I will buy THREE A6 Apple TVs on the day of launch. I will NEVER buy an Apple HDTV.
I would buy THREE A6 headless macs, but it wont happen.
The reason why Apps are not available in todays AppleTV is because Apple is holding out for the Apple LCDTV.
If Apple is going to release a LCDTV we will probably not see an upgraded AppleTV. I know about the AppleTV 3.1 drives. But we should have seen this product last year with A5.
(and when I still dream: I want an A6 Time Capsule so that I can get more then 6Megabyte against the USB disks. Even a 4 bay A6 Time Capsule to capture the NAS market)
We bought one of the current Apple TV's and love it, even though we live in Japan where there are no TV show downloads and the movie remains a bit short and many movies, though made in the US, are only available dubbed in Japanese (all the Disney films, for example). The DVDs available at the convenience store down the street often contain several languages. Go figure.
If they put out an HDTV, we would certainly be in the market, but they are going to have to improve on content for Japan. That, sadly, is not completely up to Apple (); Gaga Usen and Sony have supposedly been rather obstructionist over making content available here, despot giving it to Yahoo downloads and other sources. Dunno for sure, just a rumor I heard.
Our current TV is a Hitachi with built-in HD recording. We have satellite TV with several awesome channels and the ease with which we can select a show and record it is fantastic (all done on the TV without fiddling with multiple deices), and this TV is almost seven years old. DVDs, BluRay... those are a separate box, as is Apple TV.
Hopefully, they will make it work as seamlessly as our current TV, with recording. In my dreams, they would include a built-in BluRay/DVD player, but we know Apple's aversion to BR...
All TV in Japan is digital from last year, which means we have great quality. The TV will need plenty of recording ability.
I suspect you are referring to the ATV mark 1. Since the second version, all streaming, AirPlay and iCloud I fail to see how any Mac new or old can substitute the ATV and that isn't even taking the $99 price into account.
Different stuff for different people.
I want to look at blu rays.
Had to buy an MacMini with graphic card to be able to see bluray. Worked great.
Then Bluray 3D was released and I had to swap to a HDMI 1.4 MacMini.
Why have 50 inch TVs and watch 720P? Only blu ray have the full 1080P resolution.
Its also fun to have a couple of thousends of TV shows/movies connected to the mini using thunderbolt/USB.
What feature(s) does a built in monitor add over a STB?
Why would they focus so completely on building/selling a full-on TV set and leave all of the people who are perfectly happy with their current monitor off of the table?
Will this be full TV only, or will there be a STB?
The only things I can think of that a unified TV offer are
- an ideal place for a camera
- ease of use for all of the settings/adjustments that are such a nightmare on all current TVs
- ??
What am I missing about the need for built-in monitor that STB doesn't address?
If Apple is still Apple, they won't be working with cable or satellite providers. They'll be killing them. It's not a 'revolutionary' device or 'cracking the TV' without killing the idiotic system we've had for so long.
I dunno... they're working with AT&T, Verizon et al.
I'm beginning the think partnering with Comcast and the others is exactly what they're going to do, and focusing on providing an actually good user interface for the first time, something the cable/fios companies have never been able to do.
Another 'how the hell did we live with that crap before Apple' opportunity from which they can then devour their hosts.
If Apple is still Apple, they won't be working with cable or satellite providers. They'll be killing them. It's not a 'revolutionary' device or 'cracking the TV' without killing the idiotic system we've had for so long.
WOW...i actually find myself agreeing with TS.....
I think Apple will provide their own way to provide the content and turn the present industry upside down...........
I'm of the belief they'd only sell one or the other. I'm also of the belief they'd not make a TV at all, but that's me.
The only box that will be missing features is the current Apple TV which won't get the update to the next one's software. That's just how Apple rolls.
Oh, and to answer the question, I still wouldn't get it. I've no use nor desire for an integrated TV when buying ANY TV and a $99 box is a much better solution.
