You can have that now. Just remove all other appliances from your HDTV except the AppleTV. You limit the content you can view but everything you've stated so far already does that, you've just put one box in another to save you a power cord and HDMI cable.
So then you think Apple will not have inputs on their TV (because that's messy and un-Apple-like) which means they'll have to subvert the content providers that also are internet providers in US homes, there largest single and first market? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me, even when not considering how difficult TV and movies have been for the iTS in the US and around the world.
You can have that now. Just remove all other appliances from your HDTV except the AppleTV. You limit the content you can view but everything you've stated so far already does that, you've just put one box in another to save you a power cord and HDMI cable.
You're missing the point. It will be, at a minimum, independent and irrespective of content deals and such, a TV that does everything that other TVs do (perhaps more, e.g., Siri, apps). On top of that, it will seamlessly integrate with all sorts of stuff around your home, not the least all forms of media you have. And, it has the design, the cache, the looks of an Apple product. It will cater to a very different segment of the market.
In other words, it will be a desirable product (even if premium priced) for the very same reasons that Apple computers are desirable compared to PCs. It has little or nothing to do with 'content providers' or 'internet providers.'
You're missing the point. It will be, at a minimum, independent and irrespective of content deals and such, a TV that does everything that other TVs do (perhaps more, e.g., Siri, apps). On top of that, it will seamlessly integrate with all sorts of stuff around your home, not the least all forms of media you have. And, it has the design, the cache, the looks of an Apple product. It will cater to a very different segment of the market.
In other words, it will be a desirable product (even if premium priced) for the very same reasons that Apple computers are desirable compared to PCs. It has little or nothing to do with 'content providers' or 'internet providers.'
If you don't concern yourself with how this mythical appliance will get content and Internet, or circumvent current content and internet providers then you're not thinking it through.
Sure, it's cool to think of Apple making a TV and everything is perfectly magical blah blah blah, but the reality (as pointed out many times) is a lot more complex an you guys are making it out to be. Putting the AppleTV in the TV is not a stroke of genius. That's obvious! The genius is figure out how they can get around the current distribution issues, of which, no one has made any mention of anything other than some silly notion of removing wires and remotes as if that is the solution. It sounds downright childish to me, especially with the level of thorough thinkers this forum has.
Remember the 2006 iTV introduction. An odd 6 month notice for a product that had no name or shopping date. My hypothesis is they did this to help the content owners understand their plan. It didn't work and the AppleTV's usefulness suffered. Even now most countries have little o no iTS support for TV shows and movies. So what has changed? Why has been done to make this tiny box into a huge box that will also offer huge profits?
PS: Everything you mention (Siri, apps) could be down with the AppleTV while allowing you to use any TV brand of any size and in any room of your choice. When you only offer 3 huge sets you don't get that option and lose customers. You also lose the ability to get people to upgrade their sets more often. As good as Apple is in marketing I doubt they could get customers to drop $1k-2k every year just to get faster AppleTV HW.
PPS: What's wrong with making the TV a dumb monitor without the remote ever being used after putting it on HDMI 1 for the AppleTV?
@TV 1 was, by any stretch of imagination, a kickass product. It was head and shoulders above anything else out there. I still use mine all the time, on a second TV in our household.
The ATV1 is crap, it is slow, it loses sync to iTunes constantly, it packs a wobbly with the video format (including videos from Apple) constantly, it is slow, Apple has stopped updating it, it is slow. It is like they want you to purchase the ATV2, but based on the poor performance of the ATV1, I'm not willing to waste my money on the ATV2. And did I mention it is slow?
The ATV1 is crap, it is slow, it loses sync to iTunes constantly, it packs a wobbly with the video format (including videos from Apple) constantly, it is slow, Apple has stopped updating it, it is slow. It is like they want you to purchase the ATV2, but based on the poor performance of the ATV1, I'm not willing to waste my money on the ATV2. And did I mention it is slow?
You probably need to check your network connection. I've had none of these issues.
