or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The aTV + iPad ecosystem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The aTV + iPad ecosystem

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
I was thinking about iPad being only a slave device and how to mitigate that within the Apple ecosystem without (excessive) cannibalization of MB and iMac sales.

What if the aTV moved to the A4 platform but could act as a master device for syncing for iPods, iPhones and iPads? Add to it the ability to run any AppStore app and it handles 80% of the needs of many users but still not replace the general purpose computer like an iMac or MBP.

If you can split the processing needs of iLife apps between the aTV and the iPad (been doing a bit of iMovie of late...one A4 probably isn't a happy solution) you get to around 90% of general user needs. You can do this for gaming as well, both from the computational and UI perspective. Games could split load between iPod touches and the aTV.

The total package for an aTV and iPad is $700+...about the same as the mini so even if there is some cannibalization it's not too horrid.

aTV + iPad + iPod touches for the kids, iMac + iPhones for mom and dad and maybe a TimeCapsule and it's a nice complete ecosystem for the whole family.

From a parental perspective I get a whole lot more control and a locked down platform that is a lot easier to secure than a mac or PC that provides games AND the ability to do school work or learning. That's a trifecta.
post #2 of 34
Didn't you just chastise me two weeks ago for suggesting that the iPad be a master device independent of a computer since Apple doesn't sell laptops for the sub-$500 laptop crowd? How is your suggestion of making the AppleTV a master device any different? I even suggested that an iPad that doesn't have to sync with a Mac (and could instead be the master device for a slave iPod/iPhone) would essentially become the kids' sole computer, as it already meets 90% of what 90% of home users need in a computer.
post #3 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I was thinking about iPad being only a slave device and how to mitigate that within the Apple ecosystem without (excessive) cannibalization of MB and iMac sales.

When you start talking about cannibalization in the first sentence you loose a lot of credibility in my mind. First off Apple does really care. Second you have to introduce new and innovative products or else somebody else will. In the long term it is impossible to be successful with a static product line.
Quote:

What if the aTV moved to the A4 platform but could act as a master device for syncing for iPods, iPhones and iPads? Add to it the ability to run any AppStore app and it handles 80% of the needs of many users but still not replace the general purpose computer like an iMac or MBP.

Well I do think that an Apple TV built on iPhone OS would rock it is not because I think people will be doing productivity apps on the device. I' don;''t currently think that is the focus of either device.
Quote:

If you can split the processing needs of iLife apps between the aTV and the iPad (been doing a bit of iMovie of late...one A4 probably isn't a happy solution) you get to around 90% of general user needs. You can do this for gaming as well, both from the computational and UI perspective. Games could split load between iPod touches and the aTV.

As in multiprocessor, I don't think so. At best an iPod might act as a controller for the Apple TV.
Quote:

The total package for an aTV and iPad is $700+...about the same as the mini so even if there is some cannibalization it's not too horrid.

And you would be getting very little for that money.
Quote:
aTV + iPad + iPod touches for the kids, iMac + iPhones for mom and dad and maybe a TimeCapsule and it's a nice complete ecosystem for the whole family.

Not at all. The reality is that Apple TV can't effectively act as a backup device for the iPad due to the limited memory on the unit.
Quote:

From a parental perspective I get a whole lot more control and a locked down platform that is a lot easier to secure than a mac or PC that provides games AND the ability to do school work or learning. That's a trifecta.

I don't see iPad being popular with those that need to generate massive amounts of data.
post #4 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Didn't you just chastise me two weeks ago for suggesting that the iPad be a master device independent of a computer since Apple doesn't sell laptops for the sub-$500 laptop crowd?

Yes, because it would have cannibalized MB sales just like netbooks currently cannibalize laptop sales. The iPad STILL isn't a master device in this scheme...and an aTV doesn't have a touchscreen so it's not a computer replacement by itself either. The iPad would be its primary input device.

Quote:
How is your suggestion of making the AppleTV a master device any different? I even suggested that an iPad that doesn't have to sync with a Mac (and could instead be the master device for a slave iPod/iPhone) would essentially become the kids' sole computer, as it already meets 90% of what 90% of home users need in a computer.

It would be a $200-$300 difference and another device sale. Say $300 for a 500GB aTV device. That brings the total system cost to $800 for the lowest end iPad. It pulls the Apple ASPs down but not as horribly as a standalone $500 iPad...
post #5 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

When you start talking about cannibalization in the first sentence you loose a lot of credibility in my mind. First off Apple does really care.

That's a typo because Apple does really care or there would be an xMac. The Apple product line is very well organized to maintain both high Average Sale Price as well as high margins.

There IS a reason the iPad isn't running desktop OSX and isn't Atom and IS locked down. There is no way in hell Apple would allow a $500 device take significant sales from their $999+ MB and MBPs.

Quote:
Second you have to introduce new and innovative products or else somebody else will. In the long term it is impossible to be successful with a static product line.

Which the iPad does but in a way that protects their higher end machines. The mini is deliberately limited in comparison to the iMac. The iMac in comparison to the Mac Pro. Likewise the MB vs the MBPs.

The aTV is sufficiently limited that anyone with more than basic needs will get a MB. It should also be high enough margin that at a combined system price of $800+ it's about the same as a MB but less effective than the MB for general purpose computing. There's a natural upsell and limiting the cannibalization of Apple's laptop offerings.

Something that you don't see in netbooks since they run Windows and any app available to windows. Just as slooowly as a PIII.

Quote:
Well I do think that an Apple TV built on iPhone OS would rock it is not because I think people will be doing productivity apps on the device. I' don;''t currently think that is the focus of either device.