That first part would surprise me. Cut out anyone that owns a TV now or wants features not available on an Apple made television? I figured they'd keep the appliance and use it like a gateway drug to iOS and cloud subscription content the way the iPod was to iTunes content and Mac.
The reason why Apps are not available in todays AppleTV is because Apple is holding out for the Apple LCDTV.
There's no evidence for that whatsoever, nor is there any explanation for why they'd need to have their own panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
What feature(s) does a built in monitor add over a STB?
None. Unless you consider 'paying more for no reason' to be a feature.
Quote:
Why would they focus so completely on building/selling a full-on TV set and leave all of the people who are perfectly happy with their current monitor off of the table?
Well, because people with their own TVs don't have... I mean, they're not... And if you don't use a...
Quote:
Will this be full TV only, or will there be a STB?
I've always seen this situation as a Highlander. And aside from the inherent humor of the idea of an HDTV, that has been part of the reason I hate the idea of an HDTV from Apple.
Quote:
- an ideal place for a camera
And even then, to what end? Who the frick wants to FaceTime someone sitting in their recliner with Cheetos dust down their front? They're WAY far away from the camera, so you can't really see them, and they're looking at you–you who are probably in Paris or wherever showing them some awesome stuff in real life.
Quote:
- ease of use for all of the settings/adjustments that are such a nightmare on all current TVs
Oh, what about this: on the release of the A6 Apple TV (box), Apple pitches additions to the HDMI 1.5 spec that allows devices connected with HDMI to have their own interfaces for television hardware controls?
So not only do you get to control your TV's settings with the Apple TV, you'll have an Apple-quality interface in which to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
That first part would surprise me. Cut out anyone that owns a TV now or wants features not available on an Apple made television?
I can't see them selling both. They've never done anything like that. So it's either cut them out by selling an HDTV or give these features to everyone by selling an Apple TV. You can see why I pick the latter.
it will be interesting to see how high Apple will be able to price a TV and still have it sell.
Sony hasn't made a profit in 8 years on TVs
Samsung, Panasonic, Philips etc haven't made a profit on TVs this year.
Pioneer left the TV business because there wasn't a big enough market for high end products.
They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
The technology exists today to directly, and cost effectively address your design concerns.
More in theory than in reality.
Quote:
Clearly two (or more) cameras with at least 1 the direction of which can be changed would solve this. Today's face recognition software would allow tracking easily, especially combined with a microphone array to detect who is speaking.
That would work but so far I have seen nothing from Apple that shows they have sufficient competiency to push to a shipping product in the next 6 months.
Quote:
This would easily be address with a small array of microphones acting in a phased array combined with face recognition. The TV would track faces and voices in the room and create a directional microphone to pick up voices. The SW and HW for this is inexpensive and straight forward today.
This is also tough to believe when the iPhone still picks up background noise that I can barely hear yet people on the other end can't ignore.
Quote:
Give the above, the typical attention word approach - say 'Siri' - would probably suffice to activate the software.
So anytime anyone on TV says "Siri' it activates then follows their commands?
(Was going to link to the full 30 Rock clip of Jack and voice controlled TV but all the full clips seem to be down.)
And being able to pick up me across the room when there are loud speakers next to the mic blaring is an issue. Eventually this will be overcome, but again, I've seen nothing from Apple that shows they have worked out all the issues to ready a working product. Remember, Apple tends to work small and expand on technologies once they master them. So far these things are not Starship Enterprise ready.
They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
You may be right about it being easier to sell the whole solution instead of just 'another box'. Steve made it clear he thought the proliferation of STBs was itself a part of the problem.
But Apple is NOT looking to content/apps for their $$. Apple makes its money from hardware. Everything else just supports that model. This is not the point at which they change their entire business model. Loss-leader hardware with income from content is Amazon's model, not Apple's.
I predict that if Apple works out how to turn water into gold cheaply, and if the current price of gold remains at around present levels, then Apple will be able to make a lot of money.
That wasn't an analysis, it was stating the bleeding obvious.
This pretty much summarizes it for me. If, if, if.
