This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen. That'd be no different than how the ATV2 works currently.
Sure it does. My options allow for the best of both worlds. The AppleTV becomes the de facto UI for any of the models I've presented.
Now, I didn't get into details of it earlier but I had assumed you knew what I was getting at. It now seems like you may not know what I was stating about an external device. I've mentioned this type of setup for years on here and I didn't say that the current AppleTV was perfect as it is at least the latter should be a clue.
To restate, I think it makes more sense for the AppleTV, as a stand alone device, to make the TV into a simple monitor. It hooks up via HDMI for video (and possibly audio) and the power connects to the back of the AppleTV just like with a cable box. Now the TV turns on and off with the AppleTV remote and never has to be moved from the Video 1 input. Now this AppleTV is much more like a router with a built in switch except with HDMI. It was one HDMI out to the TV and 2-4 coming into it so you can plug in your cable box/sat receiver, Blu-ray player, etc. Now all your input go through the AppleTV so at any time you can use the AppleTV remote to switch inputs if you want to use one of the connected devices and at any time, regardless of what UI you are using the AppleTV's UI will be able to take over. The AppleTV's UI could even overlay for showing you items like who's at your front door, when there is a call to the home phone, and other Growl-like options for certain services.
Quote:
This could happen- sure. But I don't recall Apple being prone to supplying the software and letting someone else sell the hardware. I remember it on one phone, which failed royally, and Apple regretted. Apple will sell the hardware and software combined. So this is more likely than Apple working the content deal, but still very unlikely. I'd love to have a $199 Dell netbook be able to license OSX, but it won't happen.
For my suggestion that Apple license their tech to vendors is basically the same exact thing as above in actual usage the only difference would be the remote would likely be theTV's remote with some AppleTV buttons. I include this option but Apple doesn't have a history of such camaraderie.
At least these options would allow for you to get your cable/sat content (something that Apple can't do without a lot of deal but even then it would be tricky if your cable provider is your ISP), play Blu-ray quality videos (something not going to happen with streaming for a very long time even after 1080p is available from the iTS), allows you keep your current TVs, allows you add multiple AppleTVs in the house at a price less than buying one Apple HDTV, and allows you to update the AppleTV HW in a cycle that is different from your TV's replacement cycle (these last three will not only allow Apple to sell more AppleTVs right away, but sell more to repeat customers who don't see a need to buy a new HDTV every year or two despite HW and feature updates to the AppleTV components.
Quote:
Just my opinion- so take that with a grain of salt- but Apple does not want to send their software off to let a hardware manufacturer(s) handle it. They want to be in control. I also believe there is no chance they work out a content deal (a la carte, etc.) because- single handedly- of sports (amongst other reasons). I don't think either of your suggestions are reasonable.
Licensing their tech doesn't necessary mean the TV vendor makes or even sells the AppleTV HW. It could just mean they make the TVs to a certain spec, get a special logo on the upper left corner [TV] and have a special connector in the back specially for the AppleTV to tie into so it's seamless. These TVs would cost more because Apple would be getting a fee from vendors and then Apple could get money from us from buying the AppleTV device. You could then get a smaller TV for your bedroom from a different TV manufacturer and then put the older AppleTV unit on the smaller TV and get the newer, better AppleTV unit for your TV in the HEC. Now Apple has gotten licensing fee from two TV vendors, got you to by two AppleTVs, made you more connected and profited on the sale of all 4 items.
Quote:
Bottom line- I'm tired of changing inputs between devices. It's annoying. An integrated TV fixes that (and makes it easier to record, search channels, play music, etc.)
Me too, but I don't think it's so much of a pain that people are willing to spend a couple grand to replace all the TVs in their home with new TVs are only come in a few sizes and little to no other options. And Apple should be trying to find away to get users to buy a new AppleTV every time the HW is updated, something that surely won't happen with an Apple HDTV.
So it works just like a Amplifier/Receiver does now (Onkyo, Dennon, Pioneer, etc.) where it only has one "audio/display" out? Got it. Seems logical, but I don't know if Apple would do that. Not to mention, it still wouldn't help with the User interface. If my Uverse is plugged into that apple tv, how could the apple tv decode all that info and put it into their UI. Same with a blu-ray player? I would still be handcuffed by using Uverse's tv menu layout.
I think you might be onto something though- if the small box (or even a little bigger) ATV could partner with an IPTV (like a Uverse) and fit it all into that little streaming device, then it could handle the majority of the UI work- at least regular and cable programing, streaming, etc. The only time you would need to change inputs is for dvd/blu-ray, or xbox/ps3/wii,
Why AT&T first? Because of their previous relationship? How many regions does AT&T's U-Verse operate? How many US customers does that cover?
It can see a scenario for Apple to do that and then get customers to essentially force providers to offer Apple's boxes but I'd think deals with larger providers might be advantageous here.
the thing is AT&T is the only one with a working IPTV network in the US. But apple could still convince a major cable operator to convert to IPTV. Cable has no choice, they know they have to replace broadcast QAM for IPTV at some point to remain competitive. In Montreal, Bell FIBE is already hurting Cable co Videotron, which is losing customers at an alarming rate.
aT&T has a huge advantage, like Bell in canada, its a country wide company. At some point, it will deserve the entire country with its U-verse offering.