Moreover, even if all that you said is true, I am sad to hear that $99 is going to break your bank for the two weeks that you'll have to try it and then return it (assuming you won't like it). I guess I did not realize the recession was really that bad. Sorry!
If you don't concern yourself with how this mythical appliance will get content and Internet, or circumvent current content and internet .....
I don't think you really read - or, if your read it, understood - my post.
Perhaps I did not express it very well, so let me try again, by framing differently and more simply: Which model of TV is currently sold bundled with content and internet providers?
Netflix? Netflix? Figures. It's for Fandroids, Reed Hastings fans, and short sellers. It's the worst thing out there in terms of choices, flexibility, streaming quality (I've suspended my account for over six months now, and haven't missed it an iota).
LOL.
So what did you get with that ATV1 besides the iTunes jail- YouTube ? And sooooslooooow.
I don't think you really read - or, if your read it, understood - my post.
Perhaps I did not express it very well, so let me try again, by framing differently and more simply: Which model of TV is currently sold bundled with content and internet providers?
1) Doing the same thing as all the other vendors isn't my definition of "cracking" it. Adding the AppleTV UI to a TV is obvious and simple, not a revelation.
2) Ireland said, "By Apple making an actual TV you end up with no inputs, one remote, one TV, cool hardware design and superb software design." So if you agree with Ireland's stated vision then you can't have any inputs for cable, sat., game consoles, Blu-ray/DVD players, TiVo/DVRs. You get nothing but this Apple HDTV and what it connects to and he nor anyone else has stated they have an idea of how Apple could work with content owners and/or content/internet providers to make this dream a possibility. This is why this idea of putting one box in another and calling it a day is such a juvenile and myopic viewpoint of how technology works and evolves. If you add inputs for these other devices you end up with the same complexity you have now.
3) For this to work it has to get content without upsetting the status quo that gets the content owners a very large and consistent payouts from the content providers that count on you, the subscriber, to pay for these blocks of channels, which also help keep your internet costs down. Where is the hypothesis that states how Apple could get around all that?
4) Gruber mentioned recently that Apple could leverage apps as channels on the future AppleTV. I guess I could see this but you'd need a great deal of networks on board to make this happen. You'd also need Apple to get bulk deals to allow consumers to have a good selection of channels at a relatively low price. I don't want to pay $5/month for ABC, another $5/month each for CBS, NBC, then $7/month each for TNT, AMC, Comedy Central, SyFy, and $10/month for HBO, and ShowTime. That type of Ã* la carte purchasing would be very costly very quickly without offering any real benefit over the current system of just making your TV a dumb monitor and keeping the input on your cable/sat box.
I hear ya, and that's an interesting concept. But how does it work? I assume you mean it'll have WiFi, BT4.0, Ethernet, IR, FaceTIme, and a USB port (for maintainance). You pretty much want the AppleTV 'in' an HDTV.
Fine! But how do you get your cable channels? How do you get your satellite connection? How do you get you TiVo access? Your DVD/Blu-ray movies? (Blu-ray is still, and will be for a very long time, the best way to watch a movie with great graphics. Don't think for a moment that Steve Jobs didn't have a Blu-ray player for watching Pixar movies in his home theater.)
How do you get around all that and still get your content? What happens if this takes off and the content providers say they can no longer pay giant lumps sums to the content owners because they've lost an excessive number of subscribers in a short time? What happens when the content owners say they have a better deal with Apple (though I can't imagine what that would be) that they tell the content providers to suck it? What happens then to the cost of the internet coming into your home if you are now using the same pipes as before but with less pay to the those that were providing the content? This one I can answer: They raise the damn price and lower the caps, perhaps to a point that it's now more expensive to get even less content than before.
What about the computer HW in this Apple HDTV? Are we to assume this 2012 TV will run on an A6? Will they have a 2013 model that runs on A7 and gives it a lot more options for using apps? Do you replace the TV every year at a cost of $1k-2k? That seems ludicrous to me considering the different life cycles of the TV and the smartTV component inside. It's like an automobile manufacturer making it impossible to change out tires when they wear out, so you have to replace the entire car every 50k miles.
