Apple's Entertainment Strategy
When thinking about the whole digital media scene, Apple right now has 2 of 3 parts. They have a great digital media suite with iLife in the computer, the iPod takes care of portable entertainment, and Apple is extermly sucessful in both, but now I think they need to work on 1 main sector, home entertainment, the connecting point. In addition, I think they could add products such as Apple Digital cameras. They would have the chance her to revolutionize the digital camera industry with both compact and SLR designs and take away much of the digital camera klutter. The popularity of the iPod could help propell sales of digital cameras, espessialy if there was some type of interconnectability between the iPod and the digital camera.
Getting back to Apple in the living room and house, Front Row, and maybe the mini, we have yet to see, is the first step, but it seems like hardware in this sector is lacking. Apple could for instance create a media box for the living room that played DVD's, had an iPod dock built in, DVR either inside the box in an internal hard drive or via a wireless connection to be stored on a Mac in the network (to maybe put on an iPod or view on a computer), Front Row running that box, access to photos, music, movies, etc, on computers on a Network, etc. It would be the perfect fit briging together computer portable entertainment. The centromere for chromosomes if you will...
If Apple up's the size on their cinema display models, they could be used for TV's as well as monitors. Even the current models would work. I suspect prices would have to go much down for this to be more plausible.
I just wanted to know what people thought of these ideas...agree/disagree, tweak, comments, etc.
Getting back to Apple in the living room and house, Front Row, and maybe the mini, we have yet to see, is the first step, but it seems like hardware in this sector is lacking. Apple could for instance create a media box for the living room that played DVD's, had an iPod dock built in, DVR either inside the box in an internal hard drive or via a wireless connection to be stored on a Mac in the network (to maybe put on an iPod or view on a computer), Front Row running that box, access to photos, music, movies, etc, on computers on a Network, etc. It would be the perfect fit briging together computer portable entertainment. The centromere for chromosomes if you will...
If Apple up's the size on their cinema display models, they could be used for TV's as well as monitors. Even the current models would work. I suspect prices would have to go much down for this to be more plausible.
I just wanted to know what people thought of these ideas...agree/disagree, tweak, comments, etc.
Comments
In due time, everyone will have a Mac Mini and game developers will make Mac games and nobody will need Windows and all will be well in Mac Land.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Mac Mini + Intel Virtualization + Front Row = Pippin Extreme!!!!!!!
In due time, everyone will have a Mac Mini and game developers will make Mac games and nobody will need Windows and all will be well in Mac Land.
Maybe. I am not sure that the mac mini is the solution. Again, it is foremost a computer. An independant media box/center I would think could be both cheaper but also more effective.
Component parts for a box could be:
Internal HD for DVR
DVD player
Built In TV Tuner / Cable In Port
iPod Dock Built In
Internal Speakers (???)
Remote / IR sensor
Airpot Basestation / Streaming capabilities
Standard Digital and S-video out ports
USB/Firewire (?)
Monitor Pin Port
Processor of some sort (would not have to be as fast as mac mini probably)
and it would probably sustain its own OS, like a modified/delux Front Row, not Mac OS X.
For a mac mini, this would be a lot of clutter.
Originally posted by icfireball
Maybe. I am not sure that the mac mini is the solution. Again, it is foremost a computer. An independant media box/center I would think could be both cheaper but also more effective.
Not to mention allowing for greater and more targeted optimization.
Parts to eleminate (not needed/redundant and extra cost) would be:
- DVD player (not needed, most people have a DVD player)
What would be needed:iPod Dock Built In (links to iTunes on the networked computers would allow access to the entire iTunes library)
Internal Speakers (???)
USB/FireWire (networked via ethernet/AirPort)
Monitor Pin Port (why? you just need AV out for analog and digital standards used in consumer TV's)
- AirPort card
What would be nice:Ethernet Port
Mac/PC compatible via iTunes/Quicktime/Front Row
- OTA/Cable tuner, this could be an add in card so that the base unit could would be the same with 1 or more ports for tuner cards as needed by the consumer
I think the most important thing, as the iPod tought us, is being PC compatible to sell to everyone who has a computer and a TV. This would expand the market and increase the "halo" effect of switchers that the iPod started.HD for streaming cache/recording cache (content to be stored and cataloged on the networked computers so a smaller HD is all that is needed)
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Mac Mini + Intel Virtualization + Front Row = Pippin Extreme!!!!!!!