Apple could put out the coolest TV hardware on the planet (and we know they could) but if doesn't break both the cable box and remote control chains of pain, then they're just another pretty face in the TV business. Apple is missing one huge connective piece here and I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for how they can create an entirely new bridge between the content providers and the living room.
That would work but so far I have seen nothing from Apple that shows they have sufficient competiency to push to a shipping product in the next 6 months.
This is also tough to believe when the iPhone still picks up background noise that I can barely hear yet people on the other end can't ignore.
No one (particularly the entrenched phone makers) thought they had the 'competency' to upend the phone market either.
As for background noise, check out the articles this week about the custom sound reception processing found to be built into the 4S... they're obviously paying a lot of attention to that kind of issue.
You may be right about it being easier to sell the whole solution instead of just 'another box'. Steve made it clear he thought the proliferation of STBs was itself a part of the problem.
We can't confuse the "just another box" comment. The problem isn't the box, it's the complexity of the network setups. In that sense "just another box" will not solve the problem. Putting "just another box" inside the TV which is also "just another box" will just make it doubly pointless for Apple without a solution for the way content is dealt across the entire chain.
It's Apple. They don not subscribe to the Amazon model of "we lose money on everything we sell and somehow think this will work".
Quote:
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view.
Tough to advertise? Okay, I'll give it a shot.
*Screen shows an unbranded TV (in a very short field of focus like the recent Apple commercials) in an average home showing some show available in iTunes/show made available with new licensing agreements. Throughout the commercial, the screen slowly zooms into the screen as snippets from various shows cross it.*
"For decades, you've been able to pay for your favorite shows... and everything else. For decades, you've been able to watch your favorite shows... when they're on. For decades, you've had to sit through commercials... or at least skip through them."
*The commercial that had just been playing speeds up dramatically*
"But what if you could buy just the shows you want to see? What if you could watch them whenever you wanted? And what if they didn't have commercials at all? And what if you could watch live news..."
*snippet of a generic news show*
"...sports..."
*snippet of a game*
"...and videos from the web..."
*YouTube and Vimeo logos fade by*
"...as well as your music..."
*shows the music interface*
"...movies..."
*shows the movie grid interface*
"...and photos..."
*photo slideshow*
"...like you've never seen them before?"
*All we see by now is the contents of the TV screen, not even the frame. It shows...*
"Introducing the new Apple TV. No longer a hobby."
*end on a white Apple logo on a black background, as you'd see when plugging in your Apple TV for the first time*
And seriously, people, why do you want FaceTime on your TVs? You'll be asking for it on your toasters next.
No one (particularly the entrenched phone makers) thought they had the 'competency' to upend the phone market either.
As for background noise, check out the articles this week about the custom sound reception processing found to be built into the 4S... they're obviously paying a lot of attention to that kind of issue.
The article on EarSmart backs up my argument. Even in the recently released 4S the tech is not great. There is no way the current tech in the iPhone could be used in a large room where the speakers are 10-15 feet away from the mic when there are loud speakers next to it.
From the article...
Quote:
Although the older phone includes an Audience chip, the company has since improved its technology to handle 'far-field speech,' which means holding the device at arm's length rather than directly in front of the mouth"
The company notes that "far-field uses are more vulnerable to background noise interference and poor voice quality given the speaker's distance from the device," an issue that has previously been noted in regard to rumors that Apple might deploy TV systems incorporating Siri voice technology;
how often does a person or family change a TV? 5 years? 10 years? or life time?
iphone or ipod can be replaced in couple of years as technology advanced and new types are coming out.
macintosh computer can be replaced in about 5 years as new CPUs and components are coming out.
for an apple HDTV set, i don't see the cyclic replacement pattern there. so if apple just becomes another TV set maker with siri input method, i don't think apple would make lots of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
If Apple were to offer high-definition television sets with an average selling price of $1,500, one Wall Street analyst believes the company could capture 5 percent of the market and earn $17 billion in revenue.