This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen.
Who says? This is Apple we're talking about. King of making deals that no one else can.
And you'll never have the same interface for your Blu-ray player as you will the rest of your Apple television solution.
So it works just like a Amplifier/Receiver does now (Onkyo, Dennon, Pioneer, etc.) where it only has one "audio/display" out? Got it. Seems logical, but I don't know if Apple would do that.
Yes, an A/V receiver is a more apropos comparison. I don't know about you but I am not a fan of letting the TV handle all the sound or even using the TV's speakers. Some higher-end TVs have good speakers but it's just pointless to me. If I'm going to pay for sound I will have 3rd-party speakers that are separate from the TV.
Quote:
Not to mention, it still wouldn't help with the User interface. If my Uverse is plugged into that apple tv, how could the apple tv decode all that info and put it into their UI. Same with a blu-ray player? I would still be handcuffed by using Uverse's tv menu layout.
Just like an A/V receiver sits between the TV monitor and all the connected devices it can overlay anything it wants whenever it wants because all the data is passing through it. The AppleTV UI will always be there when you want it, like your cable/sat box or Blu-ray/DVD UI is always there when you want it when there is content playing.
Sopil- you're still missing my point. There can be an overlay, but it's still your cable's UI to use the tv guide to pick the channel, or record the game. That can only be done if the set top box or integrated tv controls the content (via a la carte, teaming with a cable/iptv company, whatever).
Maybe this makes it clearer:
Your way you search channels is not the same. Apple controls your tv guide through your cable content. Is that clearer ( sorry if I'm communicating it poorly)
Sopil- you're still missing my point. There can be an overlay, but it's still your cable guide that you're using to pick the channel or record the game. That can only be done if the set top box or integrated tv controls the content (via a la carte, teaming with a cable/iptv company, whatever).
If you pop the AppleTV in a TV you are still needing to connect a cable/sat box for content.
If your original point was that Apple will alter the way content is delivered then my original point about the AppleTV being popped inside of a TV is irrelevant and completely separate issue.
Are you talking about the way content is delivered or the way the HW is connected because they are completely separate issues.
Not really regarding an 'Apple TV' per se, but with ANY streaming solution the problem as always is the content.
I tried out Netflix when it launched in the UK last month - it is an amazing service that works brilliantly across your devices and I loved the idea of a fixed monthly fee where I could watch anything I want , TV show or movie, whenever.
The problem with Netflix is the complete lack of content! My first 4 searches of movies I wanted to watch were not available for streaming.
I cancelled. Brilliant idea - not anywhere near enough content.
I had the same results when they launched here and almost cancelled. I held off, and they started enough new material to make it worthwhile. We still don't have Shameless like the U.S. but hopefully that will come soon.
In February, they're starting Netflix produced content, LilyHammer.
If you pop the AppleTV in a TV you are still needing to connect a cable/sat box for content.
If your original point was that Apple will alter the way content is delivered then my original point about the AppleTV being popped inside of a TV is irrelevant and completely separate issue.
Are you talking about the way content is delivered or the way the HW is connected because they are completely separate issues.
Ok... please reread everything I said. lol. What herbapou and I were both saying is that an integrated TV would have the cable box/card/iptv/whatever built INTO it. So there would be no cable box to hookup. Apple would partner with the cable company in that- you would still pay (example) Uverse, but Apple would be the hardware provider and provide the menu, UI, etc. A TV, with Apple TV, Cable Box, Blu Ray Player, DVR, etc. but Apple is the hardware maker of all of them. Example- Motorola creates the cable box for X cable company. Motorola designs the UI of the set top box. If Apple is now the hardware manufacturer of the "cable box/card" (integrated inside the TV)- now Apple designs the UI for everything.
Ok... please reread everything I said. lol. What herbapou and I were both saying is that an integrated TV would have the cable box/card/iptv/whatever built INTO it. So there would be no cable box to hookup. Apple would partner with the cable company in that- you would still pay (example) Uverse, but Apple would be the hardware provider and provide the menu, UI, etc. A TV, with Apple TV, Cable Box, Blu Ray Player, DVR, etc. but Apple is the hardware maker of all of them. Example- Motorola creates the cable box for X cable company. Motorola designs the UI of the set top box. If Apple is now the hardware manufacturer of the "cable box/card" (integrated inside the TV)- now Apple designs the UI for everything.
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
...How do you get access to the streams from direct TV, comcast, dish, etc....To be ultimately cool, you need to get those boxes out of the loop. Most of these boxes can be controlled via wifi now, there are apps to control them. So it should be possible.
The HDMI spec allows one HDMI device controlling another. I don't remember whether that was a required feature
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
Apple starts in America. Remember the iPhone? AT&T only. How limiting was that? One provider, one country, then they rolled it out and other countries and providers were clammering for it.
