or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV will have ARM processor, App Store access - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Apple TV will have ARM processor, App Store access - report

post #1 of 91
Thread Starter 
Like the iPhone 4 and iPad, the new Apple TV will run the iOS operating system and be powered by a processor with ARM architecture, and will also have access to the App Store, according to one prominent analyst.

Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros. issued a note to investors Wednesday in which he revealed that sources indicated the "biggest potential change" to the forthcoming Apple TV refresh is the move to an ARM architecture processor running the same iOS software that powers the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. The current Apple TV hardware relies on an Intel x86-based chip, running a "light" version of Mac OS X and its Front Row software.

If the iPhone 4 and iPad are any indication, Apple is likely to employ its own custom A4 processor, or some variation of it. Apple began designing its own chips through the purchases of Intrinsity and PA Semi.

Wu also said that the new Apple TV, which some have said will be called the iTV, will have access to the App Store, Apple's digital software download storefront. Like the iPad, the new Apple TV could have access to the iPhone App Store, which offers about a quarter-million options for users, though such functionality is apparently not guaranteed.

"Our sources indicate there is some debate within Apple whether to allow this or not, or to have it run only Apple TV-specific apps," Wu said. "We believe the ability to run the same apps makes a lot of sense and believe this feature could be enough to drive significantly more volume for Apple TV. We find the potential to run video game apps on a TV set most intriguing, as it has been proven in the marketplace that there is (a) large market for casual gaming at inexpensive prices."

Wu did not indicate, however, how iPhone or iPad applications would run on a TV set, as those that rely on the touchscreen interface require users to interact with the images on screen. But games that rely on the accelerometer in Apple's mobile devices would likely be suited for the allegedly forthcoming set top box.

As for reports that Apple is negotiating with networks to offer 99 cent TV show rentals (reaffirmed this week by The New York Times), Wu said such an offering would benefit not only the Apple TV, but the company's entire ecosystem, including the iPhone, iPad, iPod touch and Mac lineup.

"From our checks with supply chain and industry sources, we believe potential changes could turn Apple TV into a bigger hobby and a multi-million unit seller," the analyst wrote. "And perhaps be a precursor to a bigger effort to address the home entertainment space down the road."
post #2 of 91
Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions


iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768

TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080
post #3 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Wu did not indicate, however, how iPhone or iPad applications would run on a TV set, as those that rely on the touchscreen interface require users to interact with the images on screen. But games that rely on the accelerometer in Apple's mobile devices would likely be suited for the allegedly forthcoming set top box.

Dont know about the accelerometer but the touch side of things would be covered by the new magic touchpad thing they recently released.

As for resolution im guessing that it will be similar to when you hook up a macbook or iphone to a TV. The resolution on the TV will change to suit. But im thinking that we wont see 1080 but some form of upscaled 720p.

So basically i can see it working but will it be enough to get the 1080p purists to agree that it is a good buy is another argument all together.
post #4 of 91
I think this is right.

Biggest news: iOS
Next Biggest: FaceTime?
Next: Aggregate streaming like PlaysOn or Boxee
Least: 99 cent TV shows

Base model with a cheap remote for iTV specific apps. Add on a Magic Trackpad or i-Device for full iOS compatibility.

iTunes TV needs a few years to become viable if ever.
post #5 of 91
A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?
post #6 of 91
As long as it does not require periodic reboot/re-powering to make it work again. After three years of use I noticed that this piece of hardware needs acting like with PC and crashing Microsoft Windows on it.

No it is not my network or ISP. I have carefully tested piece by piece nailling root cause at Apple TV exclusively. I run enough hardware in my network to have many reference points to judge which one is suspect.

Also it looks like the current hardware needs better cooling so, setting it above flat surface (e.g. on some attached rubber posts) and turning it off from time to time fixes some problems. Also running it in 720p instead of 1080p seems to resolve some hickups when playing content.


Apple should really focus on quality of this device, because interface is not that bad. Apart of the store they could bring some plugin interface, but if not then few of us might hack it and start using XBMC or similar solution.
post #7 of 91
I guess that means my current Apple TV is not going to get the update. What a total bummer.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #8 of 91
I wonder if Apple is ever going to be able to annonced something that didnt leak all over the net before the event.
post #9 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanliered View Post

A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?

Pay per view, even cheap, is never going to be for big consumer. But lots of people dont watch that much TV and maybe they will suprise us with per network subcriptions, but if they do that Cable co and going to scream.
post #10 of 91
If nothing else lets at least hope that we can playback other formats unlike the current AppleTV.

.mkv etc.

