Anticipated Apple TV update seen as stepping stone for connected HDTV - Page 3

One thing I didn't see in reading this thread, but which seems obvious to me, is the earth shattering impact of an AppStore for an iOS-based AppleTV device. If this device were $99, was physically small, had an HDMI port and a network connection... and developers could write apps for it... this could solve Apple's TV content problem, and it could revolutionize the TV industry.

Their lack of success with movies & TV on the iTunes Store isn't surprising as the market is huge, immensely valuable, well established, and populated with lots of players. A repeat of what happened with music isn't in the cards, if for no other reason that the content suppliers are already aware of what happened in the music industry. That doesn't mean that the AppleTV can't succeed though... on the contrary, if all the other content providers are able to run their own software on the AppleTV then suddenly the sky's the limit.

Hulu? There's an app for that.
Netflix? There's an app for that.
etc.

Apple will compete in delivering content alongside everyone else (hence their movement toward building a cloud), but they will sell the device and get their cut for each app sold. Big subscription players will give away their apps for free, just like Kindle, Kodo, the various internet radio apps, Skype, newspapers, magazines, etc.

A wild diversity of apps will appear on HDTV displays everywhere, and while Apple could conceivably ship their own line of TVs, I would not expect them to look upon that as the key to their business model... it would be more of a sideline much like their current display business is. Some people just like to buy Apple product, but the real win is that little $99 box that everyone will want when all the content sources make an app for it.

Apple will likely support an optional subscription payment system through their store as well, taking a small cut for the convenience of using their account system and the slick integration. This might be why magazine subscriptions are having issues with approval through Apple right now -- because Apple wants to move everyone to a unified model. No doubt the business models need to be worked out, but really Apple only needs a really tiny cut of each in order to make huge amounts of money. To all the app developers and content providers, paying a tiny percentage (note that this is different than the 30% cut that Apple takes for apps) is worthwhile because Apple shoulders the various IT tasks and they just get a cheque each month from Apple. Apple is no doubt trying hard to negotiate a good deal for themselves, but the reality is that if they want their platform to succeed, they need to make it attractive to all the providers. So giving the content providers options like "tiny percentage" vs. "flat fee", giving up any say on subscription pricing, and stepping back from policing content will be essential... and I believe inevitable for Apple. Certainly not all content has to go through Apple's servers, although they will happily provide that service to content providers as well.

Games follow naturally from this model just as they do on the iPhone/iPad. An A4 platform is not going to be able to compete technologically with the likes of XBox360 and PlayStation3, but it doesn't have to. Just like with the smartphone, games come along for the free ride. They will be better than PS2/XBox era games (more like Wii), but since the box is already there for other uses then having games available just becomes an added bonus. The biggest question is the control scheme, but if it has bluetooth then a wide array of possibilities opens up for those who want to get a bit more serious. As long as the basic control that ships with it is at least minimally functional then it will take off as a casual games platform. It also becomes an attractive platform for service providers like OnLive.

Other interesting possibilities would be leveraging the presence of a Mac/PC. The AppleTV will require that you have a computer networked to it, and that means there is the potential to use it as a storage cache. Perhaps even as a transcoder. A PVResque app provided by a streaming content provider could be told by the user to download some content to the computer to be watched at the user's convenience... potentially getting around issues with insufficient bandwidth.

I own a 5 year old LCD TV, works fine, I know others with a 5 year old LCD, they are still working fine.

But, how is Apple, who purchases panels from another company going to make their panels last twice as long as the company they purchase them from?

Then why didn't she just get a TV with built-in DVD player then? Maybe you should show your mother how to use the systems properly, rather than just expanding her phobia?


No he wasn't, the image on one side had an av receiver, if you are comparing a similar setup, if it isn't needed on one side, it isn't needed on the other.

If your mom was really such a technophob that she couldn't watch a DVD, how would she get internet and download / stream movies? If she really was scared of adding another box, aren't you concerned that getting the internet and adding her name to an itunes account might just scare her to death?

As one of the most objective and helpful posters on this board, can you explain why Apple couldn't produce a limited number of different TV models? As one other poster noted, they're already going to just one monitor size and they have a history of selling computers (especially laptops) with limited options (most notably, perhaps, in regard to ports). It's worked well for them. Why couldn't they do the same with a TV?