And I disagree- you have to lump hardware and software together- it changes the situation entirely. If Uverse did team up with it, and the box/card/components/dvr were much larger than apple tv 2, then it might require a full fledged tv. Although they might be able to fit it all into a box- in which case would be the best scenario (unless apple wants to make more $ going the tv route). At any rate- they're smarter than us and we'll know soon enough- or not.
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
IPTV is an international spec, in fact its a lot more popular in Europe than in the continental US. For having worked at BCE I can assure you IPTV put those QAM cable box to shame, they are not even in the same league. Mark those words, every single ISP is going to move to IPTV in the next 5 years. An Cable co. that doesnt is going straight to the graveyard. Most cable monopolies are going to get challenge by the "other" cable going into your home, the telephone cable, and AT&T IPTV offering is far more advanced than cable. IPTV is 10 years ahead of the QAM cable box.
If Apple wants to turn the TV market upside down, IPTV is the ticket. And they will have to make set-top box. Its not like its all speculation, its already happening right now in Toronto and Montreal, Cable co are losing customers in huge numbers to Bell FIBE TV.
Apple starts in America. Remember the iPhone? AT&T only. How limiting was that? One provider, one country, then they rolled it out and other countries and providers were clammering for it.
And I disagree- you have to lump hardware and software together- it changes the situation entirely. If Uverse did team up with it, and the box/card/components/dvr were much larger than apple tv 2, then it might require a full fledged tv. Although they might be able to fit it all into a box- in which case would be the best scenario (unless apple wants to make more $ going the tv route). At any rate- they're smarter than us and we'll know soon enough- or not.
I enjoy the discussions.
One provider over the entire country. Sure, there a few places AT&T didn't touch but with a cable service you are talking about ignoring most of the country. In fact, I just checked a bunch of random people I know in the US and not one of them has U-verse available in their area. This is a completely different game. Aren't they only in half the US states right now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
IPTV is an international spec, in fact its a lot more popular in Europe than in the continental US. For having worked at BCE I can assure you IPTV put those QAM cable box to shame, they are not even in the same league. Mark those words, every single ISP is going to move to IPTV in the next 5 years. An Cable co. that doesnt is going straight to the graveyard.
If Apple can get IPTV in the US then so be it but remember you are talking about a lot of regional providers that will have to support it just to allow Apple to steal their business. I see no reason why they would investment billions in their own destruction.
On top of that, being RF or IP based is irrelevant to the big picture. You attach a modem, you attach a router, and you connect everything to that. Either way Apple will be using an IP based system unless they've decided to force cable and sat companies to invest in Apple's set top boxes, which I don't think will happen.
If Apple can get IPTV in the US then so be it but remember you are talking about a lot of regional providers that will have to support it just to allow Apple to steal their business. I see no reason why they would investment billions in their own destruction.
On top of that, being RF or IP based is irrelevant to the big picture. You attach a modem, you attach a router, and you connect everything to that. Either way Apple will be using an IP based system unless they've decided to force cable and sat companies to invest in Apple's set top boxes, which I don't think will happen.
If Apple build in IPTV that doesnt mean you would not be able to use the TV with regular cable, you just plug the cable box in the HDMI input. But if you subscribe to an Apple ISP partner, that would mean no external box and being able to use the ecosystem to its full potential.
Apple would not be stealing cable business, its the opposite, they will enhance it with an ecosystem, cable would have less set top box to manage and video on demand profits would be share. Live TV would still be fully control by the ISP. The way I see it its a win-win situation.
Like I said, if Apple moves against the ISP with an internet offering, ISP are going to reduce the bit rates of any Apple feeds to make them unwatchable in order to protect there network from collapsing, and, because they will love to. Volume and reliability is key here, all the internet offerings currently works because volume is still low, if everyone moves to internet for video feeds, the networks are going to collapse.
People with satellite TV go nuts when they lose signal because of a storm. This only happens a few times per year. Imagine if you subscribe to a net service and it almost never works in the evening...
Recap:
1. Apple offerings video stream in large volume at peak hours: expect an unreliable service at best.
2. Apple trying to negociate live TV with studios in many countries: welcome to hell. Not to mention many ISP have vertical integration, that mean they also OWN many speciality channels.
3. Apple already has VOD in many countries. No need to negociate anything other than making a deal with ISP's.
4. If Apple only produce a smart TV like all the other android Tv's out there, they are not re-inventing TV at all. They will just be like all the others, and they will even be late in the game.
5. Integrating the ISP feed into Apple TV means a consistent UI across all services.
If Apple build in IPTV that doesnt mean you would not be able to use the TV with regular cable, you just plug the cable box in the HDMI input. But if you subscribe to an Apple ISP partner, that would mean no external box and being able to use the ecosystem to its full potential.
Apple would not be stealing cable business, its the opposite, they will enhance it with an ecosystem, cable would have less set top box to manage and video on demand profits would be share. Live TV would still be fully control by the ISP. The way I see it its a win-win situation.
