WSJ: Apple working on new video delivery technology for TVs

2

Comments

  • mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,566member
    Quote:

    acquisition of Motorola Mobility could help the company regroup. Motorola has an existing set-top box business that builds high-definition digital video recorders and other devices



    Please correct me if I am wrong, but Google didn't buy Motorola (Motorola Holdings), they bought Motorola Mobility, which is the mobile division/spin off of Motorola correct? Does that division also build set top boxes?



    I know Motorola also owns FreeScale which is their chip/silicon spin off.





    Never mind... Just read that Motorola Mobility is basically the consumer oriented side of the business which includes cell phones and set top boxes.
  • iq78iq78 Posts: 256member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post


    He's only CEO of the world's largest company. I think they'll figure it out.



    Perfect!



    +1
  • juandljuandl Posts: 228member
    Add more storage of course.



    But make sure to add a hookup to those Red Yellow & White things.
  • s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    I think if Apple make a TV, it will have smell-o-vision
  • s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Bad move, hope you didn't pay too much. Just wait and see what's coming from Apple over the next few months ...



    lmao. you obviously do not own a WD TV Live.



    it is the greatest device on the market right now to stream content to. It plays every thing i throw at it. mkv, avi, mp4....



    I also have an Apple TV and i only use it to watch MLB.tv.



    If a new firmware includes mlb.tv on my WD TV Live, the apple TV becomes worthless.
  • cajuncajun Posts: 95member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Bad move, hope you didn't pay too much. Just wait and see what's coming from Apple over the next few months ...



    Actually, I have experience with several options... WD TV Live, Apple TV, Roku, a Windows Media Server PC, and an XBox 360.



    The PC, of course, offers the best/most options, but at the highest cost. Ditch the WMS portion and run XBMC, and alt-tab to a web browser for Netflix, Hulu, or just about anything else out there.



    The XBox 360... well, you're stuck using Microsoft's media server again, and all the limitations/clunkiness that go with that. No Thanks.



    Roku has built-in Wifi, 1080p output, but no storage and I haven't been able to get the app to stream video from a PC to work properly.



    WD TV Live has 1080p out, 1 TB storage, streams from PC's, supports many codecs, supports DLNA, and has apps for all the major streaming services (save Amazon, but I suspect that's coming; they've been good about adding apps). It lacks Wifi, but works with many USB wifi adapters. The unit can even act as a server, itself, if you have TV's in other rooms (as most folks do).



    Apple TV is stuck at 720p, has no onboard storage, doesn't stream from PC's (other than via iTunes) and lacks many codecs. The AirPlay streaming in iOS looks intriguing. One other thing I'd like to see in the Apple TV is an App Store. I will end up buying an Apple TV as a secondary set top box, but I'm waiting for the next version before I do.
  • zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 1,961member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post


    Ok so thunderbolt is a key factor. The integration of multimedia devices is key. Apple considers all its Core base units and its Ax based devices to be the key. Thats why apple is going to reveal a TV/ Monitor. Basic and simple. But easy to connect devices via thunderbolt or the new generation wireless technology.



    Really? How many external devices have Thunderbolt today? When Apple recently released the latest model of its monitor, it didn't even care to have input from non-Thunderbolt devices, so my two year old MacBook Pro doesn't work with it. Do you think other manufacturers are going to care about hooking up to Apple's monitor when Apple doesn't even support anything but its newest models? Do you think consumers will invest in an Apple-branded television set that only takes input from itself (presumably built-in Apple TV) or another Apple device, but not a cable/satellite box or a DVD/BD player or a video camera?



    An Apple television has to have at least multiple HDMI inputs (in addition to Thunderbolt) and even that won't be enough for people who have legacy hardware.



    What would be a great device is if an iPad, in conjunction with an Apple TV set, could be the equivalent of the cable box and send content wirelessly to the TV, but only if it's in 1080i for broadcast and 1080p for file content with full 5.1 channel support and with no additional compression. Otherwise, it will be a reduction in quality from what is already easily obtainable (or you might as well just watch the content on the iPad and don't need the Apple TV set at all.)