Your idea can be paired with ANY TV on the market. You put the TV on the first HDMI port to access the AppleTV UI and then toss the TV's remote. That's it. Everything else is down through the AppleTV. You get this with cheap HW that is easily and cheaply upgraded while your expensive TV that is LCD, Plasma, or even a 10" OLED you have in your bathroom functions as normal.
Even better — and the idea I've had for years — is making the AppleTV the hub of your HEC. An A/V Receiver that is an AppleTV. Cost about $300-500 with built in amp, has inputs for all your speakers, all other appliances, and the TV connects directly to it in the back. You never change the TV's input, only the Receiver which is the AppleTV UI onscreen which can overlay gobs of information about shows, channels, news, Facebook, Twitter, who's calling, etc. regardless of what simple cable, sat, DVD Blu-ray, game console input you choose from the AppleTV remote. This puts the AppleTV between the TV (aka dumb monitor) and the rest of the HEC appliances that aren't going to disappear overnight.
Apple sells an expensive product they can make a profit on, it can work with current systems while making it infinitely better and more usable, and all without killing the current system. The beauty of taking the AppleTV from being next to those other devices to being between them is now Apple is in a position to keep making the AppleTV UI more useful that you stop hitting the cable button (telling Siri to put on cable) and continuously start using the AppleTV as the only device. A trojan horse approach, not a new utopia built upon one willing to fight back.
If we compare Apple TV with Google TV then latest version clears doubts and product created by Google is a bit better and if they will be fast enough and push this system to more TV and TV boxes by the time Apple starts to fight for their market share I think that they could be the biggest gainers.
The main advantage about Google TV is and will always be native support for YouTube and as we all know YouTube is owned by Google and this really makes Apple to hold only 2nd place in this game even if they will have Siri or iOS simplicity or good integration with Mac products.
Only time will show how this will evolve but Google is in better situation right now
He gets it. He just thinks its stupid and I agree. An Apple branded TV with no other inputs is just dumb and would be a market failure.
Actually one way do it doesn't necessarily involve selling an Apple branded TV...and airplay is the answer. Having AirPlay licensed to major TV makers solves a lot of issues easily. Apple can require licensees adhere to strict UI guidelines for pairing and use...like including a airplay dedicated button on remotes so you can enter airplay mode by pressing one button. And controls so that it only pairs with Apple branded products...
Vizio, Samsung and LG would go for it. Pretty much anyone but Sony probably.
He gets it. He just thinks its stupid and I agree. An Apple branded TV with no other inputs is just dumb and would be a market failure.
Actually one way do it doesn't necessarily involve selling an Apple branded TV...and airplay is the answer. Having AirPlay licensed to major TV makers solves a lot of issues easily. Apple can require licensees adhere to strict UI guidelines for pairing and use...like including a airplay dedicated button on remotes so you can enter airplay mode by pressing one button. And controls so that it only pairs with Apple branded products...
Vizio, Samsung and LG would go for it. Pretty much anyone but Sony probably.
Licensing to TV vendors opens up a much bigger world. You get every type and size of set imaginable. Some might say that Apple wont get into license deals with others and that's typically the case, but they did a great job with the iPhone in a very short time frame. They didn't go with the number 1 carrier in most countries. They went with the number 2 carrier that was willing to take a risk to get the iPhone on their network.
I could see the sam type of negotiations happening with TV OEMs. Non-exclusive dealsl to have AppleTV in their premium line. Then Apple gets the dominate TV maker wanting to play ball without them having the power position they would have had if they went with them first.
The biggest thing I want is to have my cable box/TiVo and still get AppleTV layovers of certain things I've set up. Like who's at the door, emails, phone calls, and texts from certain recipients, certain keywords from emails, when an update to my UPS/FedEx/USPS is updated, and instant access to weather and stocks without having to change the channel.