If it's true that apple plans to ditch 1080p, then it could be inferred that they would go with the biggest screen size that would get the most out of 720p. As far as plasma versus LCD, I think Apple would assess how much of a problem burn-in could be with their application and then go with LCD--or maybe they would say burn-in is a non-issue and then go with what is more popular or with the thing that would help differentiate them. If it has some kind of touch element, that would mean glass and therefore plasma. Options keep getting narrowed down and refined in that manner.

I don't have a good feel for whether Apple would introduce a television or not, but I'm certain that they won't offer bluray in any consumer product and I don't think they can sell Apple TVs without some kind of hook that would motivate buying-in to the iTunes content service. It's at least conceivable to me that an Apple branded HDTV could be a sufficient hook.

When one considers that Google TV is coming, and that it will come in consolidated TV and hook-up set-top boxes alike, I think one has to wonder how Apple plans to compete. Will existing HDTV owners want to buy a Google TV box and an ATV box? If they're Apple fans or already have an iPhone or iPod Touch, maybe they'll just want to upgrade to a new Apple HDTV. This could be especially true when one considers that if Apple made a television it would have uniquely Apple features--desirable features--and could appeal to people who don't own any Apple products.

It seems like it could be worth a try. At one time, Apple made a Bose-like "boom box" sort of thing for the iPod. No one remembers what a flop that was. Apple will be OK if they ventured into HDTV territory and it failed.

I think Verizon and fios are considerations.

Can't speak for the rest, but as for audio:

7.1 is a joke spec... its really just 5.1 with duplicate sources to help offset the often phase canceling rears in a 5.1 system... 100% pure donkey garbage made exclusively for home theater salesmen. Not that 5.1 doesn't have it problems (you can't possible get 5 full range channels to sound good in a room less than 20x30 unless you cripple the frequency response and type of speakers), but in plainer terms - any well-to-moderately competent 5.1 setup will absolutely destroy an equal 7.1 setup in the same space, sonically speaking.

The current audio specs, while nowhere near the sheer stupidity of various competing video formats, are an absolute mess with only marketing and differentiation based solely on meaningless specs. If you're a manufacturer you can either enable the current mythology about surround or you can take the performance route... impossible to tell what Apple might do... they've been on both sides with audio in the past. However if they really want to kick some ass, take a corporate audio lab, roll-call and and fire anyone who calls themselves an 'audiophile.
Kinda like hiring someone who says they are a 'computerer' to do your programming.

I'm just saying all this FYI, I love cool audio effects as much as anyone, but the implementation for surround sound is wide open for severe improvement and education beyond the content of stereo brochures. There could be a lot of room for Apple to do something great with home audio if they use their "no floppies, usb, optical drive" balls for the decision.

Yes it's not just going to replace that pile. It does seem clear that Apple would like to be able to provide most of that content through their own simple AppleTV interface. Buy movies (like buying DVDs), rent movies (like DVD rental stores), subscribe to a "package" of shows (like cable), watch even the latest shows for free if you have ads (like FTA TV).

That takes a lot of agreements, and I think Apple is frustrated that all this hasn't already happened with AppleTV.


Yes the appstore model might be a work around (and it'd be good if AppleTV was able to access content, regardless of who supplied it). If this happens, I'd rather see a single interface to all the content than have to open different apps (and a single payment system).

In general, it's time for Apple to work with Netflix etc.


That is a very real danger. People finally get the "a la carte" model they've been screaming for and realise that smorgasbords really are cheaper restaurants.


I think Apple wants to offer all the above and their data centre is key to that.

The question is whether they can negotiate the rights - actually get the networks & cable companies to buy in to their vision of the future (and see how they make their cut of course).

I wonder if Apple has 2 devices in the wings - a $99 iTV, and a $399 iTiVo (remember the TiVo rumours?).

• The iTV could stream shows (well, play while downloading?) like today, plus have apps. Integrated heavily with the iPhone etc as a controller.
• The iTiVo could do everything the iTV does, plus record FTA and record cable channels.