    The problem is that for this to all work, Apple really needs to become the equivalent of a cable company (an MSO), but that means having to make deals with every broadcast and cable network (Discovery, AMC Networks, MTV Networks, Turner, HBO, CBS (Showtime), etc) and then they'd have to price it lower than what people are paying for cable/satellite today. That's a tall bill of goods. Personally, I don't watch very much television - the only reason I haven't killed the cable is because I have a bundle for cable modem service. But the average person in the U.S. watches five hours a day and they're not going to give that up easily. So Apple's got to bring something really unique to the table and a slightly better version of Apple TV isn't going to be enough to get people to buy an Apple TV set that will probably be priced higher than most competition (but will probably will have the nicest looking frame and stand of any TV out there.)
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,083member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Not having Steve around to charm or twist arms is going to make getting content providers on board a lot more difficult. "Steve Jobs to see you" and they drop their forks, "Tim Cook to see you" and they say "Tim who?





    Not really. First because Steve is not dead and he hasn't really left Apple. He demoted himself to a less stressful position possibly on the advice of his doctors. But Steve Jobs, Chairman of the Board can still write an email or make a phone call and folks will pay attention.



    Cook also has all the user data etc that is the biggest reason folks deal with Apple. They want access to the potential audience.



    And believe me, they know who Tim Cook is. He's been at Apple for 15 years. He was right there with Steve the whole time.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eideard View Post


    An Apple TV set doesn't make as much sense as expanding the capabilities of the AppleTV.



    Which is how I suspect they are going. Faster processor, more ram, more storage perhaps (for streaming buffers and rental downloads) in the same little box.



    The rest will come with content deals. Get more apps like CNN onto the box. Perhaps a games SDK for making apps that would toss the video up on screen while an iphone or such is the controller. Get HBO etc on board for next day episode releases. Come up with a universal system for dealing with add on content instead of this 'extras' you can only watch on your computer and the apps you can only watch on iOS devices and don't recognize when you bought the movie first then got the app. Get better pricing on all content perhaps with a subscription plan powered by the rental files. Change up the viewing window also perhaps (say the timer is 7 days from download for tv eps, 14 for movies but you can watch it as many times as you want in that window). And so on
  • orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Perhaps a games SDK for making apps that would toss the video up on screen while an iphone or such is the controller.



    Forget an iPhone as a control; the existing AppleTV has a bluetooth chip inside it so just use a bluetooth gamepad.
  • tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I think video spawning would be a more interesting idea for gaming. The iPad (or other iOS device) would be broadcasting two videos. One to the TV. One to the iPad. The one to the iPad would serve as a control for the game being spawned onto the TV.
  • bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Not having Steve around to charm or twist arms is going to make getting content providers on board a lot more difficult. "Steve Jobs to see you" and they drop their forks, "Tim Cook to see you" and they say "Tim who?



    That is exactly what I see as Cook's challenge. WIthout the weight and charisma of a SJ, Apple's going to find negotiations a bit tougher.



    Tim strikes me as a nerd. Even his father called him a plodder. None of us are looking forward to Cook's next Keynote.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    AirPlay from iOS device to AppleTV will be a good start, but I think there's a better solution...

    Apps that are split between iPhone/iPad and the AppleTV.

    Code that is relevant to the controller (or needs to talk to other controllers used by fellow players) resides in your hand(s), while display and app logic live on a portion of the app that is blasted to the AppleTV when you start up the game.



    I don't know of any gaming platform that has that much smarts on both ends of the system.
  • spuditspudit Posts: 46member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    lmao. you obviously do not own a WD TV Live.



    it is the greatest device on the market right now to stream content to. It plays every thing i throw at it. mkv, avi, mp4....



    I also have an Apple TV and i only use it to watch MLB.tv.



    If a new firmware includes mlb.tv on my WD TV Live, the apple TV becomes worthless.



    Maybe for you, but not for the masses. Apple is a lot more concerned with the public at large, not those with the tech knowledge to set up and realize the benefit of such a device (WD TV).



    I use my Apple TV all the time, Netflix, Youtube, Airplay from an iPad or iPhone, Streaming pictures, and the list goes on. What's SJ always saying....It just works. It's also miniscule and doesn't clutter up the TV cabinet with bulk and wires running everywhere. My only complaint is lacking content.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MattRebs View Post


    That little chart really kind of sums up a lot of apples business.