OR… none of that at all, and some really groundbreaking change in the way the world will use a TV. A bona fide rebirth of the way we watch TV, but only this time with an almost instant and universal dropping of Blu-ray, DVD, game consoles, cable/satellite, and DVR/TiVo. But I still can't a reasonable answer as to how that could possibly be acheived.
Licensing to TV vendors opens up a much bigger world...
I think that licensing AirPlay is a lot easier than licensing aTV software to the TV manufacturers. It's a lot simpler, the required hardware specs probably a lot lighter. Most internet enabled TVs probably have most of the hardware capability required: h.264 decode and wifi. If you have enough ooomph to drive a netflix app you probably have enough omph to drive the software part of AirPlay.
Since the standard should be fairly stable there's no software updating required. All the updates happen OTA to the iOS device.
I think that licensing AirPlay is a lot easier than licensing aTV software to the TV manufacturers. It's a lot simpler, the required hardware specs probably a lot lighter. Most internet enabled TVs probably have most of the hardware capability required: h.264 decode and wifi. If you have enough ooomph to drive a netflix app you probably have enough omph to drive the software part of AirPlay.
Since the standard should be fairly stable there's no software updating required. All the updates happen OTA to the iOS device.
That's a good point. You could basically get rid of the AppleTV altogether and simply use your iDevice to control any TV with the "AirPlay Inside" logo on the upper left corner of the set. The AppleTV is really just an iPod Touch and this allows users to get more frequent HW updates and Apple to get more profit from licensing than from what could be had from the AppleTV units that aren't being updated frequently or from massive HDTVs that wouldn't be replaced but every 5 to 8 years.
I, personally, would like to see Apple make an AppleTV Pro that is the hub of the HEC but that to me is only slightly more likely than Apple building a TV with no inputs.
I like your idea but I am not sure this constitutes "cracking" the TV nut. Don't get me wrong, I think it's by far the most reasonable and best idea I've heard yet, but I'd like to think there is something that get around or incorporates into the current content owner/provider bubble. Maybe that is with Apps as channels on your iDevice. As I've stated before: Apple already dominates the living room, they just don't dominate the home entertainment center.
"Cracking" the TV nut likely has nothing to do with hardware or software but cracking the business model where cable companies control the last mile and pay tens of billions/per year to content producers. $32 Billion in affiliate fees for TV content.
When Comcast can tell NBC and Fox to kill Boxee for Hulu then cracking the TV nut requires cracking this significant problem. Cable companies suck but they aren't stupid.
"Cracking" the TV nut likely has nothing to do with hardware or software but cracking the business model where cable companies control the last mile and pay tens of billions/per year to content producers. $32 Billion in affiliate fees for TV content.
When Comcast can tell NBC and Fox to kill Boxee for Hulu then cracking the TV nut requires cracking this significant problem. Cable companies suck but they aren't stupid.
That's been my argument for years, but it's either completely ignored or, more recently, being called a strawman argument. The bottom line is until someone finds away around or into it we're still going to get the majority of our content from the same complex, poorly integrated system we've had for 70 years.
You probably need to check your network connection. I've had none of these issues.
Moreover, even if all that you said is true, I am sad to hear that $99 is going to break your bank for the two weeks that you'll have to try it and then return it (assuming you won't like it). I guess I did not realize the recession was really that bad. Sorry!
Nothing wrong with my network connection, I can stream 1080 movies from my Mac to PS3 without issue, just the Apple TV that has issues.
And the current AppleTV isn't $99, it is $170, stop assuming everyone here lives in the USA. And my message stated ATV1, you know the original one, I have had it for well over a year, don't like my chances of returning it now, hence why I won't spend $170 to purchase the new one when I think the old one isn't that great. And of course it is true, why the hell would I write it if it wasn't?
Comments
You can have that now. Just remove all other appliances from your HDTV except the AppleTV. You limit the content you can view but everything you've stated so far already does that, you've just put one box in another to save you a power cord and HDMI cable.