In due time, everyone will have a Mac Mini and game developers will make Mac games and nobody will need Windows and all will be well in Mac Land.
I totally agree about Pippin Extreme.
But games? The chip has little to do with it. It's all about the Mac not having the same high level graphics API, direct X. It will still be just as hard to make cross platform games.
Originally posted by icfireball
Maybe. I am not sure that the mac mini is the solution. Again, it is foremost a computer. An independant media box/center I would think could be both cheaper but also more effective.
Component parts for a box could be:
Internal HD for DVR
DVD player
Built In TV Tuner / Cable In Port
iPod Dock Built In
Internal Speakers (???)
Remote / IR sensor
Airpot Basestation / Streaming capabilities
Standard Digital and S-video out ports
USB/Firewire (?)
Monitor Pin Port
Processor of some sort (would not have to be as fast as mac mini probably)
and it would probably sustain its own OS, like a modified/delux Front Row, not Mac OS X.
For a mac mini, this would be a lot of clutter.
Let's see here? Mac Mini...
Internal HD for DVR? Yep.
DVD player? Yep.
Built In TV Tuner / Cable In Port? Nope.
iPod Dock Built In? If rumors are to be believed, yes.
Internal Speakers (???)? Why? Mac Mini probably has one.
Remote / IR sensor? Easy to add.
Airpot Basestation / Streaming capabilities? Not base station...but streaming, sure.
Standard Digital and S-video out ports? Not yet.
USB/Firewire (?) Yep.
Monitor Pin Port? Yep.
Processor of some sort (would not have to be as fast as mac mini probably)? Yep.
Sounds like Mac Mini has almost everything.
Put an IR receiver in and TV out and away you go.
Originally posted by dfiler
I totally agree about Pippin Extreme.
But games? The chip has little to do with it. It's all about the Mac not having the same high level graphics API, direct X. It will still be just as hard to make cross platform games.
You mean low level graphics API. And that's only a fraction of the problem. Most DirectX calls have a 1:1 OpenGL equivalent. It generally is the architecture (along with a few key Mac OpenGL deficiencies, that are likely also architecturely related) that slows down games on Macs and makes it hard to port them.
Mac gaming is going to be on the rise after the switch?they'll be faster, much easier to port, and because of dual-boot possibilities, a lot more gamers will have Macs in the first place.
It should work with whatever TV the user has, so it needs both S-video, analog and DVI (HDCP?) connectors.
I'd like it to have analog audio in and out too, and be able to record audio into MP3 (in my iTunes library) and/or burn audio CDs.
The Mini is a little small and plain-looking; it'd be nice if it was a little more 'stereo-looking' with a simple display on the front. But Chris is right, the Mini is 90% ready for this job.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
You mean low level graphics API. And that's only a fraction of the problem. Most DirectX calls have a 1:1 OpenGL equivalent. It generally is the architecture (along with a few key Mac OpenGL deficiencies, that are likely also architecturely related) that slows down games on Macs and makes it hard to port them.
Mac gaming is going to be on the rise after the switch?they'll be faster, much easier to port, and because of dual-boot possibilities, a lot more gamers will have Macs in the first place.
Actually, I do mean high-level API. OpenGL and DirectX are high level. Or at least they were considered so prior to the advent of CI and CV.
I'm not buying this assertion that games will perform better and be significantly easier to port. Having the compiler using the same CPU instruction set does very little to simplify porting. Sure, there won't be a need for an altivec guru on staff... but that is about it.
I could see apple's openGL implementation improving significantly after a couple of years. But there will still be huge differences with the windows implementation. Even with an allegedly identical API calls, there are numerous disparities in real-world functionality. Certain things are buggy and slow on one system vs. quick and robust on the other. Even better, some things are buggy but quick on one system and slow but reliable on the other.