Like I said, if Apple moves against the ISP with an internet offering, ISP are going to reduce the bit rates of any Apple feeds to make them unwatchable in order to protect there network from collapsing, and, because they will love to. Volume and reliability is key here, all the internet offerings currently works because volume is still low, if everyone moves to internet for video feeds, the networks are going to collapse.
People with satellite TV go nuts when they lose signal because of a storm. This only happens a few times per year. Imagine if you subscribe to a net service and it almost never works in the evening...
Recap:
1. Apple offerings video stream in large volume at peak hours: expect an unreliable service at best.
2. Apple trying to negociate live TV with studios in many countries: welcome to hell. Not to mention many ISP have vertical integration, that mean they also OWN many speciality channels.
3. Apple already has VOD in many countries. No need to negociate anything other than making a deal with ISP's.
4. If Apple only produce a smart TV like all the other android Tv's out there, they are not re-inventing TV at all. They will just be like all the others, and they will even be late in the game.
5. Integrating the ISP feed into Apple TV means a consistent UI across all services.
1) Everything you've stated can be done with a separate box and doesn't require the AppleTV to be built INTO the TV.
2) Google already tried this and got shot down for "advancing" the ecosystem behind the backs of the providers.
3) You're still not separating the content from the HW. These are separate issues.
4) You haven't addressed how AT&T's U-verse which only covers about 7% of the US population and is only used by 1% of the US population makes this a good fit for Apple.
5) You haven't addressed why I would pay $2-4K for new TVs when the current ones work fine.
6) You haven't addressed how I would update the AppleTV HW outside of the TV panel which only needs to be replaced once every 6-10 years.
7) You haven't addressed how Apple's rumoured 3 sizes of TV that are all way too big for my bedrooms and den are going to get those TV connected.
8) You haven't addressed how all these "ISP feeds" are automatically and instantly going be using the same system or be compatible with Apple's HW despite no leaks from cable providers about working them to reinvent the cable box. Wikipedia lists 29 major providers. How many years did it take before Apple got 29 MNOs for the iPhone around the world, and that was using the same tech and frequencies.
The bottom line is that the only solution will be one that can be shared by the whole of the US and be scalable to the rest of the world as it becomes more connected with fast internet. There are two very distinct hurdles for Apple to overcome: having affordable content through their interface that will keep users on their interface, and making the HW easier to utilise for the average user so they will inclined to use it more often.
1) Everything you've stated can be done with a separate box and doesn't require the AppleTV to be built INTO the TV.
2) Google already tried this and got shot down for "advancing" the ecosystem behind the backs of the providers.
3) You're still not separating the content from the HW. These are separate issues.
4) You haven't addressed how AT&T's U-verse which only covers about 7% of the US population and is only used by 1% of the US population makes this a good fit for Apple.
5) You haven't addressed why I would pay $2-4K for new TVs when the current ones work fine.
6) You haven't addressed how I would update the AppleTV HW outside of the TV panel which only needs to be replaced once every 6-10 years.
7) You haven't addressed how Apple's rumoured 3 sizes of TV that are all way too big for my bedrooms and den are going to get those TV connected.
8) You haven't addressed how all these "ISP feeds" are automatically and instantly going be using the same system or be compatible with Apple's HW despite no leaks from cable providers about working them to reinvent the cable box. Wikipedia lists 29 major providers. How many years did it take before Apple got 29 MNOs for the iPhone around the world, and that was using the same tech and frequencies.
The bottom line is that the only solution will be one that can be shared by the whole of the US and be scalable to the rest of the world as it becomes more connected with fast internet. There are two very distinct hurdles for Apple to overcome: having affordable content through their interface that will keep users on their interface, and making the HW easier to utilise for the average user so they will inclined to use it more often.
I have adressed those issues , but I see you are completly close down and just wont get it.
Here's an issue: I don't want to buy a TV for absolutely no reason when a box does exactly the same thing.
Apple is not going to stop making a box...
and some old contacts I have are talking about a possible TV plan. Pretty much like with the cell phone business. btw I never told you this. Makes sense, a 64g iPhone is the same price has a 52" TV and yet lots of people change them every 2-3 years.
So are you going to buy your Apple TV lock or unlock? :-)
Here is another leak : there may also be a QAM Apple TV's for cable. An Apple Tv's with both QAM and IPTV build in is only going to be available unlock.
Because everything I've read about people's opinions say they'll kill the Apple TV in favor of an Apple HDTV. There's no point having both when the TV does nothing the box wouldn't.
Quote:
and some old contacts I have are talking about a possible TV plan.
And how is that 'revolutionizing' TV? That sounds exactly like every TV service ever. Apple's gig would be to make deals with individual SHOWS on each channel, giving us ONLY what we want.
Quote:
btw I never told you this.
Don't worry. Even if you actually had any real inside information, I wouldn't remember it.
Quote:
So are you going to buy your Apple TV lock or unlock?
I want an A6 box that can play back iTunes content without having a computer on and iTunes open. There's no point in having apps. There's no point in having the Internet. I want to play the content I already have; that's all I need.