You don't get it. I give up on you.
So then you think Apple will not have inputs on their TV (because that's messy and un-Apple-like) which means they'll have to subvert the content providers that also are internet providers in US homes, there largest single and first market? That doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me, even when not considering how difficult TV and movies have been for the iTS in the US and around the world.
You can have that now. Just remove all other appliances from your HDTV except the AppleTV. You limit the content you can view but everything you've stated so far already does that, you've just put one box in another to save you a power cord and HDMI cable.
You're missing the point. It will be, at a minimum, independent and irrespective of content deals and such, a TV that does everything that other TVs do (perhaps more, e.g., Siri, apps). On top of that, it will seamlessly integrate with all sorts of stuff around your home, not the least all forms of media you have. And, it has the design, the cache, the looks of an Apple product. It will cater to a very different segment of the market.
In other words, it will be a desirable product (even if premium priced) for the very same reasons that Apple computers are desirable compared to PCs. It has little or nothing to do with 'content providers' or 'internet providers.'
You're missing the point. It will be, at a minimum, independent and irrespective of content deals and such, a TV that does everything that other TVs do (perhaps more, e.g., Siri, apps). On top of that, it will seamlessly integrate with all sorts of stuff around your home, not the least all forms of media you have. And, it has the design, the cache, the looks of an Apple product. It will cater to a very different segment of the market.
In other words, it will be a desirable product (even if premium priced) for the very same reasons that Apple computers are desirable compared to PCs. It has little or nothing to do with 'content providers' or 'internet providers.'
If you don't concern yourself with how this mythical appliance will get content and Internet, or circumvent current content and internet providers then you're not thinking it through.
Sure, it's cool to think of Apple making a TV and everything is perfectly magical blah blah blah, but the reality (as pointed out many times) is a lot more complex an you guys are making it out to be. Putting the AppleTV in the TV is not a stroke of genius. That's obvious! The genius is figure out how they can get around the current distribution issues, of which, no one has made any mention of anything other than some silly notion of removing wires and remotes as if that is the solution. It sounds downright childish to me, especially with the level of thorough thinkers this forum has.
Remember the 2006 iTV introduction. An odd 6 month notice for a product that had no name or shopping date. My hypothesis is they did this to help the content owners understand their plan. It didn't work and the AppleTV's usefulness suffered. Even now most countries have little o no iTS support for TV shows and movies. So what has changed? Why has been done to make this tiny box into a huge box that will also offer huge profits?
PS: Everything you mention (Siri, apps) could be down with the AppleTV while allowing you to use any TV brand of any size and in any room of your choice. When you only offer 3 huge sets you don't get that option and lose customers. You also lose the ability to get people to upgrade their sets more often. As good as Apple is in marketing I doubt they could get customers to drop $1k-2k every year just to get faster AppleTV HW.
PPS: What's wrong with making the TV a dumb monitor without the remote ever being used after putting it on HDMI 1 for the AppleTV?
You know crap.
@TV 1 was, by any stretch of imagination, a kickass product. It was head and shoulders above anything else out there. I still use mine all the time, on a second TV in our household.
The ATV1 is crap, it is slow, it loses sync to iTunes constantly, it packs a wobbly with the video format (including videos from Apple) constantly, it is slow, Apple has stopped updating it, it is slow. It is like they want you to purchase the ATV2, but based on the poor performance of the ATV1, I'm not willing to waste my money on the ATV2. And did I mention it is slow?
The ATV1 is crap, it is slow, it loses sync to iTunes constantly, it packs a wobbly with the video format (including videos from Apple) constantly, it is slow, Apple has stopped updating it, it is slow. It is like they want you to purchase the ATV2, but based on the poor performance of the ATV1, I'm not willing to waste my money on the ATV2. And did I mention it is slow?
You probably need to check your network connection. I've had none of these issues.