Apple isn't going to use the TiVo Premier's flash-based interface - and they'd be likely to add their own store content of course. But TiVo does a good job with its EPG and suggestions etc, it's a great recorder (in fact, an iTiVo wouldn't default to watching live TV - recordings would be a means to get content)

If Apple could find a way to make the recordings start and stop on time, and integrate TV season passes with iTunes purchase/rental offerings, it could get interesting. It's an interim step of course, until the TV companies are ready for the next step.

(Oh... the cheap iTV would have to play content recorded on the iTiVo of course!)


The only argument I can see is that the TVs are encroaching on AppleTV turf ... TVs ARE going to merge with computers as predicted long ago, but the devices they become will be more like iOS devices than Windows 7. So will Apple play in that new market? (and if not, why would people buy a TV with SamsungOS AND a separate iTV STB?)

I'm sure it's all speculation at this point in time and we have no idea what Apple is really working on, but I, for one, would welcome Apple getting into the TV business. Since Apple is as much of a hardware company as they're a software and content provider, I think they could come up with something that just may work in a seamless manner. I can also see them using the liquid metal deal to produce really cool looking stuff.

I'm not much of a TV watcher but part of the reason is that the world of TV has become way too complex. It's become almost too much to stay on top of. I can envision Apple putting everything together in a set that could do a lot of things that's easy to use and navigate. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking, but if Apple can make the TV-viewing experience less frustrating as well as being able to roll in the iPod, iPhone, and iPad features into it all, I'd go for it.

Have you ever used an iPad? Presumably, the hypothetical Apple TV would be just as easy to use. Even a technophobe could use it.

As opposed to 7 different remotes and trying to explain to her how to switch inputs on one remote and then control the device on a different remote and the sound volume on a third remote.

Surely, even the most rabid Apple-haters must see the difference.


First, because I'm a thousand miles away. Second, she can't even handle the fact that the TV has a different remote than the VHS. I'm not going to confuse her further.

As for a TV with built-in DVD player? Maybe, but that doesn't solve the problem of her still having 3 remotes (TV/DVD, VHS, and cable box). More importantly, she's not the type to replace her TV until it dies. So, when it dies, does she look at:

a. A single device which does everything, single remote, single plug, no messy boxes or cables - but which handles DVD, audio, streaming shows (she couldn't care less if it's from cable or Apple TV, as long as she can get the shows she wants to watch)

or

b. a new TV/DVD which she has to learn all over and find someone to hook up to her system, and then learn to use multiple remotes - including having to relearn how to just watch TV?

Clearly, for some subset of the population, 'A' is a far better choice.

Ask you sister to then!!!


Logitech Harmony Remote. Single remote, multiple devices, problem solved.


I think you over estimate how easy a box you have never seen is to use. Any new Apple TV will continue to be a seperate device, and this second box will be another remote for your mother to figure out how to use. Your mother must be so proud of you having such high confidence in her.

Apple will not compete in the low margin TV appliance market, and the high margin market is that small that they will have no influence. The rumors going around are US centric, which is a limited market.

This may be your belief and the PR was certainly handled poorly but it hasn't changed fundamental facts. The product launch has been huge. The reviews have been glowing, even from Consumer Reports, and the demand has been unquenchable even this long after launch. In a real disaster there would be stacks of unsold product. People with any amount of sophistication and experience know that bleeding edge products often have issues and the important factor is how they are treated after the sale by the company.

I have a MacBook Pro that worked very well for years. Recently it slowed and then stopped working. I took it to an Apple Store and they found that although out of warranty its serial number indicated it was from a batch whose graphics coprocessor was prone to fail. I had upgraded to 4 GB of memory myself but they found it had nothing to do with the failure. It was sent off for a motherboard swap that Friday and I received the renewed product on Tuesday morning all for zero cost to me.

From my experience Apple is in a completely different (i.e. superior) league from its competitors. No amount of sniping from the usually clueless press or the obsessed Apple haters can change actual facts. Virtually everyone predicted that the Apple Store would be a disaster (back in 2000). The iPod was a temporary fluke that would be buried by products from Microsoft and others. The iPhone was a doomed product (Balmer and many more). The iPad was a joke and mistake with no chance of catching on. See any pattern emerging?