Comments
This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen. That'd be no different than how the ATV2 works currently.
Sure it does. My options allow for the best of both worlds. The AppleTV becomes the de facto UI for any of the models I've presented.
Now, I didn't get into details of it earlier but I had assumed you knew what I was getting at. It now seems like you may not know what I was stating about an external device. I've mentioned this type of setup for years on here and I didn't say that the current AppleTV was perfect as it is at least the latter should be a clue.
To restate, I think it makes more sense for the AppleTV, as a stand alone device, to make the TV into a simple monitor. It hooks up via HDMI for video (and possibly audio) and the power connects to the back of the AppleTV just like with a cable box. Now the TV turns on and off with the AppleTV remote and never has to be moved from the Video 1 input. Now this AppleTV is much more like a router with a built in switch except with HDMI. It was one HDMI out to the TV and 2-4 coming into it so you can plug in your cable box/sat receiver, Blu-ray player, etc. Now all your input go through the AppleTV so at any time you can use the AppleTV remote to switch inputs if you want to use one of the connected devices and at any time, regardless of what UI you are using the AppleTV's UI will be able to take over. The AppleTV's UI could even overlay for showing you items like who's at your front door, when there is a call to the home phone, and other Growl-like options for certain services.
This could happen- sure. But I don't recall Apple being prone to supplying the software and letting someone else sell the hardware. I remember it on one phone, which failed royally, and Apple regretted. Apple will sell the hardware and software combined. So this is more likely than Apple working the content deal, but still very unlikely. I'd love to have a $199 Dell netbook be able to license OSX, but it won't happen.
For my suggestion that Apple license their tech to vendors is basically the same exact thing as above in actual usage the only difference would be the remote would likely be theTV's remote with some AppleTV buttons. I include this option but Apple doesn't have a history of such camaraderie.
At least these options would allow for you to get your cable/sat content (something that Apple can't do without a lot of deal but even then it would be tricky if your cable provider is your ISP), play Blu-ray quality videos (something not going to happen with streaming for a very long time even after 1080p is available from the iTS), allows you keep your current TVs, allows you add multiple AppleTVs in the house at a price less than buying one Apple HDTV, and allows you to update the AppleTV HW in a cycle that is different from your TV's replacement cycle (these last three will not only allow Apple to sell more AppleTVs right away, but sell more to repeat customers who don't see a need to buy a new HDTV every year or two despite HW and feature updates to the AppleTV components.
Just my opinion- so take that with a grain of salt- but Apple does not want to send their software off to let a hardware manufacturer(s) handle it. They want to be in control. I also believe there is no chance they work out a content deal (a la carte, etc.) because- single handedly- of sports (amongst other reasons). I don't think either of your suggestions are reasonable.
Licensing their tech doesn't necessary mean the TV vendor makes or even sells the AppleTV HW. It could just mean they make the TVs to a certain spec, get a special logo on the upper left corner [TV] and have a special connector in the back specially for the AppleTV to tie into so it's seamless. These TVs would cost more because Apple would be getting a fee from vendors and then Apple could get money from us from buying the AppleTV device. You could then get a smaller TV for your bedroom from a different TV manufacturer and then put the older AppleTV unit on the smaller TV and get the newer, better AppleTV unit for your TV in the HEC. Now Apple has gotten licensing fee from two TV vendors, got you to by two AppleTVs, made you more connected and profited on the sale of all 4 items.
Bottom line- I'm tired of changing inputs between devices. It's annoying. An integrated TV fixes that (and makes it easier to record, search channels, play music, etc.)
Me too, but I don't think it's so much of a pain that people are willing to spend a couple grand to replace all the TVs in their home with new TVs are only come in a few sizes and little to no other options. And Apple should be trying to find away to get users to buy a new AppleTV every time the HW is updated, something that surely won't happen with an Apple HDTV.
So it works just like a Amplifier/Receiver does now (Onkyo, Dennon, Pioneer, etc.) where it only has one "audio/display" out? Got it. Seems logical, but I don't know if Apple would do that. Not to mention, it still wouldn't help with the User interface. If my Uverse is plugged into that apple tv, how could the apple tv decode all that info and put it into their UI. Same with a blu-ray player? I would still be handcuffed by using Uverse's tv menu layout.
I think you might be onto something though- if the small box (or even a little bigger) ATV could partner with an IPTV (like a Uverse) and fit it all into that little streaming device, then it could handle the majority of the UI work- at least regular and cable programing, streaming, etc. The only time you would need to change inputs is for dvd/blu-ray, or xbox/ps3/wii,
Why AT&T first? Because of their previous relationship? How many regions does AT&T's U-Verse operate? How many US customers does that cover?
It can see a scenario for Apple to do that and then get customers to essentially force providers to offer Apple's boxes but I'd think deals with larger providers might be advantageous here.
the thing is AT&T is the only one with a working IPTV network in the US. But apple could still convince a major cable operator to convert to IPTV. Cable has no choice, they know they have to replace broadcast QAM for IPTV at some point to remain competitive. In Montreal, Bell FIBE is already hurting Cable co Videotron, which is losing customers at an alarming rate.
aT&T has a huge advantage, like Bell in canada, its a country wide company. At some point, it will deserve the entire country with its U-verse offering.