Productivity is one killer app for a console. Actually MS Office would be the killer app on a console but one that MS has not been willing to make because it would cost a lot of lowend PC (and therefore windows) sales and really piss off their partners. The 360 would have been the top console of this generation if MS Office Student was on it. Everyone cares about cannibalization.

iWork on the iPad is a clear indication that the iPad is not just for content consumption but also content creation. That and the keyboard dock.

Quote:
As in multiprocessor, I don't think so. At best an iPod might act as a controller for the Apple TV.

It depends on the amount of data that has to be transferred in comparison to the computation needs. We do this all the time in terms of deciding what processing to do locally vs sending to either the cloud or computation servers. With iMovie you can segment portions of the video to transcode and then rejoin the pieces. With iPhoto you can split the photos for face detection and other background processing.

For games, the iPod touches can do the UI and AI logic while the aTV handles graphics display and physics engine. There's a lot of ways to leverage CPU cycles from a device connected via a high bandwidth and low latency connection.

Quote:
And you would be getting very little for that money.

In comparison to what? An iPad and a Mini? The Mini is $600 vs say $300 for an aTV.

Quote:
Not at all. The reality is that Apple TV can't effectively act as a backup device for the iPad due to the limited memory on the unit.

There's no reason you can't have a 500GB drive in the aTV and then there's the TimeCapsule for additional storage.

Quote:
I don't see iPad being popular with those that need to generate massive amounts of data.

With a keyboard dock you can easily write papers with it. With Keynote you can make killer presentations. Numbers is...good enough. What more do you need as a student?
post #6 of 34

Feeding untechnical trolls is indeed last thing on my list, but this one really made my day.

Being obviously unable to explain the link between sync possibilities and A4 processor, why generate BS about that?

Ever realized "master-slave" terms might have some exact meaning (unlike cannibalizing)?

Well duh...

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #7 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

Being obviously unable to explain the link between sync possibilities and A4 processor, why generate BS about that?

The only relevance of the A4 is that it's ARM and would run the iPhone OSX vs the current aTV OSX. That allows the aTV to use all appstore apps.

Synching has nothing to do with the A4. It DOES have to do with being able to easily split computational load between the aTV and iPad. That may make time consuming tasks on iLife a bit more palatable.

Quote:
Ever realized "master-slave" terms might have some exact meaning (unlike cannibalizing)?

Both have specific meanings. The aTV solves both issues for the iPad...it provides a non-PC master solution that is easier to use than a general purpose computer AND it mitigates cannibalization of more expensive apple computers by being fairly limited in what it can do AND it keeps Apple ASPs high (if you consider both master and slave as a single unit that replaces a MB or Mini sale) with excellent margins.

The aTV is likely moving to A4 anyway and access to iPhone/iPad apps. The limitation is that it doesn't have any kind of touch interface so this hybrid approach also solves that issue while also promoting more iPod Touch and iPad sales.
post #8 of 34
A4 does not run iPhone OS so far, vinea. Simple as that.

There's no such thing as iPhone OSX.

iPhone applications can be executed by A4 mostly because they've been compiled for that machine (refer to it as "platform", if you're more comfortable with that marketing'er term) and by no means solely because of some virtual differences between OSes.

Well, you're not an author on this board and many things you write should indeed be tolerated. But there are limits, you know. Read what you write and try to not generate nonsense.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #9 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

A4 does not run iPhone OS so far, vinea. Simple as that.

There's no such thing as iPhone OSX.

Oooo...excuse me. OS X iPhone or iPhone OS are the same. Adding an X to the end of iPhone OS isn't confusing to anyone but you. Especially given that Apple simply called it OS X for a long time.

The iPhone OS does run on the A4 unless you think that the iPad is fake. Given I'm looking at the iPhone 3.2 SDK I'm thinking it's not fake.

Quote:
iPhone applications can be executed by A4 mostly because they've been compiled for that machine (refer to it as "platform", if you're more comfortable with that marketing'er term) and by no means solely because of some virtual differences between OSes.

iPhone applications can be easily targeted for the A4 because it's an ARM chip just like the SOC in the iPhone. The only difference is that it's likely a Cortex A9 vs a Cortex A8. And the iPhone OS is what the iPad will run and the aTV can easily run if it uses the same (or similar) SOC. No need to port the Intel drivers to the iPhone OS like you would have to do with the existing aTV hardware.

The would not run targeted against Mac OSX because the libraries ARE different except in the iPhone simulator. There are API differences between the two platforms.

Jeez, at least stop picking stupid nits.

Quote:
Well, you're not an author on this board and many things you write should indeed be tolerated. But there are limits, you know. Read what you write and try to not generate nonsense.

Uh...bugger off? I know you're trying to "get even" for when I poke holes in the things you write but doing it stupidly doesn't reflect badly on me at all...
post #10 of 34
vinea.
I asked you to stop generating BS, didn't I?
Oh, Goodness. iPhone simulator is not actually a simulator in the traditional sense. It does not execute ARM code as "normal" simulator would do.

So all above just proves once more that you've actually got nothing to do with iPhone development. Which is perfectly clear to anyone whom IT may concern. So it doesn't matter if you're looking at SDK 3.2 (tech bloggers used to use fake dev accounts to "review" betas; the problem is they're clueless about what they really have before their eyes). You don't understand basics to judge what actually each OS is.

Well, your recent posts here and on C# topic clearly say what you actually are. No, I'm not trying to be even (you just can't realize what you're talking about; trust me, I made rather unusual career in IT. ).