A lot of companies show this attitude, almost all of them. While training can make a big difference - if it was that simple, there really wouldn't be much of a market for Apple.

I've applied for jobs in usability with quite a few companies who just didn't actually see value in usability beyond "we'll have a GUI and menus" (etc).

I'm not sure what you mean, Apple has training programmes available to use their software, and they offer training in their stores. Not everyone finds their products that easy to use. A TV is not hard to use, once they are setup, the majority of people change the channel, and change the volume, not sure how this function can be improved.

And if you compare the interface from the current Apple TV as a reference, it isn't the easiest device in the world to use.

I'm not sure where you get your data from but 5 years is very wasteful to be rid of a TV. I have a 5 year old plasma and it works just as well as it did when i bought it. my last JVC 31" CRT lasted me 15 years before the picture started to dim and blur.

you sound like they type of consumer that would buy the Yugo if it was replaced with an Apple logo.

an all-in-one TV/iTunes device is very different from a boom-box.

Training is useful, absolutely. There's a wide range of difficulties.

The closer a product matches what you actually need (without adding options you don't use) relates to how easy it is to use too - but everyone has different needs.


Yes when it came out everyone was reporting how easy it was - but they were missing the point that it was so easy because it didn't do that much, didn't have that much content. Once you add functions and content you need an interface that can make navigating that easy, and the AppleTV hasn't done that as well as it could have.

Then again... there are a lot of devices with really bad interfaces.


It's easy to use when that's all you're doing. As soon as you add DVD, or a separate cable box, the complexity increases - it's no longer just a choice of 5 channels. Some TV manufacturers are using HDMI so their BD players tell the TV what to do.

A Harmony remote does an admirable job of making things happen except when people don't wait for the macros to finish themselves - it's probably a good model for how entire systems should work (behind the scenes).

I personally think TV needs to evolve to the point that a live channel is not the fallback - the base position is probably a basic menu (or screen saver) like the AppleTV, with liveTV as one of several options.

But to be an international product then the Apple TV needs to do other things, which then according to your statement, it loses the "so called" easy interface. If it continues to be download/streaming only, then it will continue to have the low sales it currently has

Also HDMI-CEC isn't a new thing, a lot of manufactures support it, and it isn't just restricted to TVs and blu-ray players, DVD players and AV Receivers for example also support it.


I can't do anything else on my Harmony remotes until the macros have finished.


Apple lost their opportunity, they could have (and should have) licenced it years ago. I like my Apple TV, but the rumored product doesn't make me want to change, I am more than happy with all the devices I have. And the talk about an Apple branded TV puts me off even more, I can't see any advantage of them selling their own branded TV, licencing would have been the answer.

if i already have all the other crap, it saves me nothing to go with the all in one solution from apple. I'll take a stand alone box, thank you. I don't need an apple branded tv with integrated everything

Yea Im not gonna hold my breath...

Maybe it's been said to death but here goes...

Magic Apple HDTV Features:

- Amazing 720p video quality
- Astoundingly distinct right AND left audio channels
- Engineered to prevent playback of nasty and outdated optical media
- Worry-Not (tm) cable card support since we don't support it
- The finest DVR Free viewing experience bar none
- The most amazingly expensive 3D glasses ever produced
- Available in an plethora of 38" sizes
- US ONLY for a really good reason this time... One that Ireland will blissfully ignore.

This sounds about right...

Can you imagine the bandwidth usage of someone who wathches most of their TV via streaming??? Heck, I think the iTV is a horrible idea for the same reason. Streaming of anything is spotty for many people due to interference from their neighbors, and when you factor in the very real possibility of download limits from your cable provider it's a non-starter.

The AppleTV just needs to be tweaked. Give it the iOS, make it work with the track pad, advertise it more and make it function as a DVR. Imagine if you could use it as your DVR for your Dish or DirectTV (forget cable.) If you missed an episode somehow you could then download it off iTunes. It would be pretty sweet.

My TV service is an IPTV service. Sure would be nice if the rental box I had now could be replaced with a new AppleTV box + an app.