or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4 - Page 7

post #241 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

nothing really new there except a spec bump to 1080p. and btw, there will undoubtedly be an ethernet port too.


Isn't Apple wholeheartedly supporting wireless n? Isn't that a "good enough" equivalent to ethernet?

And on a different subject: What are your views on a TosLink or other S/PDIF port?

Having just HDMI assumes the user has either a central audio/video switching receiver with HDMI, or that their TV has an HDMI or other digital audio output to feed the big sound system.

I don't know if either of these assumptions applies to a large enough demographic (but very likely, Apple knows better than I do). I also wonder if Joe VHS will be able to even set it up in a way that it works to give the best UX. Likely many will just be plugged into the TV via HDMI, to be enjoyed with TV speakers instead of 5.1 channel sound.

This home theater setup stuff is complicated with many old formats still in use - heck, Apple provides a VGA adaptor for the brand new iPad! I wonder how many people use Component with TOSLINK/S/PDIF instead of HDMI.
post #242 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by meleary View Post

If this is running on iPhone OS, would it be possible they could enable a browser on this bad boy?


Yes. But I don't know if Apple wants to jump in with both feet like that.

ISTM that an iPhone OS browser implies a touch-based browser, with a touch based remote. Like an iPad. And if you need to stare at the iPad to use the system, why look up at the big screen?

Unless you are using the big screen to show things to third parties, which would be a less-used and less-useful capability than what you are thinking about. So I don't see the advantage of a non-keyboard/mouse TV web browsing experience.

I see a huge advantage to having a nice keyboard and trackpad with WI-FI or IR or BlueTooth hookup up to a mini-computer and web browser built into your TV or cable box, however. Even better would be software allowing any network-connected computer to control it from anywhere. You could grab your netbook (or your keyboard/trackpad/remote control/clicker) and use it to watch net video. If the software were good, it would be seamless, as would streaming or otherwise accessing any kind of content (including spreadsheets and Word .docs and anything else) from your NAS.
post #243 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

Agree with all, plus one more - as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.


If you are staring at your iPad controller, where does the big screen come into the picture? Can you use a Touch OS without looking at the spot you intend to touch?
post #244 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

- It *is* already a "sales success" for Apple (they wouldn't keep carrying it if it wasn't).
- It already "sells well."


But isn't "hobby" a euphemism for "losing money"?

Think of Steve's rich friend's wive's who own a boutique or a restaurant. They lose money. They are hobbies.
post #245 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

But isn't "hobby" a euphemism for "losing money"?

Think of Steve's rich friend's wive's who own a boutique or a restaurant. They lose money. They are hobbies.

So they've kept the same exact HW for over 3 years yet you imply that the TV is losing money. Perhaps you should back up your claims with some proof for once. Or how about consider that it makes a profit, just not hundreds of millions to billions in revenue that Apple's proper product categories. What a crazy concept.

At the very least, it was called a "hobby" from the start, not at some distant future after the sales failed to pick up. It might behoove you to actually analyze the TV history and see that the entire idea was hobbled* before it ever went on sale because Apple failed to get the content vendors it clearly planned to securing with the very unusual iTV Preview the year earlier.


* Hobbled and hobby do not use the same root word.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #246 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?

Yes. An IP theft lawsiut would be a possibility.

And it would be a significant breach of the fiduciary duty he had WRT Apple, as well. As you mention, using the company's business opportunities as your own is a breach.

These interlocking directorates in big companies make for complicated situations.
post #247 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So they've kept the same exact HW for over 3 years yet you imply that the TV is losing money. Perhaps you should back up your claims with some proof for once. Or how about consider that it makes a profit, just not hundreds of millions to billions in revenue that Apple's proper product categories. What a crazy concept.

At the very least, it was called a "hobby" from the start, not at some distant future after the sales failed to pick up. It might behoove you to actually analyze the TV history and see that the entire idea was hobbled* before it ever went on sale because Apple failed to get the content vendors it clearly planned to securing with the very unusual iTV Preview the year earlier.


* Hobbled and hobby do not use the same root word.

That's completely revisionist. They released the machine they wanted to release using the same model they assumed made the iPod success. The public just wasn't interested, Its a called a hobby because the Apple and the consumer do not see eye to eye on the issue and Apple can't admit to having an unsuccessful product.
post #248 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

That's completely revisionist. They released the machine they wanted to release using the same model they assumed made the iPod success. The public just wasn't interested, Its a called a hobby because the Apple and the consumer do not see eye to eye on the issue and Apple can't admit to having an unsuccessful product.

What history have I revised? Do you not recall the completely unorthodox and bizarre move on Apple's part to "preview" the iTV the year before they did the proper demo, had a release date or a proper name? I can't recall Apple ever doing anything like that.

The entire concept of business is offering goods and services that people want but you are claiming that Apple choose from the start to make the TV unappealing to consumers. That makes absolutely no sense.

I think it should be clear to anyone who has 2 minutes to look at the history that Apple's odd maneuvering for this device was a blatant attempt to secure content vendors, which it failed to do until well after the device was outdated. After that, there were concerns on the way the market would go, but all that seems pretty clear now and in that time of Apple jumping the gun and failing due to the movie studios not coming on board others have added media extender services to their devices making them well connected devices bringing the internet to your TV.