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Yes, because it would have cannibalized MB sales just like netbooks currently cannibalize laptop sales. The iPad STILL isn't a master device in this scheme...and an aTV doesn't have a touchscreen so it's not a computer replacement by itself either. The iPad would be its primary input device.

So because the Apple TV is the master device in your scenario — instead of the iPad — it would magically cannibalize Mac sales less than if the iPad were the master device?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It would be a $200-$300 difference and another device sale. Say $300 for a 500GB aTV device. That brings the total system cost to $800 for the lowest end iPad. It pulls the Apple ASPs down but not as horribly as a standalone $500 iPad...

At $700, either these two devices together can do almost all basic computing tasks, or it's an incredible waste of money. One or the other. And in the scenario I outlined, people would also stilll be spending $700-$800 on Apple products: $500+ for the iPad and $200+ for an iPod Touch (because every kid wants an iPod). The only difference is that the iPad —*with it's keyboard accessory — actually makes sense as a master computing device for basic-need home users and students. Trying to sell people an Apple TV and an iPad to control it is a stupid idea. It requires the purchase of a good HDTV to function; are you going to buy all of your children their own HDTVs to make this $700 cobbled-together ecosystem of yours work?

And generally speaking, designing interfaces for televisions is a completely different ballgame compared to designing interfaces for anything else. And most default television settings make using them as a computer monitor a terrible experience; it has to be calibrated beyond most people's knowledge before anything even becomes legible (turning sharpness all the way down, disabled all of the picture "enhancements", etc).

So $300 for an Apple TV, $500 for an iPad to control it, and at least $700 for decent HDTV to display it all; explain to me why I wouldn't just spend $999 on an MacBook that runs real applications instead of iPhone versions? If a device is going to do less, it has to cost less. A lot less.
post #12 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

So because the Apple TV is the master device in your scenario — instead of the iPad — it would magically cannibalize Mac sales less than if the iPad were the master device?

The answer is yes, cannibalization would still occur but at the $700-800+ price point.

Cannibalization is an important issue for Apple if drags the ASPs down too far. Even with the same margins if your ASP drops to $500 vs $1000 you make half as much money so you need to double sales just to break even. This is the key part of the whole xMac vs iMac equation folks want to ignore when they want a $700 Core i7 Tower. Even if the margins remain at 30% Apple makes far less money if they move their ASPs from $1299 to $700. This is why the mini is deliberately gimped in comparison to the iMac.

Quote:
At $700, either these two devices together can do almost all basic computing tasks, or it's an incredible waste of money. One or the other.

No, it can be both. For some folks it will be an incredible waste of money. For others it can almost do all basic computing tasks. For Apple the sale is $700+ vs $699 for a mini.

Quote:
And in the scenario I outlined, people would also stilll be spending $700-$800 on Apple products: $500+ for the iPad and $200+ for an iPod Touch (because every kid wants an iPod).

Except your scenario replace a $999 MB or $699 Mini sale with a $500+ iPad sale. In this scenario it is replaced with an $800+ aTV/iPad sale in addition to the iPod Touch. So the total won't be $800+ but $1000+ if you include the iPod Touch.

Quote:
The only difference is that the iPad —*with it's keyboard accessory — actually makes sense as a master computing device for basic-need home users and students.

Sure. And an xMac makes sense too except from the standpoint of what it would do to Apple profits. This is why the iPad ISN'T a netbook or a master device even if it could easily be (at least with mode SSD space)

Quote:
Trying to sell people an Apple TV and an iPad to control it is a stupid idea. It requires the purchase of a good HDTV to function; are you going to buy all of your children their own HDTVs to make this $700 cobbled-together ecosystem of yours work?

Folks already own a HDTV. The aTV replaces a Wii. The ability to sync with an iPad is simply an additional feature that the Wii or PS3 or 360 can't have.

Quote:
And generally speaking, designing interfaces for televisions is a completely different ballgame compared to designing interfaces for anything else. And most default television settings make using them as a computer monitor a terrible experience; it has to be calibrated beyond most people's knowledge before anything even becomes legible (turning sharpness all the way down, disabled all of the picture "enhancements", etc).

Or turning it to Game Mode which a lot of HDTVs have today. I use my 37" LG 1080p HDTV as a monitor in Game Mode with no lag, ghosting, etc.

Quote:
So $300 for an Apple TV, $500 for an iPad to control it, and at least $700 for decent HDTV to display it all; explain to me why I wouldn't just spend $999 on an MacBook that runs real applications instead of iPhone versions? If a device is going to do less, it has to cost less. A lot less.

Because the MacBook isn't a game console that can play media from iTunes and sync your iPad? The aTV does cost less...it's only $300 in this scenario.

The iPad/aTV combo is also less at $800 because it replaces a $200 game console/media extender and a $999 MB.

The combo does less from a computational standpoint (2 A4s will be less than a Core i5). Not from a lifestyle standpoint. In that case it does a different set of things: console games, media management (which the MB can also do) and HDTV display (which the MB can do but is annoying to do).

It also acts as a baby home server...up to 500GB worth of disk space anyway. Unlike the MB, it's expected to not move.
post #13 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

vinea.
I asked you to stop generating BS, didn't I?
Oh, Goodness. iPhone simulator is not actually a simulator in the traditional sense. It does not execute ARM code as "normal" simulator would do.

I didn't say that did I? I simply said that the API libraries do not run on the Mac except within the simulator. The point wasn't how the simulator works but that Mac's OSX and the iPhone's OSX are different in significant areas.

Something you seem to disagree with.