Moreover, even if all that you said is true, I am sad to hear that $99 is going to break your bank for the two weeks that you'll have to try it and then return it (assuming you won't like it). I guess I did not realize the recession was really that bad. Sorry!
If you don't concern yourself with how this mythical appliance will get content and Internet, or circumvent current content and internet .....
I don't think you really read - or, if your read it, understood - my post.
Perhaps I did not express it very well, so let me try again, by framing differently and more simply: Which model of TV is currently sold bundled with content and internet providers?
Netflix? Netflix? Figures. It's for Fandroids, Reed Hastings fans, and short sellers. It's the worst thing out there in terms of choices, flexibility, streaming quality (I've suspended my account for over six months now, and haven't missed it an iota).
LOL.
So what did you get with that ATV1 besides the iTunes jail- YouTube ? And sooooslooooow.
LOL!
I don't think you really read - or, if your read it, understood - my post.
Perhaps I did not express it very well, so let me try again, by framing differently and more simply: Which model of TV is currently sold bundled with content and internet providers?
1) Doing the same thing as all the other vendors isn't my definition of "cracking" it. Adding the AppleTV UI to a TV is obvious and simple, not a revelation.
2) Ireland said, "By Apple making an actual TV you end up with no inputs, one remote, one TV, cool hardware design and superb software design." So if you agree with Ireland's stated vision then you can't have any inputs for cable, sat., game consoles, Blu-ray/DVD players, TiVo/DVRs. You get nothing but this Apple HDTV and what it connects to and he nor anyone else has stated they have an idea of how Apple could work with content owners and/or content/internet providers to make this dream a possibility. This is why this idea of putting one box in another and calling it a day is such a juvenile and myopic viewpoint of how technology works and evolves. If you add inputs for these other devices you end up with the same complexity you have now.
3) For this to work it has to get content without upsetting the status quo that gets the content owners a very large and consistent payouts from the content providers that count on you, the subscriber, to pay for these blocks of channels, which also help keep your internet costs down. Where is the hypothesis that states how Apple could get around all that?
4) Gruber mentioned recently that Apple could leverage apps as channels on the future AppleTV. I guess I could see this but you'd need a great deal of networks on board to make this happen. You'd also need Apple to get bulk deals to allow consumers to have a good selection of channels at a relatively low price. I don't want to pay $5/month for ABC, another $5/month each for CBS, NBC, then $7/month each for TNT, AMC, Comedy Central, SyFy, and $10/month for HBO, and ShowTime. That type of Ã* la carte purchasing would be very costly very quickly without offering any real benefit over the current system of just making your TV a dumb monitor and keeping the input on your cable/sat box.
So then you think Apple will not have inputs on their TV?
Yup...
So what did you get with that ATV1 besides the iTunes jail- YouTube ? And sooooslooooow.
LOL!
Welcome to 5 years ago.
Yup...
I hear ya, and that's an interesting concept. But how does it work? I assume you mean it'll have WiFi, BT4.0, Ethernet, IR, FaceTIme, and a USB port (for maintainance). You pretty much want the AppleTV 'in' an HDTV.
Fine! But how do you get your cable channels? How do you get your satellite connection? How do you get you TiVo access? Your DVD/Blu-ray movies? (Blu-ray is still, and will be for a very long time, the best way to watch a movie with great graphics. Don't think for a moment that Steve Jobs didn't have a Blu-ray player for watching Pixar movies in his home theater.)
How do you get around all that and still get your content? What happens if this takes off and the content providers say they can no longer pay giant lumps sums to the content owners because they've lost an excessive number of subscribers in a short time? What happens when the content owners say they have a better deal with Apple (though I can't imagine what that would be) that they tell the content providers to suck it? What happens then to the cost of the internet coming into your home if you are now using the same pipes as before but with less pay to the those that were providing the content? This one I can answer: They raise the damn price and lower the caps, perhaps to a point that it's now more expensive to get even less content than before.