So I guess I'll back off a little and agree that gaming should improve somewhat. But I i'm not holding my breath. Gaming on the Mac will continue to be lackluster when compared to the PC or consoles. A new CPU architecture won't change that.
Originally posted by dfiler
Actually, I do mean high-level API. OpenGL and DirectX are high level. Or at least they were considered so prior to the advent of CI and CV.
That's great and all, but OpenGL and Direct X were never considered high level. The only way you could get any lower, in fact, is if you had secret deals with ATI and Nvidia.
I'm not buying this assertion that games will perform better and be significantly easier to port. Having the compiler using the same CPU instruction set does very little to simplify porting. Sure, there won't be a need for an altivec guru on staff... but that is about it.
I could see apple's openGL implementation improving significantly after a couple of years. But there will still be huge differences with the windows implementation. Even with an allegedly identical API calls, there are numerous disparities in real-world functionality. Certain things are buggy and slow on one system vs. quick and robust on the other. Even better, some things are buggy but quick on one system and slow but reliable on the other.
So I guess I'll back off a little and agree that gaming should improve somewhat. But I i'm not holding my breath. Gaming on the Mac will continue to be lackluster when compared to the PC or consoles. A new CPU architecture won't change that.
There's really two major performance problems with games right now. One, is they're optimized for x86. That's automatically solved, of course.
Second, is that Apple's OpenGL implementation is behind the implementation the vendors have available on Windows. However, because of the switch, most the original source code for the OpenGL libraries themselves won't have to be rewritten or optimized like they currently are. This means that Apple's implentations work faster with less effort and can keep pace much better with things on the PC side.
Originally posted by JCG
Not to mention allowing for greater and more targeted optimization.
Parts to eleminate (not needed/redundant and extra cost) would be:DVD player (not needed, most people have a DVD player)
iPod Dock Built In (links to iTunes on the networked computers would allow access to the entire iTunes library)
Internal Speakers (???)
USB/FireWire (networked via ethernet/AirPort)
Monitor Pin Port (why? you just need AV out for analog and digital standards used in consumer TV's)
What would be needed:AirPort card
Ethernet Port
Mac/PC compatible via iTunes/Quicktime/Front Row
What would be nice:OTA/Cable tuner, this could be an add in card so that the base unit could would be the same with 1 or more ports for tuner cards as needed by the consumer
HD for streaming cache/recording cache (content to be stored and cataloged on the networked computers so a smaller HD is all that is needed)
I think the most important thing, as the iPod tought us, is being PC compatible to sell to everyone who has a computer and a TV. This would expand the market and increase the "halo" effect of switchers that the iPod started.
There are many logical reasons why Apple would include different coponents you thought were not nessessary. A DVD player COULD be an option in some models are not others, but since you wouldn't need DVD burning capabilities, it would not be that expensive, and very useful for many.
As for the iPod dock, it would be a way to charge an iPod in addition to play music, like the iHome. And you could theoreticly sync/update it over a network. But this box should be able to work without an internet connection / network, thus the iPod slot.
The USB ports would be very useful for hooking up periperals such as a digital camera. You could import to a built in HD or over a network, or just view. Firewire would be much less nessesary but an option, say for digital video cameras. You would also want USB/Firewire for DVR/Hard Drive output other than over a network.
I also just thought...why not add a camera built in (maybe in the Cinema Display!) or using iSight via USB and be able to do video conferencing from your sofa, or just play with something like Photo Booth
Monitor pins would be for Cinema Displays for instance. I doubt Apple wants to a shit load of ports on their cinema display. Although they could do a combo in to multiple out...i guess...
The internal speakers would be for if you wanted to use the box with an iPod but didn't want to turn on the TV or didn't have it connected to external speakers.
And you nailed it right on the head about it also supporting windows. This also could bring in iLife for windows... a great expanse in Windows revenue, also allowing a greater tie in with a Media Box from a PC prespective. I know that is a advantage for Mac, but think of it this way, Mac's would come with it free. But then again, not having iLife for Windows might propell people to switch to get it with their mac.
Getting back to the main point about having windows compatibility. I think more than windows compatibility there needs to be stand alone compatability and function in addition to computers, one reason why some compents listed would be needed.