Quote:
So all above just proves once more that you've actually got nothing to do with iPhone development. Which is perfectly clear to anyone whom IT may concern. So it doesn't matter if you're looking at SDK 3.2 (tech bloggers used to use fake dev accounts to "review" betas; the problem is they're clueless about what they really have before their eyes). You don't understand basics to judge what actually each OS is.

I'm looking at the 3.2 SDK for my first appstore app...I don't believe I've claimed to have an app on the store yet.

Quote:
Well, your recent posts here and on C# topic clearly say what you actually are.

Yah...a former C#/C++ user interface dev that mostly does Java now and is doing a little ObjC at home. I certainly don't hide that or claim expertise I don't have.

Quote:
No, I'm not trying to be even (you just can't realize what you're talking about; trust me, I made rather unusual career in IT. ).

Thus far you haven't made a whole lot of sense. I write it off as your first language isn't English and that you're french but it's rather odd. Perhaps that's why you don't understand what I actually write and what you think you read.
post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Except your scenario replace a $999 MB or $699 Mini sale with a $500+ iPad sale. In this scenario it is replaced with an $800+ aTV/iPad sale in addition to the iPod Touch. So the total won't be $800+ but $1000+ if you include the iPod Touch.

In either of our scenarios, Apple would be selling a severely-crippled computing device, compared to a $999 MacBook. The difference is the iPad can already do 90% of what would be needed in a master device, and it costs half what a "real" computer costs —*a fair price for such a crippled device. In your scenario, the buyer only saves $200 over the price of a Macbook and has to spend hundreds yet for an HDTV. I don't care what you say, no family would let their television also be the monitor for their kids' computer. They'd tear eachother apart. And few families own multiple HDTVs.

Not to mention, the Apple TV isn't even remotely close to being able to function as a master basic-computing device, meaning Apple would have to spend years rethinking software design from the ground up in the same way they did with the iPad. And for what? So people can spend hundreds more than a Mac Mini for a collection of devices that can do far less? It begs the question...why not just buy a Mac Mini? $800 (without monitor) for a set of devices that does half of what a $600 (without monitor) computer can do...makes zero sense. And that may be the only reason your solution wouldn't cannibalize Mac sales as much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Sure. And an xMac makes sense too except from the standpoint of what it would do to Apple profits. This is why the iPad ISN'T a netbook or a master device even if it could easily be (at least with mode SSD space)

Making the iPad a master device is not the same as selling an expandable Mac tower for $700. The iPad is a very limited device compared to a Mac Mini or Macbook, and does not negate the existence of more expensive products in the same way a $700 expandable Mac tower does. I'm not suggesting Apple sell $2,500 of hardware for $700. I'm suggesting the iPad should function as an independent device considering it costs $200 more than a Netbook. The people who would spend $500 on an iPad as their sole computer are the kind of people who were never going to spend $999 on a laptop, meaning Apple would be reaching an audience they otherwise have no product offerings for. If Apple won't make the iPad an independent device, then the market I'm talking about are still going to buy $300 Netbooks because it's in their price range and doesn't require also purchasing a $999 master device.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Folks already own a HDTV. The aTV replaces a Wii. The ability to sync with an iPad is simply an additional feature that the Wii or PS3 or 360 can't have.

The iPad/aTV combo is also less at $800 because it replaces a $200 game console/media extender and a $999 MB.

The iPhone game library is a joke compared to a dedicated game console; An Apple TV that can run iPhone games in no way replaces even the Wii, whom in of itself is a half-ass game console.
post #15 of 34
I think the concept of using an external headless device is good for a number of reasons. I'd like to see the iPad as a device that can exist without the ownership of a traditional computer and a cheap, headless device with lots of storage can work.

The content would still be managed on devices like the iphone and iPad but the data all syncs bidirectionally, which gives them master-status.

For example, you buy an iPad, an iphone and a 500GB ATV or Time Capsule even. You start buying tracks on the iPad and rename, group, rate them. Then sync with the headless device and the headless device updates the content.

Then you sync the iphone with it wirelessly and it gets the new content. The iPad can control what content goes onto the iphone out of the content stored on the large storage device.

Productivity apps like imovie won't work well on the iPad as a single DV film is 20GB. I personally feel the iPad should have been a single 64GB model at $599 and charge more on the 3G data to subsidize it. Still, movie imports and encodes would be too slow and an external headless device would still be too slow.

The A4 is about 1/10th the speed of a Core 2 Duo so way too slow for this stuff.

The core set of tasks I think most people need is the following:

Be able to use any website and that includes uploading images and saving documents (PDFs, webpages - not bookmarks).
Be able to import photos, correct them, sort them, share them and back them up.
Be able to create and open text documents in formats that can be easily shared.
Have a common storage to allow apps to share files - it doesn't have to be a full Finder-type app, just a content browser like the ipod app on the iphone where it has movies, audiobooks, music etc.
Have built-in security to protect personal content - adults look at adult images, there's nothing wrong with it but there needs to be a way to hide it from family members who might happen to use the device too.
Be able to delete, rename sort all content on the device from the device itself - simply use file tags and bidirectionally sync it all to the most recent versions.
Allow the use of external devices. If I need to import a CD or watch a DVD, there needs to be accessories and software to support it. Also import content directly to/from a hard drive (single window Finder view split down the middle).
Movie editing can work if it's short clips from an iphone or something but more powerful editing apps would be needed.
It needs to multitask to some degree - given that one app is only visible at a time, it can throttle background apps way down but maintain their state. For background music apps, the CPU limit would be maybe 5-10%.

Those aren't unrealistic expectations and they allow a significant number of people to only ever need an iPad.