We can't confuse the "just another box" comment. The problem isn't the box, it's the complexity of the network setups. In that sense "just another box" will not solve the problem. Putting "just another box" inside the TV which is also "just another box" will just make it doubly pointless for Apple without a solution for the way content is dealt across the entire chain.
The only way I can imagine that the "just another box" concept works for Apple is if they can figure out how to virtualize existing cable boxes in iOS. But even if this could be accomplished technically (both TW and Comcast have more or less done this with iPad apps) it's still a very rocky road. First, many content providers were not pleased with TW's iPad app and are still are not willing to be carried this way. Second, the content servers are not going to give up their cable box rental revenues without a fight. Third, the cable box manufacturers would likely sue if Apple's TV intercepted their proprietary data streams and abstracted them in a way that an Apple TV could display.
WOW...i actually find myself agreeing with TS.....
I think Apple will provide their own way to provide the content and turn the present industry upside down...........
I'm with you here too... If Apple can come up with a viable alternative to the cable and satellite strangleholds, I'm in!
Apple turned the music and much of the phone industry on their heads, so there is some precedence for hope here. I can't imagine ever spending $1000 to $1500 on a TV, but if it means the demise of the current cable and satellite paradigms, well... I'll have to reconsider.
My wish would be for an iTunes sort of TV menu with maybe a small monthly provider charge - say under $10? I can then subscribe (with the usual commercial content) to any one channel or multiple channels for $1.99 a month each. At the end of that 30 days, I have the option to re-up or move on. Right now, I'm subscribed to over 200 channels only because I have to have that package to have access to the 1/2 dozen channels I really want. All of that comes at close to $100 a month.
A lot of people for many years wished they could buy just the "hits" off the music recordings, but were forced to pay upwards of $20 for that one song that then came along with usually a dozen other songs that were turkeys. Say what you want about MP3 fidelity, I listen to WAY more music now since the advent of "on-the-go" devices and now when I spend $20 on music, I get 20 songs that I really want to listen to. My wish is to have that same access with my TV viewing, I wish to pay for what I use and only what I use.
if comcast can get rid of having millions of old cable boxes it has to support it will partner with apple. if a new apple tv will save comcast money from buying new boxes they will do it
The problem with that is that there are a few out of way places that don't have Comcast, like NYC.
Comments
Make it at all and I'll never buy it.
I will buy THREE A6 Apple TVs on the day of launch. I will NEVER buy an Apple HDTV.
I would buy THREE A6 headless macs, but it wont happen.
The reason why Apps are not available in todays AppleTV is because Apple is holding out for the Apple LCDTV.
If Apple is going to release a LCDTV we will probably not see an upgraded AppleTV. I know about the AppleTV 3.1 drives. But we should have seen this product last year with A5.
(and when I still dream: I want an A6 Time Capsule so that I can get more then 6Megabyte against the USB disks. Even a 4 bay A6 Time Capsule to capture the NAS market)
If they put out an HDTV, we would certainly be in the market, but they are going to have to improve on content for Japan. That, sadly, is not completely up to Apple (
Our current TV is a Hitachi with built-in HD recording. We have satellite TV with several awesome channels and the ease with which we can select a show and record it is fantastic (all done on the TV without fiddling with multiple deices), and this TV is almost seven years old. DVDs, BluRay... those are a separate box, as is Apple TV.
Hopefully, they will make it work as seamlessly as our current TV, with recording. In my dreams, they would include a built-in BluRay/DVD player, but we know Apple's aversion to BR...
All TV in Japan is digital from last year, which means we have great quality. The TV will need plenty of recording ability.
I suspect you are referring to the ATV mark 1. Since the second version, all streaming, AirPlay and iCloud I fail to see how any Mac new or old can substitute the ATV and that isn't even taking the $99 price into account.
Different stuff for different people.
I want to look at blu rays.
Had to buy an MacMini with graphic card to be able to see bluray. Worked great.
Then Bluray 3D was released and I had to swap to a HDMI 1.4 MacMini.