The 'failure' was with the movie studios playing hardball with Apple and winning, not with the device concept itself. I bet you can't find prove that the device has lost money or that another stand alone media extender appliance has sold more units.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #249 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I said the product had no marginal cost. The fixed capital costs were not mentioned. The profit sharing arrangements were not mentioned.

If you think I said "that is all pure profit for apple" then you misunderstood the meaning of "product with no marginal cost".

That depends on three things: (i) what is the proportion of fixed to variable costs; (ii) how much of the revenue (i.e., pricing) goes towards amortizing fixed costs; (iii) at what scale the 'fixed' cost becomes quasi-variable (e.g., when you have invest in new capital equipment).

Without knowing that you can say nothing about how profitable it is for Apple and whether it beats its cost of capital.

Btw: is 'profit sharing' on every sale fixed or variable (i.e., marginal)? The answer should be obvious.
post #250 of 258
Inspired by Google.

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply

HP Omni 100-5100z, 500GB HDD, 4GB RAM; ASUS Transformer, 16GB, Android 4.0 ICS
Although I no longer own Apple products like I did before, I'll continue to post my opinions.

Reply
post #251 of 258
I've always felt the lower sales of the Apple TV are a result of Apple treating it like a hobby and failing to market it rather than it being a poor product. I mean, just try to find it on their website...they've got it listed halfway down the page on the left under "For iPod" - whatever the heck that is suppose to mean. I've had my ATV for years and love it. Everyone who comes over and sees it first says "what is that" followed by "that's cool" and then "I want one."

I would really hate to see them go to streaming. Streaming = Waiting. It would also go against their current model of syncing all devices with iTunes. If I've got 100GB of music and video on my Mac's iTunes, streaming that to my ATV every time I want to watch something is going to be extremely slow and hog the network. Furthermore, if someone wants to use the computer while someone is streaming a movie from it then performance is going to be very, very slow.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #252 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

ISTM that an iPhone OS browser implies a touch-based browser, with a touch based remote. Like an iPad. And if you need to stare at the iPad to use the system, why look up at the big screen?

Unless you are using the big screen to show things to third parties, which would be a less-used and less-useful capability than what you are thinking about. So I don't see the advantage of a non-keyboard/mouse TV web browsing experience.

I see a huge advantage to having a nice keyboard and trackpad with WI-FI or IR or BlueTooth hookup up to a mini-computer and web browser built into your TV or cable box, however. Even better would be software allowing any network-connected computer to control it from anywhere. You could grab your netbook (or your keyboard/trackpad/remote control/clicker) and use it to watch net video. If the software were good, it would be seamless, as would streaming or otherwise accessing any kind of content (including spreadsheets and Word .docs and anything else) from your NAS.


It needs a Wiimote-like controller. That would solve just about all control issues, especially if Apple designs the UI around it.

I've used all manner of devices connected to a TV. Computers with wireless mice, trackballs and track pads or standard IR remotes. The iPhone acting as a WiFi track-pad or controller. The PS3 with Bluetooth controller or keyboard\\track-pad combo.

The best TV based browser interface I've seen (actually the best UI I've used on a TV period) is with the Wiimote.

The biggest loss would be multi-touch, but I'm sure Apple could make up for it with other UI enhancements.
post #253 of 258
Some things Apple could do - to dramatically change AppleTV.

http://prastalk.blogspot.com/2010/05...einvented.html
post #254 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Perhaps you'd like to ignore the illegal Google Books program? And Schmidt's seat on Apple's board, where he obviously had direct, insider access to Apple plans? It's entirely relevant to bring these issues up as they represent a corporate disregard for right and wrong orders of magnitude more serious than the "patent squabbles" most companies get involved in. Just because it's uncomfortable to hear doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, nor is it "BS". (And we haven't even touched on any of Google's other illegal activities.)

I really don't care what Google has or hasn't done. Nor am I trying to defend them. I'm just sick of you (and others) acting like Apple is some saint in the tech industry. They beg, borrow and steal ideas from other tech companies just like Google, just like Microsoft, just like everyone else.
post #255 of 258
I enjoy my Apple TV. The idea of no onboard storage makes me a little nervous. However, the prospects of Apple coming up with a better syncing solution for all of my devices (i.e. wireless!) is very exciting. I really wish my iPod, iPhone, and iPad would all sync wirelessly to iTunes the way my AppleTV does now. Or the way my calendar and contacts do on all three of those devices (via MM). That would make life so much easier. We should be past the point of having to plug in a cord to tether a device to sync!
post #256 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

Sounds cool, hope it will be able to play high profile h.264 though. That would be great!

That makes me think that maybe Hulu will present their app at WWDC

What would be the point of being able to run high profile h.264? You aren't going to stream that at this point and you can be certain that the Apple TV , or whatever it is called, will be a closed system not meant for running Blu-ray rips. The idea is to have a device to run legal media.

philip
post #257 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

[ ]

This home theater setup stuff is complicated with many old formats still in use - heck, Apple provides a VGA adaptor for the brand new iPad! I wonder how many people use Component with TOSLINK/S/PDIF instead of HDMI.

The reason for the VGA adapter is that almost all projectors use that video connection and the iPad is excellent for presentations. It would be nice to have the iPad have the ability to connect wirelessly to an adapter. The VGA wire is a pain.

I agree with you regarding the complexity of home theater setups...

philip
post #258 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Your predictions on what people will buy seem to be a little shaky.

Even Steve Jobs agrees that nobody wants to buy a box:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/01/s...-to-buy-a-box/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4