It's not a million miles away from what we've seen of the iPad so it can progress to this point but there's currently a big dividing line between that point and where it is now that needs to be crossed. It will cross that line eventually when 2-3 years down the line mobile hardware comes close to today's laptop hardware.
post #16 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

In either of our scenarios, Apple would be selling a severely-crippled computing device, compared to a $999 MacBook. The difference is the iPad can already do 90% of what would be needed in a master device, and it costs half what a "real" computer costs *a fair price for such a crippled device.

That's a weird position. If it can do 90% of the job why is it "crippled" and why is 50% a fair price?

Quote:
In your scenario, the buyer only saves $200 over the price of a Macbook and has to spend hundreds yet for an HDTV. I don't care what you say, no family would let their television also be the monitor for their kids' computer. They'd tear eachother apart. And few families own multiple HDTVs.

And yet they already allow their kids to play games and watch movies on the HDTV. This is no different. The aTV is really only needed for synching/storage and game playing anyway.

Quote:
Not to mention, the Apple TV isn't even remotely close to being able to function as a master basic-computing device, meaning Apple would have to spend years rethinking software design from the ground up in the same way they did with the iPad.

All it REALLY needs to do is run iTunes and be able to sync the iPad to new apps, firmware, etc. The rest of the functionality can come.

Quote:
And for what? So people can spend hundreds more than a Mac Mini for a collection of devices that can do far less? It begs the question...why not just buy a Mac Mini? $800 (without monitor) for a set of devices that does half of what a $600 (without monitor) computer can do...makes zero sense.

If you already have and want a PC then you don't need to use an aTV as the master. If you don't want a PC then the aTV provides just the basic syncing and storage capability for $300.

If you think the iPad makes zero sense in this scenario you likely think the iPad (as a slave device) makes zero sense in any scenario...so really your opinion about this specific scenario doesn't make that much difference does it? Every slave device scenario in your mind is failure.

Quote:
And that may be the only reason your solution wouldn't cannibalize Mac sales as much.

Sure. It certainly isn't very good from a bang for the buck standpoint. Very few Apple solutions are when you don't consider the value of ease of use.

Quote:
Making the iPad a master device is not the same as selling an expandable Mac tower for $700. The iPad is a very limited device compared to a Mac Mini or Macbook, and does not negate the existence of more expensive products in the same way a $700 expandable Mac tower does.

The netbook has been shown to have cannibalized notebook sales. Moving the iPad closer to being a high end netbook like the Lenovo S10-3T tablet is something Apple could easily have done and deliberately not done so.

Quote:
I'm not suggesting Apple sell $2,500 of hardware for $700. I'm suggesting the iPad should function as an independent device considering it costs $200 more than a Netbook.

It costs about the same as a premium netbook. For example the Lenovo S10-3T is $519.

It costs $500 less than a MB...a trade that Apple wants to stay far away from.

Quote:
The people who would spend $500 on an iPad as their sole computer are the kind of people who were never going to spend $999 on a laptop, meaning Apple would be reaching an audience they otherwise have no product offerings for.

That's not completely true. Folks may pay as little as possible to meet their desires and if that is $999 that's what they'll pay. If they can get a 90% solution for 50% of the cost then that's a likely outcome for them. Since the iPad requires a master device that's less of a possibility.

Quote:
If Apple won't make the iPad an independent device, then the market I'm talking about are still going to buy $300 Netbooks because it's in their price range and doesn't require also purchasing a $999 master device.

That really isn't a problem Apple cares about. Sales they don't want to lose are those for high end netbooks that are secondary devices anyway. The aTV idea is more of a lifestyle than a cost issue given, as you pointed out, it isn't all that cheaper than just getting a Mini.

Quote:
The iPhone game library is a joke compared to a dedicated game console; An Apple TV that can run iPhone games in no way replaces even the Wii, whom in of itself is a half-ass game console.

Amusingly that half assed game console is the winner for this generation. And Apple wont compete with game studios in the same way that Nintendo competes with game studios with their own franchises.

That makes an aTV console compelling as a gaming platform IF there's enough sales. Something that is possible if you leverage the app store and iPhones/iPod/iPads ecosystem.
post #17 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I think the concept of using an external headless device is good for a number of reasons. I'd like to see the iPad as a device that can exist without the ownership of a traditional computer and a cheap, headless device with lots of storage can work.

I agree. That would sure make my life easier not to have to do tech support for relatives.

Quote:
The content would still be managed on devices like the iphone and iPad but the data all syncs bidirectionally, which gives them master-status.

The biggest issue is storage. Even 64GB is small if you have a decent library of video so an aTV/TimeCapsule kind of device is required to complement the iPad if you don't use a real computer.

Quote:
For example, you buy an iPad, an iphone and a 500GB ATV or Time Capsule even. You start buying tracks on the iPad and rename, group, rate them. Then sync with the headless device and the headless device updates the content.

Headless is fine. I think that the aTV would be more compelling with gaming synergy with the iPad and iPod Touches.

Quote:
Productivity apps like imovie won't work well on the iPad as a single DV film is 20GB.

Still, movie imports and encodes would be too slow and an external headless device would still be too slow.

...

The A4 is about 1/10th the speed of a Core 2 Duo so way too slow for this stuff.

Some stuff will take a long time...but once you get it into AIC format it might not be too bad until you want to export. It may be a process where you leave the SDHC plugged into the aTV while it chews away all night converting it to AIC. The aTV should have enough disk space for this sort of thing.
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

That's a weird position. If it can do 90% of the job why is it "crippled" and why is 50% a fair price?

