to imagine what, exactly. I'm not sure a downsized Magic Pad screenless device would work, because some UI things can't have onscreen targets- pausing movies or music, changing setting on a slide show, etc.
For that, you need to be able to look down and see a (at least virtual) button, which means an actual touch screen, which means relatively expensive.
Anyway, my guess is that its exactly these issues that are keeping apps off ATV for now.
But I still think that it would unlike Apple to be selling an Apple TV that is more or less crippled until you buy the even modestly expensive accessory remote (I mean more or less crippled compared to what it presumably could do with apps and an appropriate controller).
Right? I can't think of anything else they sell that does that. Everything is its own experience, and then there are accessories that somewhat enhance that experience, not create it entire.
That's why I think that it makes more sense to bundle the ATV and a universal remote at a higher price. When you consider the pricing for some of the alternative products, this might be workable.
Another thing is that I think Apple's margins will improve for most their product categories (in spite of whatever they have guided). I think they could afford to eat some margin on a bundled device.