But im guessing that would be more likely an iTunes update before device update.
post #11 of 91
I think there are enough rumours to say that this release is most likely imminent, and it looks like my idea of an iOS-based TV is finally coming to a head despite 2 years of people telling me how it’s stupid to use iOS since there is no touchscreen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFan83 View Post

Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions


iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768

TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080

Note that we have to look much farther than resolution here. The display size and the input methods are important. For these reasons I don’ think we’ll see a straight iPhone or iPad app put on the AppleTV. Just look at how poor iPhone apps look on the iPad. How many iPhone or iPad apps are used only in landscape mode and have no on-screen touch elements? None.

The Magic Trackpad doesn’t resolve this issue as it’s still not a direct input to what’s on the screen. I doubt user’s are going to want to see a white dot representing their finger tips on the screen when using this trackpad whilst on their couch. We’re talking about adding a mouse pointer to an OS that so far has never had one. I just don’t see it.

I do see an TV SDK, App Store and Universal apps. I also see clever developers making “family” and “internet” apps that use the TV’s larger monitor to connect all your iDevices.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I guess that means my current Apple TV is not going to get the update. What a total bummer.

It has been going for 3.5 years now on the same HW and has had 3 rich updates (though I absolutely hated the Take 2 UI so I we can discount that one if you like). I’d say the best we can expect are some minor tweaks and final bug updates. I can’t see anyone else supporting such old equipment for that long.
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 #12 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanliered View Post

A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?

Apple failed at getting their own subscription service which was the perfect solution. My guess is that content owners will offer their app for free and you sign up for a subscription independent of iTunes with DVR functionality.

You're right in thinking the $.99 price point is too expensive. An active bachelor can by with it but the price skyrockets with a family.
post #13 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

If nothing else lets at least hope that we can playback other formats unlike the current AppleTV.

.mkv etc.

But im guessing that would be more likely an iTunes update before device update.

Who uses the MKV container? I tend to see it used with ripped Blu-rays, which still use H.264/AAC codecs. I really cant think of a single reason why Apple would include this container, but many as to why they wouldnt.
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 #14 of 91
Shaw Wu is full of it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Shaw Wu is full of it.

I agree, but I also think hes not incorrect about the upcoming TV, which is likely him just riding the coattails of other analysts. There is just too much circumstantial evidence for me to ignore.
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 #16 of 91
I agree with others if you have kids or frequent users this will be a flop. Especially if there is little room to store those vids that get played over and over again.

Marginal internal storage would leave you screwed fo the storage of games and other apps. Assuming you are purchasing and not renting the apps you woukd want them to be around for awhile. Given my memory usage on iPhone they are really going to need a hardisk. In a nut shell it doesn.'t take long at all to use up you flash.

Maybe they have plans to lick the storage problem in another manner. That can't be the cloud though, the bandwidth isn't there for some of us.

I'd like to see Apple TV succeed but I've yet to see an indication that Apple has a clue. Such a device needs to be marketed like a DVD player / gaming console. In any event the $99.00 rumor seems to indicate to me to little hardware to really impress people.


Dave
post #17 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Who uses the MKV container? I tend to see it used with ripped Blu-rays, which still use H.264/AAC codecs. I really can’t think of a single reason why Apple would include this container, but many as to why they wouldn’t.

imo .m4v is better has it can hold metadata information. Once I get the metadata info with "identify" I just drag the .m4v in Itunes and I instantly see it on my AppleTV, complete with dvd covert, title, description, ...

And .mkv is the torrent HD standard, no company are going to support that while engage is studios negociations. Its the other way around, they are trying to secured content not allow easy torrent playback.

If AppleTv gets huge, youre going to see a shift in torrent containers from mkv to m4v. But if prices are cheap enough, imo lots of people wont bother with torrents and just buy because its hassel free. This is pretty much what happen with music.
post #18 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Who uses the MKV container? I tend to see it used with ripped Blu-rays, which still use H.264/AAC codecs. I really can’t think of a single reason why Apple would include this container, but many as to why they wouldn’t.

Exactly. Apple keeps the formats narrow so that the dozens of ptions for containers don't become a root for updates....keep it simple, go get handbrake (it's free) and rip to that format. It sucks to have to re-rip but that's the trade off for apps and the integration Apple pushes.
post #19 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I agree with others if you have kids or frequent users this will be a flop. Especially if there is little room to store those vids that get played over and over again.

Marginal internal storage would leave you screwed fo the storage of games and other apps. Assuming you are purchasing and not renting the apps you woukd want them to be around for awhile. Given my memory usage on iPhone they are really going to need a hardisk. In a nut shell it doesn.'t take long at all to use up you flash.