    I think Apple is in the right place to at the right time to get into the tv market, I'm really surprised TV makers like Samsung haven't been all over this. Samsung actually makes a decent tablet, probably the best of the bunch, and their tv's are world class. Its absolutely mind boggling why they haven't been able to nail this yet.



    Try going into any Samsung (or other set for that matter) TV any deeper than 'on/off', and you'll see why they've failed, and will probably continue to fail. They have ZERO idea of how to present controls to a user that aren't completely impossible to understand and use.

    They could probably build Android into their sets and into their remotes (or Android phones) that could present a better experience, but I doubt that they can avoid screwing even that up.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Not having Steve around to charm or twist arms is going to make getting content providers on board a lot more difficult. "Steve Jobs to see you" and they drop their forks, "Tim Cook to see you" and they say "Tim who?



    Cook is as bad-assed as Steve. Read up on him. Iron fist inside a velvet glove.

    The guy is VERY tough. He just lacks the explosive temper.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cajun View Post


    I just bought my girlfriend a WD TV Live with a 1 TB drive in it for her birthday, even though she has an iPhone 4 and plans to buy an iPad soon. Why? Because the Apple TV lacks storage, and it lacks the codecs to play non-Apple videos.



    I know Apple will continue to be stubborn about adding storage to the Apple TV, but without the ability to store and play non-iTunes content, it's really of limited value right now.



    You may want to know that starting out a post with "I just bought my girlfriend a..." will probably get you spam-filter out because of the jerks who are flooding comments sections with spam that begins precisely like that.



  • fredappleheadfredapplehead Posts: 50member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Applecation View Post


    I don't think Apple would sell a TV that could be precisely mimicked by adding a $99 box. It would have to provide something so exciting that we all MUST have one. If not, it would not be an Apple product.

    An Apple Television would have to be the finest TV experience out there. Best quality screen, all the latest tech, and something that NO other TV manufacturer can provide. It must make me want to dump my beautiful new 55" top of the line screen for that new Apple centerpiece to my living room.

    If they can only build a MeToo device, it won't happen.



    On top of great picture quality comparable or better than the best (Samsung) out there, I think an integrated, high quality camera for Facetime would be killer. My current set of Connected TVs at home all support external (bulky attachments) cameras for Skype which are cumbersome to say the least (I've got to run a USB cable from camera to USB input on HDTV). This, imo, would set Apple apart from other TV manufacturers. Not to mention the integration of iTunes and iCloud services. Plus killer audio which is missing in a lot of FPTV sets these days.
  • gqbgqb Posts: 1,934member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FredAppleHead View Post


    On top of great picture quality comparable or better than the best (Samsung) out there, I think an integrated, high quality camera for Facetime would be killer. My current set of Connected TVs at home all support external (bulky attachments) cameras for Skype which are cumbersome to say the least (I've got to run a USB cable from camera to USB input on HDTV). This, imo, would set Apple apart from other TV manufacturers. Not to mention the integration of iTunes and iCloud services. Plus killer audio which is missing in a lot of FPTV sets these days.



    hmmm... you know, a cool feature would be a FaceTime camera that can be told to track on the iPhone/iPad/whatever being held by the user. Wherever you wander, the camera keeps you centered.

    (And can I now sue anyone who builds this?)
  • accessoriesguyaccessoriesguy Posts: 86member
    Apple is plenty big and powerful, if they can get enough networks to jump on board, Apple can stream channels through something like Apple TV and cut out those suppliers (Direct TV, cable, etc.) out and giving itself a nice entry slice into the market.
  • applelover2applelover2 Posts: 293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Applecation View Post


    I don't think Apple would sell a TV that could be precisely mimicked by adding a $99 box. ...



    An Apple Television would have to be the finest TV experience out there. Best quality screen, all the latest tech, and something that NO other TV manufacturer can provide.






    And if they came out with that sort of a TV, how would the $99 box "precisely mimic" it hooked up to your old TV?



    I don't think your point makes sense. They could easily sell both a $99 box and a high-end TV.
Sign In or Register to comment.