This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen.
Who says? This is Apple we're talking about. King of making deals that no one else can.
And you'll never have the same interface for your Blu-ray player as you will the rest of your Apple television solution.
OK- totally not what I was thinking you meant.
So it works just like a Amplifier/Receiver does now (Onkyo, Dennon, Pioneer, etc.) where it only has one "audio/display" out? Got it. Seems logical, but I don't know if Apple would do that.
Yes, an A/V receiver is a more apropos comparison. I don't know about you but I am not a fan of letting the TV handle all the sound or even using the TV's speakers. Some higher-end TVs have good speakers but it's just pointless to me. If I'm going to pay for sound I will have 3rd-party speakers that are separate from the TV.
Not to mention, it still wouldn't help with the User interface. If my Uverse is plugged into that apple tv, how could the apple tv decode all that info and put it into their UI. Same with a blu-ray player? I would still be handcuffed by using Uverse's tv menu layout.
Just like an A/V receiver sits between the TV monitor and all the connected devices it can overlay anything it wants whenever it wants because all the data is passing through it. The AppleTV UI will always be there when you want it, like your cable/sat box or Blu-ray/DVD UI is always there when you want it when there is content playing.
Maybe this makes it clearer:
Your way you search channels is not the same. Apple controls your tv guide through your cable content. Is that clearer ( sorry if I'm communicating it poorly)
Sopil- you're still missing my point. There can be an overlay, but it's still your cable guide that you're using to pick the channel or record the game. That can only be done if the set top box or integrated tv controls the content (via a la carte, teaming with a cable/iptv company, whatever).
If you pop the AppleTV in a TV you are still needing to connect a cable/sat box for content.
If your original point was that Apple will alter the way content is delivered then my original point about the AppleTV being popped inside of a TV is irrelevant and completely separate issue.
Are you talking about the way content is delivered or the way the HW is connected because they are completely separate issues.
Not really regarding an 'Apple TV' per se, but with ANY streaming solution the problem as always is the content.
I tried out Netflix when it launched in the UK last month - it is an amazing service that works brilliantly across your devices and I loved the idea of a fixed monthly fee where I could watch anything I want , TV show or movie, whenever.
The problem with Netflix is the complete lack of content! My first 4 searches of movies I wanted to watch were not available for streaming.
I cancelled. Brilliant idea - not anywhere near enough content.
I had the same results when they launched here and almost cancelled. I held off, and they started enough new material to make it worthwhile. We still don't have Shameless like the U.S. but hopefully that will come soon.
In February, they're starting Netflix produced content, LilyHammer.
If you pop the AppleTV in a TV you are still needing to connect a cable/sat box for content.
If your original point was that Apple will alter the way content is delivered then my original point about the AppleTV being popped inside of a TV is irrelevant and completely separate issue.
Are you talking about the way content is delivered or the way the HW is connected because they are completely separate issues.
Ok... please reread everything I said. lol. What herbapou and I were both saying is that an integrated TV would have the cable box/card/iptv/whatever built INTO it. So there would be no cable box to hookup. Apple would partner with the cable company in that- you would still pay (example) Uverse, but Apple would be the hardware provider and provide the menu, UI, etc. A TV, with Apple TV, Cable Box, Blu Ray Player, DVR, etc. but Apple is the hardware maker of all of them. Example- Motorola creates the cable box for X cable company. Motorola designs the UI of the set top box. If Apple is now the hardware manufacturer of the "cable box/card" (integrated inside the TV)- now Apple designs the UI for everything.
Ok... please reread everything I said. lol. What herbapou and I were both saying is that an integrated TV would have the cable box/card/iptv/whatever built INTO it. So there would be no cable box to hookup. Apple would partner with the cable company in that- you would still pay (example) Uverse, but Apple would be the hardware provider and provide the menu, UI, etc. A TV, with Apple TV, Cable Box, Blu Ray Player, DVR, etc. but Apple is the hardware maker of all of them. Example- Motorola creates the cable box for X cable company. Motorola designs the UI of the set top box. If Apple is now the hardware manufacturer of the "cable box/card" (integrated inside the TV)- now Apple designs the UI for everything.
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
...How do you get access to the streams from direct TV, comcast, dish, etc....To be ultimately cool, you need to get those boxes out of the loop. Most of these boxes can be controlled via wifi now, there are apps to control them. So it should be possible.
The HDMI spec allows one HDMI device controlling another. I don't remember whether that was a required feature
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
Apple starts in America. Remember the iPhone? AT&T only. How limiting was that? One provider, one country, then they rolled it out and other countries and providers were clammering for it.
And I disagree- you have to lump hardware and software together- it changes the situation entirely. If Uverse did team up with it, and the box/card/components/dvr were much larger than apple tv 2, then it might require a full fledged tv. Although they might be able to fit it all into a box- in which case would be the best scenario (unless apple wants to make more $ going the tv route). At any rate- they're smarter than us and we'll know soon enough- or not.