Maybe they have plans to lick the storage problem in another manner. That can't be the cloud though, the bandwidth isn't there for some of us.

I'd like to see Apple TV succeed but I've yet to see an indication that Apple has a clue. Such a device needs to be marketed like a DVD player / gaming console. In any event the $99.00 rumor seems to indicate to me to little hardware to really impress people.


Dave

Even at 2GB of NAND there is enough for the OS and apps. I have 2.34GB of apps, but TomTom is taking up over half of that. While app makers, especially game makers, will use the extra screen real estate for making more visually elaborate games I dont think it will be much of an issue.

But we have to remember this would be a stationary device on a LAN, connected to a machine with an iTunes Library and the internet. Its possible to implement a background swap method that would move apps on and off the TV as needed. The device has a list of approved apps to be playable via the device, but then only keeps what it can, rotating as needed. While I dont see Apple going this route as it adds an extra level of complexity it is technically possible.

All video and audio would be streamed from the LAN or Internet so there is no need for local storage. Personally, I dont think this $99 TV is a win by itself. I think its best regulated to the many other TVs people tend to have in their home. Right now, we tend to have one large TV with our best equipment tied to it. The other TVs typically get analog cable or a cable box.

What if Apple made two TVs. One with 1080p in a box the size of the Mac Mini (maybe with a 1/2TB HDD) but still using ARM and iOS, and they also offered a simple, cheap TV that only does 720p and can only stream so you can connect all the other TVs in your home without having to buy an expensive device with redundant storage for each one? That is the setup Id like to see along with an ARM/IOS-based Apple Home Server.
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 #20 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I agree with others if you have kids or frequent users this will be a flop. Especially if there is little room to store those vids that get played over and over again.

Marginal internal storage would leave you screwed fo the storage of games and other apps. Assuming you are purchasing and not renting the apps you woukd want them to be around for awhile. Given my memory usage on iPhone they are really going to need a hardisk. In a nut shell it doesn.'t take long at all to use up you flash.

Maybe they have plans to lick the storage problem in another manner. That can't be the cloud though, the bandwidth isn't there for some of us.

I'd like to see Apple TV succeed but I've yet to see an indication that Apple has a clue. Such a device needs to be marketed like a DVD player / gaming console. In any event the $99.00 rumor seems to indicate to me to little hardware to really impress people.


Dave

I can see them pushing out the $99 option and then convincing people to either 1) buy a time capsule or 2) push the HDs from the Apple store which I'm sure have a pretty decent profit margin if you want the HD space.

Really the only issue I have with all of this is that nearly every single game isn't going to work for anything on this. The point of most games is to have the user looking at the screen and pressing the virtual buttons. Now some games like racing and, if you play enough, Real Soccer or Monkey Ball would be just fine as you just need to see the visual output not necessarily the virtual buttons but most of them are going to have you staring at your iPhone/iPod/iPad rather than watching the screen - unless of course you just want others to watch you play...

Speaking of which, if they put a good enough ARM in this thing I can see multi-player racing games being fun. I mean, who doesn't have more than 1 iPhone/iPod Touch laying around? (most people but who is actually going to buy the iTV that doesn't have at least 2 of these). Ideally the app would serve out the UI to the devices so you don't have to have the app on all of them just the iTV interfacing app or maybe make the interfacing app free and pay for the iTV app. Hmm...
post #21 of 91
If the Netflix app from the iPad run on Apple TV then it's game over for Cable TV as far as I'm concerned.
post #22 of 91
@herbapou, That is definitely one of the big reasons.

@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesnt support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet its still so prolific. I really dont know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.
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 #23 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

@herbapou, That is definitely one of the big reasons.

@Sleepy Dinosaur, Even Handbrake doesnt support AVI containers or DivX codecs in Handbrake and yet its still so prolific. I really dont know why these inferior containers and codecs are still so common.

The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.
post #24 of 91
It'll take DVR capabilities before an AppleTV sweeps the market the way the iPhone and iPad have done.
post #25 of 91
But can I watch pr0n on it?
post #26 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGuessSo View Post

Next Biggest: FaceTime?

I'd love to see FaceTime on this. It would be so cool to be able to make video calls that way.