As I said, it can do 90% of what 90% of consumers do with their home computers. But it still only does 10% of what a computer can do. In any scenario where a professional level of productivity is required, the iPad won't cut it, largely due to the inability to run "real" software and a lack of modern-day computing horsepower. When a MacBook costs $999, anything more than half that price for a "toy" computer would be asking too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

And yet they already allow their kids to play games and watch movies on the HDTV. This is no different. The aTV is really only needed for synching/storage and game playing anyway.

Try to imagine your kids wanting you to stop watching tv so that they can check their facebook account for the 453th time today. How are they going to type a paper for English class when your tv is their "computer" monitor?


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

If you think the iPad makes zero sense in this scenario you likely think the iPad (as a slave device) makes zero sense in any scenario...so really your opinion about this specific scenario doesn't make that much difference does it? Every slave device scenario in your mind is failure.

The iPad is wonderful as a big expensive toy for those of us with disposable income. But as a supposed netbook killer, it's missing it's market by being a slave device. Apple falsely assumes that netooks are dominantly rich people's second computer for when they can't be bothered to carry around their real computer. I believe a ton of netbook sales belong to people who are unable or simply have no desire to spend a grand on a computer when a $299 device meets their basic computing needs. And again, this is a market who will never buy an Apple computer because Apple offers nothing in their price range; if the iPad had been a non-slave device it could have been a true netbook killer. And it wouldn't cannibalize Mac sales because, like I said, it's only capable of 10% of what a real computer can do. It's like a starter Mac, in a way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

The netbook has been shown to have cannibalized notebook sales. Moving the iPad closer to being a high end netbook like the Lenovo S10-3T tablet is something Apple could easily have done and deliberately not done so.

But a real netbook's only shortcoming is horsepower; sure the screen and keyboard are small but you can run an external monitor, keyboard and mouse and voila you have a full but slow computer. The iPad is not a stripped-down Macbook sold at half the price. It can't run Mac OS X software. It can't even run two things at once. It wouldn't cannibalize MacBook sales the way netbooks cannablize PC laptop sales. Not to mention Apple's laptop offerings are far more attractive than any PC makers.
post #19 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

As I said, it can do 90% of what 90% of consumers do with their home computers. But it still only does 10% of what a computer can do. In any scenario where a professional level of productivity is required, the iPad won't cut it, largely due to the inability to run "real" software and a lack of modern-day computing horsepower. When a MacBook costs $999, anything more than half that price for a "toy" computer would be asking too much.

So your position is that the majority of Macbook owners are not normal consumers but pros?

I would argue that most macbook owners are not pros and that 90% of their mobile computing needs would be met by an iPad.

Frankly, my impression is you don't like the iPad so you're really just arguing a moot point. No scenario would satisfy you except the one Apple doesn't seem inclined to allow.

Quote:
Try to imagine your kids wanting you to stop watching tv so that they can check their facebook account for the 453th time today. How are they going to type a paper for English class when your tv is their "computer" monitor?

The iPad still has a 1024x768 display and can have a keyboard dock.

The aTV is only needed for synching and big screen gaming. Synching wouldn't require I stop watching TV either.

Quote:
The iPad is wonderful as a big expensive toy for those of us with disposable income. But as a supposed netbook killer, it's missing it's market by being a slave device.

It's not meant to be a cheap notebook killer...which is what you're asking for.

It's meant to be a competitive alternative to a netbook purchased as a secondary device.

Quote:
Apple falsely assumes that netooks are dominantly rich people's second computer for when they can't be bothered to carry around their real computer. I believe a ton of netbook sales belong to people who are unable or simply have no desire to spend a grand on a computer when a $299 device meets their basic computing needs.

There's no false assumption. They simply choose not to pursue that market.

Quote:
And again, this is a market who will never buy an Apple computer because Apple offers nothing in their price range; if the iPad had been a non-slave device it could have been a true netbook killer. And it wouldn't cannibalize Mac sales because, like I said, it's only capable of 10% of what a real computer can do. It's like a starter Mac, in a way.

Except that people aren't stupid. Even people with money aren't stupid. A 90% solution for 50% will deeply cannibalize the 100% solution even among those that can afford the 100% solution.

Why pay double for a device that has features you don't really need when the cheaper device is more portable, does 90% of what you need and is uber cool?

The iPad can do more than 10% of what a computer can do as evidenced your own assertion that it can meet 90% of the use cases of the average computer user. If it can meet 90% of the needs of 90% of people it sure isn't a 10% solution or a "toy".

And Apple doesn't want a $500 starter mac or the Mini would be $499 as well as opposed to $599.

Quote:
The iPad is not a stripped-down Macbook sold at half the price. It can't run Mac OS X software. It can't even run two things at once. It wouldn't cannibalize MacBook sales the way netbooks cannablize PC laptop sales.

Apple is making doubly sure by requiring a master device even if it is a PC. Heck, the master could even be a netbook...

In any case, 16GB is too small to be a master device anyway. This is why an aTV with 500GB would be a better master device for the iPod/iPhone/iPad family of slave devices for folks that don't want the hassle of having a real PC.

The objective isn't really to save money but to reduce the hassles of computer ownership to a minimum. The Mini is cheaper than the aTV/iPad combo and the Mini/iPad combo only a few hundred more.
post #20 of 34
Master device - or complementary device?

My sole criticism of the iPad is that is not truly stand-alone. You need to sync it with a Mac for a number of reasons.

This is not surprising, because Apple has for years argued that the Mac is a sort of digital hub. The glue between a network of digital devices. Cameras, ATV, music-players and so-on, all exchange data via the iMac.

But I am starting to think that's a bit old fashioned. If I wanted to give my parents an iPad. Why should I need to buy them a Mac also?