Why have 50 inch TVs and watch 720P? Only blu ray have the full 1080P resolution.
Its also fun to have a couple of thousends of TV shows/movies connected to the mini using thunderbolt/USB.
What feature(s) does a built in monitor add over a STB?
Why would they focus so completely on building/selling a full-on TV set and leave all of the people who are perfectly happy with their current monitor off of the table?
Will this be full TV only, or will there be a STB?
The only things I can think of that a unified TV offer are
- an ideal place for a camera
- ease of use for all of the settings/adjustments that are such a nightmare on all current TVs
- ??
What am I missing about the need for built-in monitor that STB doesn't address?
If Apple is still Apple, they won't be working with cable or satellite providers. They'll be killing them. It's not a 'revolutionary' device or 'cracking the TV' without killing the idiotic system we've had for so long.
I dunno... they're working with AT&T, Verizon et al.
I'm beginning the think partnering with Comcast and the others is exactly what they're going to do, and focusing on providing an actually good user interface for the first time, something the cable/fios companies have never been able to do.
Another 'how the hell did we live with that crap before Apple' opportunity from which they can then devour their hosts.
If Apple is still Apple, they won't be working with cable or satellite providers. They'll be killing them. It's not a 'revolutionary' device or 'cracking the TV' without killing the idiotic system we've had for so long.
WOW...i actually find myself agreeing with TS.....
I think Apple will provide their own way to provide the content and turn the present industry upside down...........
I'm of the belief they'd only sell one or the other. I'm also of the belief they'd not make a TV at all, but that's me.
The only box that will be missing features is the current Apple TV which won't get the update to the next one's software. That's just how Apple rolls.
Oh, and to answer the question, I still wouldn't get it. I've no use nor desire for an integrated TV when buying ANY TV and a $99 box is a much better solution.
That first part would surprise me. Cut out anyone that owns a TV now or wants features not available on an Apple made television? I figured they'd keep the appliance and use it like a gateway drug to iOS and cloud subscription content the way the iPod was to iTunes content and Mac.
The reason why Apps are not available in todays AppleTV is because Apple is holding out for the Apple LCDTV.
There's no evidence for that whatsoever, nor is there any explanation for why they'd need to have their own panel.
What feature(s) does a built in monitor add over a STB?
None. Unless you consider 'paying more for no reason' to be a feature.
Why would they focus so completely on building/selling a full-on TV set and leave all of the people who are perfectly happy with their current monitor off of the table?
Well, because people with their own TVs don't have... I mean, they're not... And if you don't use a...
Will this be full TV only, or will there be a STB?
I've always seen this situation as a Highlander. And aside from the inherent humor of the idea of an HDTV, that has been part of the reason I hate the idea of an HDTV from Apple.
- an ideal place for a camera
And even then, to what end? Who the frick wants to FaceTime someone sitting in their recliner with Cheetos dust down their front? They're WAY far away from the camera, so you can't really see them, and they're looking at you–you who are probably in Paris or wherever showing them some awesome stuff in real life.
- ease of use for all of the settings/adjustments that are such a nightmare on all current TVs
Oh, what about this: on the release of the A6 Apple TV (box), Apple pitches additions to the HDMI 1.5 spec that allows devices connected with HDMI to have their own interfaces for television hardware controls?
So not only do you get to control your TV's settings with the Apple TV, you'll have an Apple-quality interface in which to do it.
That first part would surprise me. Cut out anyone that owns a TV now or wants features not available on an Apple made television?
I can't see them selling both. They've never done anything like that. So it's either cut them out by selling an HDTV or give these features to everyone by selling an Apple TV. You can see why I pick the latter.
it will be interesting to see how high Apple will be able to price a TV and still have it sell.
Sony hasn't made a profit in 8 years on TVs
Samsung, Panasonic, Philips etc haven't made a profit on TVs this year.
Pioneer left the TV business because there wasn't a big enough market for high end products.
They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
The technology exists today to directly, and cost effectively address your design concerns.
More in theory than in reality.
