The aTV + iPad ecosystem

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.

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.

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.

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

And you would be getting very little for that money.

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.

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

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...

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.

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. ).

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?


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.

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.


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.



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.

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.

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.


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 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.



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.

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.

This guy gets it

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.


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.


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.



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.


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.

First thing I thought…!


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…

Two months ago I joined Netflix to use with my PS3. I was so impressed that I bought a Roku device to use on another TV in a different room. For $8.99 a month I can watch unlimited movies and TV shows. I just don't see why anyone would prefer an Apple TV when you can get a far better selection of content for so much cheaper with a Netflix device. Not to mention the fact that I can also play blu ray and play games as well on my PS3. And thanks to Medialink, I have full access to all the content on my Mac Pro including music, videos, and even photos.

Apple really needs to either offer a similar deal to Netflix or partner with them to make it a Netflix enabled device. (Unlikely) Most people do not want to buy a TV show or movie, they just want to watch it once and delete it. A cheap rental model makes far more sense. I can watch unlimited movies AND TV shows for example in one month for less money than buying 5 episodes of the office. Apple TV just does not make any sense to me.

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.

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.

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…

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.

Yes, and she kneels there so nicely next to me. Oh.... Sorry wrong forum.

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 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.