So can we remove the Mac from the equation?

If we imagine a Mac-less household - with this cluster of devices, they need a fast wireless network for all syncing, they'd need the support of cloud services, and it would be good to have some always-on, bulk-storage for personal media.

When I tried to imagine what the simplest device to fulfil this role would be. I thought of something like Time Capsule. A wireless mini-server, with a collection of services which are accessed through remote interfaces.

But I could see the AppleTV evolving into this role too.

C.
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

But I am starting to think that's a bit old fashioned. If I wanted to give my parents an iPad. Why should I need to buy them a Mac also?

This guy gets it
post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

So your position is that the majority of Macbook owners are not normal consumers but pros?

I would argue that most macbook owners are not pros and that 90% of their mobile computing needs would be met by an iPad.

No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web. I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Frankly, my impression is you don't like the iPad so you're really just arguing a moot point. No scenario would satisfy you except the one Apple doesn't seem inclined to allow.

No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

It's not meant to be a cheap notebook killer...which is what you're asking for.

It's meant to be a competitive alternative to a netbook purchased as a secondary device.

I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.


Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Except that people aren't stupid. Even people with money aren't stupid. A 90% solution for 50% will deeply cannibalize the 100% solution even among those that can afford the 100% solution.

Why pay double for a device that has features you don't really need when the cheaper device is more portable, does 90% of what you need and is uber cool?

The iPad can do more than 10% of what a computer can do as evidenced your own assertion that it can meet 90% of the use cases of the average computer user. If it can meet 90% of the needs of 90% of people it sure isn't a 10% solution or a "toy".

And Apple doesn't want a $500 starter mac or the Mini would be $499 as well as opposed to $599.

Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.

If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited. And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.

Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

In any case, 16GB is too small to be a master device anyway. This is why an aTV with 500GB would be a better master device for the iPod/iPhone/iPad family of slave devices for folks that don't want the hassle of having a real PC.

So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.
post #23 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

This guy gets it

Nice cherry picking. Even if the iPad was made a master device in software the hardware is too limited to be so. Thus a TC or aTV like mini-server would be desired.

If you have a TC or aTV master then the iPad doesn't need to be a master device.
post #24 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

No, I'm not saying that they're pros, but I do think they do more than check their facebook accounts and surf the web.

Which is a good thing that the iPad does more than facebook and web surfing.

Quote:
I think most MacBook owners run at least one program that couldn't run on the iPad, and depend heavily on multitasking. Most importantly, they're obviously accepting of spending at least a grand on a computer. Few of them would be willing to step back to an iPad, except for the ones who really do just check their facebook and watch youtube videos.

Name some programs that isn't a pro app that couldn't be on the iPad. The only common one is possibly iMovie due to processing time.

Multitasking is useful but "depend heavily"? Again, you'll have to provide a common example beyond the usual "I wanna run Pandora in the background". Cutting and pasting from Safari into iWork is a possible common use case but likely one that will be worked around by Apple even without generic multitasking.

Quote:
No, I really like the iPad, and I intend to get one. I just think they're missing a huge new (to Apple, at least) market by limiting the device as an expensive, functionally redundant accessory for people with $500+ burning a hole in their pocket.

This is not a market they are interested in if it costs them any of their current market. They have taken significant steps to make sure cannibalization does not occur as it has for HP, Dell, etc and their netbooks.

Quote:
I think that's probably a small, small market. The real netbook market are people too cheap to spend a grand on a laptop, and again they were never going to get an Apple because there's no MacBook even close to their $300 price range.

Again, Apple isn't interested in this market or they'd have released a netbook.

Quote:
Most car companies offer an entry-level model close to the $10k mark; it can do everything a car needs to — it can get you from point A to point B reliably and safely, and yet amazingly people still buy more expensive cars. Cars easily two, three, even four times more than that. Hell, the entry-level model isn't even any car manufaturers' number one seller.

Not Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, etc. Apple does not have a budget brand. Even then, the Mini brand has a $16K car at the bottom end and not a $10K one.

Quote:
If they've got the money, people will spend more for more, whether they need it or not. If the entry level model seems limited or restricted in some way, they'll pay more to overcome those issues. And the iPad, with it's iPhone-based operating system, is indeed very limited.

Not if it is a 90% solution for 90% of the users.

Quote:
And if people have the money to opt for a $999 MacBook they will. The point of having a crippled base model, besides to drive sales to more expensive models, is to be able to make a sale to those people who don't have a grand to drop on a "real" computer.

A sale they don't care about and leave to HP and Dell.

Quote:
Making the iPad a slave device to a Mac that costs twice the price is like making the Toyota Yaris require ownership of a Toyota Prius, for fear that otherwise the Yaris would cannibalize Prius sales. That's just stupid.

Every analogy fails at some point and yours does here. The iPad is a different kind of computing experience and not just a cheaper mac.

Quote:
So make the iPad work with Time Capsule and sell them one of those; they need a wireless router (and should have a backup solution) anyway.

A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.
post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

This guy gets it

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Nice cherry picking.

First thing I thought…!

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

A TC can be that mini server device that is the master but the aTV is a more compelling device because it can have a large screen for presentations and games. Plus it's always been much more a computing device than the TC and already can serve as its own master without a PC device. It is much simpler to use than a Mini and a dual core A4 can likely outperform the Pentium M it has.

I think the best answer is for BOTH the Time Capsule & the TV…

Time Capsule handles WiFi & backup of TV/user accounts; TV handles syncing, with a larger HDD is a mass storage device, and is a larger portal for media & games…

Now, getting a front facing camera on the iPad and setting up iChat to allow for an in house video intercom, that is the next step…
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I was thinking about iPad being only a slave device and how to mitigate that within the Apple ecosystem without (excessive) cannibalization of MB and iMac sales.