What about the computer HW in this Apple HDTV? Are we to assume this 2012 TV will run on an A6? Will they have a 2013 model that runs on A7 and gives it a lot more options for using apps? Do you replace the TV every year at a cost of $1k-2k? That seems ludicrous to me considering the different life cycles of the TV and the smartTV component inside. It's like an automobile manufacturer making it impossible to change out tires when they wear out, so you have to replace the entire car every 50k miles.
Your idea can be paired with ANY TV on the market. You put the TV on the first HDMI port to access the AppleTV UI and then toss the TV's remote. That's it. Everything else is down through the AppleTV. You get this with cheap HW that is easily and cheaply upgraded while your expensive TV that is LCD, Plasma, or even a 10" OLED you have in your bathroom functions as normal.
Even better — and the idea I've had for years — is making the AppleTV the hub of your HEC. An A/V Receiver that is an AppleTV. Cost about $300-500 with built in amp, has inputs for all your speakers, all other appliances, and the TV connects directly to it in the back. You never change the TV's input, only the Receiver which is the AppleTV UI onscreen which can overlay gobs of information about shows, channels, news, Facebook, Twitter, who's calling, etc. regardless of what simple cable, sat, DVD Blu-ray, game console input you choose from the AppleTV remote. This puts the AppleTV between the TV (aka dumb monitor) and the rest of the HEC appliances that aren't going to disappear overnight.
Apple sells an expensive product they can make a profit on, it can work with current systems while making it infinitely better and more usable, and all without killing the current system. The beauty of taking the AppleTV from being next to those other devices to being between them is now Apple is in a position to keep making the AppleTV UI more useful that you stop hitting the cable button (telling Siri to put on cable) and continuously start using the AppleTV as the only device. A trojan horse approach, not a new utopia built upon one willing to fight back.
The main advantage about Google TV is and will always be native support for YouTube and as we all know YouTube is owned by Google and this really makes Apple to hold only 2nd place in this game even if they will have Siri or iOS simplicity or good integration with Mac products.
Only time will show how this will evolve but Google is in better situation right now
You don't get it. I give up on you.
I guess you still do deserve ridicule.
He gets it. He just thinks its stupid and I agree. An Apple branded TV with no other inputs is just dumb and would be a market failure.
Actually one way do it doesn't necessarily involve selling an Apple branded TV...and airplay is the answer. Having AirPlay licensed to major TV makers solves a lot of issues easily. Apple can require licensees adhere to strict UI guidelines for pairing and use...like including a airplay dedicated button on remotes so you can enter airplay mode by pressing one button. And controls so that it only pairs with Apple branded products...
Vizio, Samsung and LG would go for it. Pretty much anyone but Sony probably.
I guess you still do deserve ridicule.
He gets it. He just thinks its stupid and I agree. An Apple branded TV with no other inputs is just dumb and would be a market failure.
Actually one way do it doesn't necessarily involve selling an Apple branded TV...and airplay is the answer. Having AirPlay licensed to major TV makers solves a lot of issues easily. Apple can require licensees adhere to strict UI guidelines for pairing and use...like including a airplay dedicated button on remotes so you can enter airplay mode by pressing one button. And controls so that it only pairs with Apple branded products...
Vizio, Samsung and LG would go for it. Pretty much anyone but Sony probably.
Licensing to TV vendors opens up a much bigger world. You get every type and size of set imaginable. Some might say that Apple wont get into license deals with others and that's typically the case, but they did a great job with the iPhone in a very short time frame. They didn't go with the number 1 carrier in most countries. They went with the number 2 carrier that was willing to take a risk to get the iPhone on their network.
I could see the sam type of negotiations happening with TV OEMs. Non-exclusive dealsl to have AppleTV in their premium line. Then Apple gets the dominate TV maker wanting to play ball without them having the power position they would have had if they went with them first.
The biggest thing I want is to have my cable box/TiVo and still get AppleTV layovers of certain things I've set up. Like who's at the door, emails, phone calls, and texts from certain recipients, certain keywords from emails, when an update to my UPS/FedEx/USPS is updated, and instant access to weather and stocks without having to change the channel.