Clearly two (or more) cameras with at least 1 the direction of which can be changed would solve this. Today's face recognition software would allow tracking easily, especially combined with a microphone array to detect who is speaking.
That would work but so far I have seen nothing from Apple that shows they have sufficient competiency to push to a shipping product in the next 6 months.
This would easily be address with a small array of microphones acting in a phased array combined with face recognition. The TV would track faces and voices in the room and create a directional microphone to pick up voices. The SW and HW for this is inexpensive and straight forward today.
This is also tough to believe when the iPhone still picks up background noise that I can barely hear yet people on the other end can't ignore.
Give the above, the typical attention word approach - say 'Siri' - would probably suffice to activate the software.
So anytime anyone on TV says "Siri' it activates then follows their commands?
- (Was going to link to the full 30 Rock clip of Jack and voice controlled TV but all the full clips seem to be down.)
And being able to pick up me across the room when there are loud speakers next to the mic blaring is an issue. Eventually this will be overcome, but again, I've seen nothing from Apple that shows they have worked out all the issues to ready a working product. Remember, Apple tends to work small and expand on technologies once they master them. So far these things are not Starship Enterprise ready.They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
You may be right about it being easier to sell the whole solution instead of just 'another box'. Steve made it clear he thought the proliferation of STBs was itself a part of the problem.
But Apple is NOT looking to content/apps for their $$. Apple makes its money from hardware. Everything else just supports that model. This is not the point at which they change their entire business model. Loss-leader hardware with income from content is Amazon's model, not Apple's.
I predict that if Apple works out how to turn water into gold cheaply, and if the current price of gold remains at around present levels, then Apple will be able to make a lot of money.
That wasn't an analysis, it was stating the bleeding obvious.
This pretty much summarizes it for me. If, if, if.
Apple could put out the coolest TV hardware on the planet (and we know they could) but if doesn't break both the cable box and remote control chains of pain, then they're just another pretty face in the TV business. Apple is missing one huge connective piece here and I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for how they can create an entirely new bridge between the content providers and the living room.
More in theory than in reality.
That would work but so far I have seen nothing from Apple that shows they have sufficient competiency to push to a shipping product in the next 6 months.
This is also tough to believe when the iPhone still picks up background noise that I can barely hear yet people on the other end can't ignore.
No one (particularly the entrenched phone makers) thought they had the 'competency' to upend the phone market either.
As for background noise, check out the articles this week about the custom sound reception processing found to be built into the 4S... they're obviously paying a lot of attention to that kind of issue.
You may be right about it being easier to sell the whole solution instead of just 'another box'. Steve made it clear he thought the proliferation of STBs was itself a part of the problem.
We can't confuse the "just another box" comment. The problem isn't the box, it's the complexity of the network setups. In that sense "just another box" will not solve the problem. Putting "just another box" inside the TV which is also "just another box" will just make it doubly pointless for Apple without a solution for the way content is dealt across the entire chain.
They don't need to make a profit.
It's Apple. They don not subscribe to the Amazon model of "we lose money on everything we sell and somehow think this will work".
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view.
Tough to advertise? Okay, I'll give it a shot.
*Screen shows an unbranded TV (in a very short field of focus like the recent Apple commercials) in an average home showing some show available in iTunes/show made available with new licensing agreements. Throughout the commercial, the screen slowly zooms into the screen as snippets from various shows cross it.*
"For decades, you've been able to pay for your favorite shows... and everything else. For decades, you've been able to watch your favorite shows... when they're on. For decades, you've had to sit through commercials... or at least skip through them."
*The commercial that had just been playing speeds up dramatically*
"But what if you could buy just the shows you want to see? What if you could watch them whenever you wanted? And what if they didn't have commercials at all? And what if you could watch live news..."
*snippet of a generic news show*
"...sports..."
*snippet of a game*
"...and videos from the web..."
*YouTube and Vimeo logos fade by*
"...as well as your music..."
*shows the music interface*
"...movies..."
*shows the movie grid interface*
"...and photos..."