I came back to thinking about this the other day.

The iPad (and the iPod and the AppleTV) all need a computer to act as the local syncing hub.

The need for this arose for logical reasons - but the need for a gigantic lump of office machinery in the house holds these devices back.

If you want to own a dishwasher, you shouldn't really need to own a generator to run it.
If I want to give an iPad to my parents, why should they need another computer as well?

We talked about AppleTV - or the Airport as being a local hub for the iPad etc.

But what if the "hub" was simply a cloud-based service? What if it was MobileMe?

You subscribe to MobileMe - and get the ability to buy and store music, rent movies, keep your photos and files, run your email server. And so on. The hub is not in your house, it's in the cloud. 100% of the the syncing is done over Wifi. No need for a physical hub at all.

Of course - to pull this off - Apple would need a very big data center.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA

C.
post #27 of 34
I suggested before that Apple should update the Apple TV with the iPad's guts. Suddenly the Apple TV will be 1000x more desirable thanks to access to thousands of Apps.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #28 of 34
With Google developing a set-top box, I think the idea of the TV becoming the Master to the iPads Slave is an even stronger one…

With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web…
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #29 of 34
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

With Google developing a set-top box, I think the idea of the TV becoming the Master to the iPads Slave is an even stronger one

With a combination of the two (TV & iPad) you can do everything the Google set-top box would do, AND have the added benefit of using the iPad to control the entertainment & surf the web

My predictions are:

aTV to A4 platform in 2010: moderately likely
aTV to A4 platform in 2011: likely.
aTV as game platform in 2010: moderately unlikely
aTV as game platform in 2011: moderately likely

aTV as iPad master: unlikely but possible
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

My predictions are:

aTV to A4 platform in 2010: moderately likely
aTV to A4 platform in 2011: likely.
aTV as game platform in 2010: moderately unlikely
aTV as game platform in 2011: moderately likely

aTV as iPad master: unlikely but possible

I am coming to the conclusion that the Master/Slave model is not where this is headed.

Users will retain the option of having a local hub machine to sync with.
But that is not a mass-market solution.

A cloud-based solution would mean that the AppleTV, the iPad and even iPods could be truly stand-alone devices.

C.
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

...Ever realized "master-slave" terms might have some exact meaning ...?

Yes, and she kneels there so nicely next to me. Oh.... Sorry wrong forum.
post #32 of 34
An interesting debate.

aTV. A matter of time before it gets an update that takes it to the next level. eg HD, gaming device. I guess it could be a genuine media hub. A game console. A movie device. A 'blue ray' player. See other thread for that debate, I guess. Apple's behind downloads for now.

But isn't that what the Mac is for? And aTV streams plays media from the server Mac? Guess it doesn't have to be the Mac. Guess it could be the aTV. Media is on the net. aTV just needs a big enough hard drive to download and store that content. If the iPad gets so powerful over the next few years...you may question why you may even need an aTV...as you could theoretically miss it out the equation. But the iPad could be the control device for the aTV (a nice 'dumb' Mac for the consumer...which does media storage and playing ok...) so the iPad has a 'heavy' lifting partner...when you want to view something bigger than 10 inches eg on a 50 inch hi-def screen. So with a bit of a hardware bump, the aTV is still relevant and set to be ahead of the aTV for a few years yet. Another thought is that the iPad could 'dock' on a Mac Mini or even the aTV. So the aTV becomes a genuine remote for it's 'big brother' who does the 'heavy' lifting.

Time Machine as the back up device.

iPad as the control device.

Sync with your iPhone of course.

4 ducks in a row. All very consumer friendly...and stepping away from what we think of as 'traditional' computers.

I guess it's all speculation until Apple 'does it.'

But you can kinda see where it's all going. I still think the iPad is Star Trek technology. It's nothing short of amazing.

Can't wait until proper hi-def downloads/internet and content creation etc all get finally aligned.

It's like waiting for the planets to become aligned. It's tantalisingly close.

I wonder what this debate will be like in 5 years time.

Will many of this thread and the blue ray thread vs downloads be a mute point?

The iPad in 5 years time...*drools. We may even have an 'iMac Maxi-Pad' in that time. Think of a 15 inch Maxi Pad docked. Wonder if that's what the iMac will become? Hmm. ALl that stroking...and touching...and drooling...reaches for a box of Kleenex.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #33 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I am coming to the conclusion that the Master/Slave model is not where this is headed.

Users will retain the option of having a local hub machine to sync with.
But that is not a mass-market solution.

A cloud-based solution would mean that the AppleTV, the iPad and even iPods could be truly stand-alone devices.

C.

You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelsalt View Post

You may be on to something ... cloud-based ATV could with a subscription fee to unlimited movies would make it extremely attractive to me. Cloud-based gaming could follow.

In many ways, the AppleTV almost *is* stand alone. You can buy and rent movies and music without having to go near a desktop/laptop computer. You can even update the Apple TV OS - over the air.

The only restriction is that you can't do is have a media library that is larger than the disk space of the device. That's 32Gs on the smaller ATV.

If your iTunes library lived in the cloud (and not on your Mac) that problem would go away. If you want to watch a movie, it would not matter if it was cached locally or not. You'd just do an on-demand re-download of your content. To any of your networked devices.

With a system like this - the wifi enabled AppleTV, iPod, and iPad could be much more autonomous. You really could give an iPad to your parents, without having to give them another computer to go with it.

C.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The aTV + iPad ecosystem