Originally posted by icfireball
In addition, I think they could add products such as Apple Digital cameras. They would have the chance her to revolutionize the digital camera industry with both compact and SLR designs and take away much of the digital camera klutter. The popularity of the iPod could help propell sales of digital cameras, espessialy if there was some type of interconnectability between the iPod and the digital camera.
If Apple up's the size on their cinema display models, they could be used for TV's as well as monitors. Even the current models would work. I suspect prices would have to go much down for this to be more plausible.
I just wanted to know what people thought of these ideas...agree/disagree, tweak, comments, etc.
I think some of your ideas are too unrealistic.
People would never go for an apple digital camera for many reasons:
1. apple would have to buy the parts from companies that already make cameras, why would they ever want to sell to apple? Canon glass glass in an apple digital camera....yeah right.
2. people aren't gonna trust technology that's been around for so many years to a company that people KNOW have nothing to do with it. The only reason the ipod worked is because mp3 players are fairly new technology in comparison to other stuff and no particular company had held the market for it yet, but your suggesting apple butt heads with NIKON, CANON, FUJI, SONY etc? That's suicide.
3. digital cameras aren't cluttered at all, almost everyone has a digital camera these days and has no problems with it I don't know what else you think apple could add to the point and shoot "experience" lol.
4. digital slrs wouldn't be purchased by anyone serious. Tell a professional to give up their huge selections of Nikon lens that have worked for any cameras that have been made in the past 25 years. Or tell a Canon shooter to forget all the endless lens combinations from Canon in favour for an apple dslr that probably doesn't even have a removable lens.
5. digital cameras aren't ugly and some spiffy looking apple digital camera probably wouldnt be all that different in looks anyways.
And besides the ipod alreadly has conectivity with digital cameras what more could both components being apple brand possibly do to enthance the experience?
Apple can't compete with the likes of sony, panasonic, pioneer etc when it comes to tvs, there's no way they could ever get a big enough to make a difference. Look at dells tvs, that can't compete with the stock bestbuy and circut city, etc move.
Both those ventures aren't worth the effort when even apples primary business computers aren't a leading one.
Food for thought.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Apple (among others) is reportedly in talks with Scientific Atlanta about buying the company.
Food for thought.
Where did you hear that...this is interesting stuff.
Originally posted by ecking
I think some of your ideas are too unrealistic.
People would never go for an apple digital camera for many reasons:
1. apple would have to buy the parts from companies that already make cameras, why would they ever want to sell to apple? Canon glass glass in an apple digital camera....yeah right.
2. people aren't gonna trust technology that's been around for so many years to a company that people KNOW have nothing to do with it. The only reason the ipod worked is because mp3 players are fairly new technology in comparison to other stuff and no particular company had held the market for it yet, but your suggesting apple butt heads with NIKON, CANON, FUJI, SONY etc? That's suicide.
3. digital cameras aren't cluttered at all, almost everyone has a digital camera these days and has no problems with it I don't know what else you think apple could add to the point and shoot "experience" lol.
4. digital slrs wouldn't be purchased by anyone serious. Tell a professional to give up their huge selections of Nikon lens that have worked for any cameras that have been made in the past 25 years. Or tell a Canon shooter to forget all the endless lens combinations from Canon in favour for an apple dslr that probably doesn't even have a removable lens.
5. digital cameras aren't ugly and some spiffy looking apple digital camera probably wouldnt be all that different in looks anyways.
And besides the ipod alreadly has conectivity with digital cameras what more could both components being apple brand possibly do to enthance the experience?
Apple can't compete with the likes of sony, panasonic, pioneer etc when it comes to tvs, there's no way they could ever get a big enough to make a difference. Look at dells tvs, that can't compete with the stock bestbuy and circut city, etc move.
Both those ventures aren't worth the effort when even apples primary business computers aren't a leading one.
I understand that Apple wold not be able to compete nessesarily very well in the large TV sector, but i garentee some people would buy a 40" Cinema for their wall for instance, and that dosn't require a sacrifice of any kind by Apple...they alreay make it.