*photo slideshow*
"...like you've never seen them before?"
*All we see by now is the contents of the TV screen, not even the frame. It shows...*
"Introducing the new Apple TV. No longer a hobby."
*end on a white Apple logo on a black background, as you'd see when plugging in your Apple TV for the first time*
And seriously, people, why do you want FaceTime on your TVs? You'll be asking for it on your toasters next.
No one (particularly the entrenched phone makers) thought they had the 'competency' to upend the phone market either.
As for background noise, check out the articles this week about the custom sound reception processing found to be built into the 4S... they're obviously paying a lot of attention to that kind of issue.
The article on EarSmart backs up my argument. Even in the recently released 4S the tech is not great. There is no way the current tech in the iPhone could be used in a large room where the speakers are 10-15 feet away from the mic when there are loud speakers next to it.
From the article...
Although the older phone includes an Audience chip, the company has since improved its technology to handle 'far-field speech,' which means holding the device at arm's length rather than directly in front of the mouth"
The company notes that "far-field uses are more vulnerable to background noise interference and poor voice quality given the speaker's distance from the device," an issue that has previously been noted in regard to rumors that Apple might deploy TV systems incorporating Siri voice technology;
Arm's length isn't going to cut it.
iphone or ipod can be replaced in couple of years as technology advanced and new types are coming out.
macintosh computer can be replaced in about 5 years as new CPUs and components are coming out.
for an apple HDTV set, i don't see the cyclic replacement pattern there. so if apple just becomes another TV set maker with siri input method, i don't think apple would make lots of money.
If Apple were to offer high-definition television sets with an average selling price of $1,500, one Wall Street analyst believes the company could capture 5 percent of the market and earn $17 billion in revenue.
We can't confuse the "just another box" comment. The problem isn't the box, it's the complexity of the network setups. In that sense "just another box" will not solve the problem. Putting "just another box" inside the TV which is also "just another box" will just make it doubly pointless for Apple without a solution for the way content is dealt across the entire chain.
The only way I can imagine that the "just another box" concept works for Apple is if they can figure out how to virtualize existing cable boxes in iOS. But even if this could be accomplished technically (both TW and Comcast have more or less done this with iPad apps) it's still a very rocky road. First, many content providers were not pleased with TW's iPad app and are still are not willing to be carried this way. Second, the content servers are not going to give up their cable box rental revenues without a fight. Third, the cable box manufacturers would likely sue if Apple's TV intercepted their proprietary data streams and abstracted them in a way that an Apple TV could display.
WOW...i actually find myself agreeing with TS.....
I think Apple will provide their own way to provide the content and turn the present industry upside down...........
I'm with you here too... If Apple can come up with a viable alternative to the cable and satellite strangleholds, I'm in!
Apple turned the music and much of the phone industry on their heads, so there is some precedence for hope here. I can't imagine ever spending $1000 to $1500 on a TV, but if it means the demise of the current cable and satellite paradigms, well... I'll have to reconsider.
My wish would be for an iTunes sort of TV menu with maybe a small monthly provider charge - say under $10? I can then subscribe (with the usual commercial content) to any one channel or multiple channels for $1.99 a month each. At the end of that 30 days, I have the option to re-up or move on. Right now, I'm subscribed to over 200 channels only because I have to have that package to have access to the 1/2 dozen channels I really want. All of that comes at close to $100 a month.
A lot of people for many years wished they could buy just the "hits" off the music recordings, but were forced to pay upwards of $20 for that one song that then came along with usually a dozen other songs that were turkeys. Say what you want about MP3 fidelity, I listen to WAY more music now since the advent of "on-the-go" devices and now when I spend $20 on music, I get 20 songs that I really want to listen to. My wish is to have that same access with my TV viewing, I wish to pay for what I use and only what I use.
if comcast can get rid of having millions of old cable boxes it has to support it will partner with apple. if a new apple tv will save comcast money from buying new boxes they will do it
The problem with that is that there are a few out of way places that don't have Comcast, like NYC.