I enjoy the discussions.
I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.
You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.
IPTV is an international spec, in fact its a lot more popular in Europe than in the continental US. For having worked at BCE I can assure you IPTV put those QAM cable box to shame, they are not even in the same league. Mark those words, every single ISP is going to move to IPTV in the next 5 years. An Cable co. that doesnt is going straight to the graveyard. Most cable monopolies are going to get challenge by the "other" cable going into your home, the telephone cable, and AT&T IPTV offering is far more advanced than cable. IPTV is 10 years ahead of the QAM cable box.
If Apple wants to turn the TV market upside down, IPTV is the ticket. And they will have to make set-top box. Its not like its all speculation, its already happening right now in Toronto and Montreal, Cable co are losing customers in huge numbers to Bell FIBE TV.
Apple starts in America. Remember the iPhone? AT&T only. How limiting was that? One provider, one country, then they rolled it out and other countries and providers were clammering for it.
And I disagree- you have to lump hardware and software together- it changes the situation entirely. If Uverse did team up with it, and the box/card/components/dvr were much larger than apple tv 2, then it might require a full fledged tv. Although they might be able to fit it all into a box- in which case would be the best scenario (unless apple wants to make more $ going the tv route). At any rate- they're smarter than us and we'll know soon enough- or not.
I enjoy the discussions.
One provider over the entire country. Sure, there a few places AT&T didn't touch but with a cable service you are talking about ignoring most of the country. In fact, I just checked a bunch of random people I know in the US and not one of them has U-verse available in their area. This is a completely different game. Aren't they only in half the US states right now?
IPTV is an international spec, in fact its a lot more popular in Europe than in the continental US. For having worked at BCE I can assure you IPTV put those QAM cable box to shame, they are not even in the same league. Mark those words, every single ISP is going to move to IPTV in the next 5 years. An Cable co. that doesnt is going straight to the graveyard.
If Apple can get IPTV in the US then so be it but remember you are talking about a lot of regional providers that will have to support it just to allow Apple to steal their business. I see no reason why they would investment billions in their own destruction.
On top of that, being RF or IP based is irrelevant to the big picture. You attach a modem, you attach a router, and you connect everything to that. Either way Apple will be using an IP based system unless they've decided to force cable and sat companies to invest in Apple's set top boxes, which I don't think will happen.
If Apple can get IPTV in the US then so be it but remember you are talking about a lot of regional providers that will have to support it just to allow Apple to steal their business. I see no reason why they would investment billions in their own destruction.
On top of that, being RF or IP based is irrelevant to the big picture. You attach a modem, you attach a router, and you connect everything to that. Either way Apple will be using an IP based system unless they've decided to force cable and sat companies to invest in Apple's set top boxes, which I don't think will happen.
If Apple build in IPTV that doesnt mean you would not be able to use the TV with regular cable, you just plug the cable box in the HDMI input. But if you subscribe to an Apple ISP partner, that would mean no external box and being able to use the ecosystem to its full potential.
Apple would not be stealing cable business, its the opposite, they will enhance it with an ecosystem, cable would have less set top box to manage and video on demand profits would be share. Live TV would still be fully control by the ISP. The way I see it its a win-win situation.
Like I said, if Apple moves against the ISP with an internet offering, ISP are going to reduce the bit rates of any Apple feeds to make them unwatchable in order to protect there network from collapsing, and, because they will love to. Volume and reliability is key here, all the internet offerings currently works because volume is still low, if everyone moves to internet for video feeds, the networks are going to collapse.
People with satellite TV go nuts when they lose signal because of a storm. This only happens a few times per year. Imagine if you subscribe to a net service and it almost never works in the evening...
Recap:
1. Apple offerings video stream in large volume at peak hours: expect an unreliable service at best.
2. Apple trying to negociate live TV with studios in many countries: welcome to hell. Not to mention many ISP have vertical integration, that mean they also OWN many speciality channels.
3. Apple already has VOD in many countries. No need to negociate anything other than making a deal with ISP's.
4. If Apple only produce a smart TV like all the other android Tv's out there, they are not re-inventing TV at all. They will just be like all the others, and they will even be late in the game.
5. Integrating the ISP feed into Apple TV means a consistent UI across all services.
If Apple build in IPTV that doesnt mean you would not be able to use the TV with regular cable, you just plug the cable box in the HDMI input. But if you subscribe to an Apple ISP partner, that would mean no external box and being able to use the ecosystem to its full potential.
Apple would not be stealing cable business, its the opposite, they will enhance it with an ecosystem, cable would have less set top box to manage and video on demand profits would be share. Live TV would still be fully control by the ISP. The way I see it its a win-win situation.
Like I said, if Apple moves against the ISP with an internet offering, ISP are going to reduce the bit rates of any Apple feeds to make them unwatchable in order to protect there network from collapsing, and, because they will love to. Volume and reliability is key here, all the internet offerings currently works because volume is still low, if everyone moves to internet for video feeds, the networks are going to collapse.