OR… none of that at all, and some really groundbreaking change in the way the world will use a TV. A bona fide rebirth of the way we watch TV, but only this time with an almost instant and universal dropping of Blu-ray, DVD, game consoles, cable/satellite, and DVR/TiVo. But I still can't a reasonable answer as to how that could possibly be acheived.
Licensing to TV vendors opens up a much bigger world...
I think that licensing AirPlay is a lot easier than licensing aTV software to the TV manufacturers. It's a lot simpler, the required hardware specs probably a lot lighter. Most internet enabled TVs probably have most of the hardware capability required: h.264 decode and wifi. If you have enough ooomph to drive a netflix app you probably have enough omph to drive the software part of AirPlay.
Since the standard should be fairly stable there's no software updating required. All the updates happen OTA to the iOS device.
I think that licensing AirPlay is a lot easier than licensing aTV software to the TV manufacturers. It's a lot simpler, the required hardware specs probably a lot lighter. Most internet enabled TVs probably have most of the hardware capability required: h.264 decode and wifi. If you have enough ooomph to drive a netflix app you probably have enough omph to drive the software part of AirPlay.
Since the standard should be fairly stable there's no software updating required. All the updates happen OTA to the iOS device.
That's a good point. You could basically get rid of the AppleTV altogether and simply use your iDevice to control any TV with the "AirPlay Inside" logo on the upper left corner of the set. The AppleTV is really just an iPod Touch and this allows users to get more frequent HW updates and Apple to get more profit from licensing than from what could be had from the AppleTV units that aren't being updated frequently or from massive HDTVs that wouldn't be replaced but every 5 to 8 years.
I, personally, would like to see Apple make an AppleTV Pro that is the hub of the HEC but that to me is only slightly more likely than Apple building a TV with no inputs.
I like your idea but I am not sure this constitutes "cracking" the TV nut. Don't get me wrong, I think it's by far the most reasonable and best idea I've heard yet, but I'd like to think there is something that get around or incorporates into the current content owner/provider bubble. Maybe that is with Apps as channels on your iDevice. As I've stated before: Apple already dominates the living room, they just don't dominate the home entertainment center.
"cracking" the TV nut.
"Cracking" the TV nut likely has nothing to do with hardware or software but cracking the business model where cable companies control the last mile and pay tens of billions/per year to content producers. $32 Billion in affiliate fees for TV content.
When Comcast can tell NBC and Fox to kill Boxee for Hulu then cracking the TV nut requires cracking this significant problem. Cable companies suck but they aren't stupid.
"Cracking" the TV nut likely has nothing to do with hardware or software but cracking the business model where cable companies control the last mile and pay tens of billions/per year to content producers. $32 Billion in affiliate fees for TV content.
When Comcast can tell NBC and Fox to kill Boxee for Hulu then cracking the TV nut requires cracking this significant problem. Cable companies suck but they aren't stupid.
That's been my argument for years, but it's either completely ignored or, more recently, being called a strawman argument. The bottom line is until someone finds away around or into it we're still going to get the majority of our content from the same complex, poorly integrated system we've had for 70 years.
You probably need to check your network connection. I've had none of these issues.
Moreover, even if all that you said is true, I am sad to hear that $99 is going to break your bank for the two weeks that you'll have to try it and then return it (assuming you won't like it). I guess I did not realize the recession was really that bad. Sorry!
Nothing wrong with my network connection, I can stream 1080 movies from my Mac to PS3 without issue, just the Apple TV that has issues.
And the current AppleTV isn't $99, it is $170, stop assuming everyone here lives in the USA. And my message stated ATV1, you know the original one, I have had it for well over a year, don't like my chances of returning it now, hence why I won't spend $170 to purchase the new one when I think the old one isn't that great. And of course it is true, why the hell would I write it if it wasn't?