I suppoes you are right with the digital cameras. I mean, I would buy a Canon over a Apple, and I do a lot of photography. But Apple's pro products are not very restrictive whereas their consumer products are (very). An Apple SLR would HAVE to be compatible with Nikor and Canon lenses and filters. If it wasn't nobody would buy it. That exactly why no one buys Sony SLR's. A Sony compact? Fine. But not an SLR. For compacts in Apple I wasn't thinking as much in tech specs as I was in extra "eye candy" features, and excelent integration with the computer. When you make the oppperating system AND something that goes with it you have a lot of flexability. That was just a side note though. My main point was the media box. Those would sell
The apple cinema display wouldn't be all that different yeah that's true but they'd need to invest in the tv tuners for it but yeah I guess that wouldn't be so bad as long as they kept the product line small.
To do that your right they should add a 40" or 42" screen. IMO they should add tv tuners to all the cinema displays making them have.
20", 23", 30", 42", and possibly a 50".
Media Box sell well?
Hell Yeah! I'd buy two.
Originally posted by icfireball
There are many logical reasons why Apple would include different components you thought were not necessary. A DVD player COULD be an option in some models are not others, but since you wouldn't need DVD burning capabilities, it would not be that expensive, and very useful for many.
The beauty of the iPod is that it isn't anything that it doesn't need to be, and what it is beyond a music player is just adding to capability that is already there as the evolution of the product. There is not content creation on the unit and it is NOT a stand alone unit. It is a music player first and formost, with an intuitive navigation system for finding the music that you want to listen to. When Apple moves into the home video market then they have to keep this in mind.
Apple has built in Ethernet and Airport Extream in every computer except the bottom end Mac Mini, so these is a natural connection method that is also predominatly used in the PC market. As such there is no need for a USB or a DVD since these are on the computer and the main reason for such a unit is to get content off the computer and onto the TV/Sterio. Also most households already have a DVD player so there is no need to add the cost to the unit.
Monitor pins would be for Cinema Displays for instance. I doubt Apple wants to a shit load of ports on their cinema display. Although they could do a combo in to multiple out...i guess...
Do you really think people are going to buy an Apple monitor instead of a TV at half the cost for the same size unit? If someone buys an Apple monitor they will hook a PM or Mac Mini to it, not a set-top-box.
Look at Elgat's eyehome for an idea of what I think is needed. At $199 base price it is a little too expensive, $149 for a starting price should be the target (say with a 20 GB HD for streaming cache and OS) with the plans to get that down to $99. The think that you have to remember is that you want every household to buy not one, but one for every TV in the house. Keep the specs down to the bare minimum to achieve a price that would attract multiple purchases in each household, and so that it is not competeing with the Xbox or Playstation as a media station.
The one thing I'm not sure of is the best place for a tuner, on the computer or the media station? You want the content on the computer, and to link schedueling with iCal. However you don't want to add the cost to the computer (Mac Mini), nore tax the processing power of a computer that is in use during the recording. Therefore I think that the media station would be the place for the actual recording which is streamed back to the Mac for storage and cataloging. This free's the processor but keeps the hard drive space needed on the unit to a minimum.
The other thing that Apple may try to do is ignore the tuner and build contracts for distribution through iTMS, which I'm sure the networks and studio's would prefer.
Originally posted by ecking
I don't know if Canon or Nikon would license their lens mounts to apple.
The apple cinema display wouldn't be all that different yeah that's true but they'd need to invest in the tv tuners for it but yeah I guess that wouldn't be so bad as long as they kept the product line small.
To do that your right they should add a 40" or 42" screen. IMO they should add tv tuners to all the cinema displays making them have.
20", 23", 30", 42", and possibly a 50".
Media Box sell well?
Hell Yeah! I'd buy two.
Espessialy with teh Nikon f series has there been standard lense mounts on many SLRs that use the same bayonette. Apple just has to use this standard bayonette, and they would be fine. It has nothing to do with licensing.
Also, I was thinking, if you had the Apple Media Box with a TV tuner, and since the Cinema Display has USB/Firewire ports, just connect via USB to the Apple Media Box.