People with satellite TV go nuts when they lose signal because of a storm. This only happens a few times per year. Imagine if you subscribe to a net service and it almost never works in the evening...
Recap:
1. Apple offerings video stream in large volume at peak hours: expect an unreliable service at best.
2. Apple trying to negociate live TV with studios in many countries: welcome to hell. Not to mention many ISP have vertical integration, that mean they also OWN many speciality channels.
3. Apple already has VOD in many countries. No need to negociate anything other than making a deal with ISP's.
4. If Apple only produce a smart TV like all the other android Tv's out there, they are not re-inventing TV at all. They will just be like all the others, and they will even be late in the game.
5. Integrating the ISP feed into Apple TV means a consistent UI across all services.
1) Everything you've stated can be done with a separate box and doesn't require the AppleTV to be built INTO the TV.
2) Google already tried this and got shot down for "advancing" the ecosystem behind the backs of the providers.
3) You're still not separating the content from the HW. These are separate issues.
4) You haven't addressed how AT&T's U-verse which only covers about 7% of the US population and is only used by 1% of the US population makes this a good fit for Apple.
5) You haven't addressed why I would pay $2-4K for new TVs when the current ones work fine.
6) You haven't addressed how I would update the AppleTV HW outside of the TV panel which only needs to be replaced once every 6-10 years.
7) You haven't addressed how Apple's rumoured 3 sizes of TV that are all way too big for my bedrooms and den are going to get those TV connected.
8) You haven't addressed how all these "ISP feeds" are automatically and instantly going be using the same system or be compatible with Apple's HW despite no leaks from cable providers about working them to reinvent the cable box. Wikipedia lists 29 major providers. How many years did it take before Apple got 29 MNOs for the iPhone around the world, and that was using the same tech and frequencies.
The bottom line is that the only solution will be one that can be shared by the whole of the US and be scalable to the rest of the world as it becomes more connected with fast internet. There are two very distinct hurdles for Apple to overcome: having affordable content through their interface that will keep users on their interface, and making the HW easier to utilise for the average user so they will inclined to use it more often.
1) Everything you've stated can be done with a separate box and doesn't require the AppleTV to be built INTO the TV.
2) Google already tried this and got shot down for "advancing" the ecosystem behind the backs of the providers.
3) You're still not separating the content from the HW. These are separate issues.
4) You haven't addressed how AT&T's U-verse which only covers about 7% of the US population and is only used by 1% of the US population makes this a good fit for Apple.
5) You haven't addressed why I would pay $2-4K for new TVs when the current ones work fine.
6) You haven't addressed how I would update the AppleTV HW outside of the TV panel which only needs to be replaced once every 6-10 years.
7) You haven't addressed how Apple's rumoured 3 sizes of TV that are all way too big for my bedrooms and den are going to get those TV connected.
8) You haven't addressed how all these "ISP feeds" are automatically and instantly going be using the same system or be compatible with Apple's HW despite no leaks from cable providers about working them to reinvent the cable box. Wikipedia lists 29 major providers. How many years did it take before Apple got 29 MNOs for the iPhone around the world, and that was using the same tech and frequencies.
The bottom line is that the only solution will be one that can be shared by the whole of the US and be scalable to the rest of the world as it becomes more connected with fast internet. There are two very distinct hurdles for Apple to overcome: having affordable content through their interface that will keep users on their interface, and making the HW easier to utilise for the average user so they will inclined to use it more often.
I have adressed those issues , but I see you are completly close down and just wont get it.
I have adressed those issues , but I see you are completly close down and just wont get it.
Here's an issue: I don't want to buy a TV for absolutely no reason when a box does exactly the same thing.
Here's an issue: I don't want to buy a TV for absolutely no reason when a box does exactly the same thing.
Apple is not going to stop making a box...
and some old contacts I have are talking about a possible TV plan. Pretty much like with the cell phone business. btw I never told you this. Makes sense, a 64g iPhone is the same price has a 52" TV and yet lots of people change them every 2-3 years.
So are you going to buy your Apple TV lock or unlock? :-)
Here is another leak : there may also be a QAM Apple TV's for cable. An Apple Tv's with both QAM and IPTV build in is only going to be available unlock.
Apple is not going to stop making a box?
Oh, you know this? For certain?
Because everything I've read about people's opinions say they'll kill the Apple TV in favor of an Apple HDTV. There's no point having both when the TV does nothing the box wouldn't.
and some old contacts I have are talking about a possible TV plan.
And how is that 'revolutionizing' TV? That sounds exactly like every TV service ever. Apple's gig would be to make deals with individual SHOWS on each channel, giving us ONLY what we want.
btw I never told you this.
Don't worry. Even if you actually had any real inside information, I wouldn't remember it.
So are you going to buy your Apple TV lock or unlock?
I want an A6 box that can play back iTunes content without having a computer on and iTunes open. There's no point in having apps. There's no point in having the Internet. I want to play the content I already have; that's all I need.