I've actually been a little surprised they have not pushed FaceTime on other devices yet - the Mac would seem to be an obvious target.
post #27 of 91
Everyone seems to assume that iTV will be the same old box with new guts. But if it is true that App Store games are to be a factor, maybe this new device will be a specialized version of the iPad--the iPadTV. This solves the the gaming touch control issue, the accelerometer issue, and is reinforced by the rumor that it will have no hard drive. It also consolidates the iPod's role as the "preferred" remote for your home media devices.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #28 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

The reason why mkv is popular (mostly on torrents) is that you can package ac3 audio & multiple language subtitles within the container which I'm not sure that mp4/m4v can do. It's also open source.

m4v can hold AC3 in iTunes has long has you put a 2 channels AAC audio on first audio slot. This what I do, I put english AAC 1st audio, then AC3 2nd, then french AC3 has 3rd.

Current AppleTV supports AC3 passthru and audio track selection.
post #29 of 91
An updated device that no one wanted in the first place, ie an iPod for the TV.

Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.

Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.
post #30 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by guinness View Post

An updated device that no one wanted in the first place, ie an iPod for the TV.

Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.

Even some basic BR players can do Netflix streaming, as well playback DVD's and BR's...even if the new Apple TV gets Netflix support, it would have to be cheaper than BR players to be viable IMO, but knowing Apple, you'll need all sorts of accessories to get the 'full' experience.

Probably best you don't buy one then.
post #31 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFan83 View Post

Will apps be able to be written to be cross platform compatible with iTV? Might be tough with all the different resolutions


iPhone 4 - 960x640
iPhone 3g/Touch - 480x320
iPad - 1024x768

TV - 1280x720 or 1920x1080

Make it just 720p, the new Apple TV has been rumored to not do 1080p, just like the current ATV doesn't. So maybe 640*480 as well to cover 480p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The Magic Trackpad doesn’t resolve this issue as it’s still not a direct input to what’s on the screen. I doubt user’s are going to want to see a white dot representing their finger tips on the screen when using this trackpad whilst on their couch. We’re talking about adding a mouse pointer to an OS that so far has never had one. I just don’t see it.

What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner

* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.
post #32 of 91
I think the point of the 99cent tv rentals is not to replace your cable box but to provide a different service altogether. Missed last nights favourite tv show? Download it to your iPod/iPhone/iPad and watch it on the bus/train, etc. This would simply be another differentiator for iOS devices versus Android, etc. Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes, it's simply there to stimulate demand for iOS hardware.
post #33 of 91
On the control front if we have an iDevice (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad or even Trackpad) with our fingers on it then why would the new Apple TV not show the finger positions as translucent overlaps on the TV screen. When using a first person shooter my actual fingers are over the on-screen controls anyway so a translucent version wouldn't be an issue. Just an extra API to support this kind of use. This way I would be holding my iDevice controller but looking at the TV all the time.

And on what to call this new iDevice what about iPlay (keeps with the others all having a P word) or AppTV - like AppleTV but now focused on Apps.
post #34 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

I think the point of the 99cent tv rentals is not to replace your cable box but to provide a different service altogether. Missed last nights favourite tv show? Download it to your iPod/iPhone/iPad and watch it on the bus/train, etc. This would simply be another differentiator for iOS devices versus Android, etc. Steve Jobs has said repeatedly that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes, it's simply there to stimulate demand for iOS hardware.

and lets not forget the App part of this is going to be the real deal, this is going to be a game console / internet browser also.
post #35 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

What about if the iTV is able to connect with your iPhone, iPod or iPad and transmit the same image it is sending to your tv*. Then while you have the screen image cloned on your handheld device, you can make selections on that and they would get transmitted to the iTV, which then processes the changes. You never have to have a cursor show on the TV, it integrates with current Apple products and pretty much requires that you own something else from Apple to be able to use it. This ties in well with the $99 price to keep total cost down and make it inexpensive for people who already own one of those devices, which is a lot of people. A cheaper iPod touch model and/or some sort of remote with touchscreen would accomplish this and the iPod event is just around the corner

* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.

Ive thought about this and I cant see one having the same display on both screens in real time with no delay, but having to look at the lower screen, while expecting this to work out well. While I think some developers can pull it off, this isnt something Apple would incorporate as the primary way to use iPhone and iPad apps on a large, landscape mounted widescreen HDTV.
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 #36 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

* I'm not positive if/how this would be accomplished, it's just conjecture for how Apple could avoid a cursor.

Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.
post #37 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Everyone seems to assume that iTV will be the same old box with new guts. But if it is true that App Store games are to be a factor, maybe this new device will be a specialized version of the iPad--the iPadTV. This solves the the gaming touch control issue, the accelerometer issue, and is reinforced by the rumor that it will have no hard drive. It also consolidates the iPod's role as the "preferred" remote for your home media devices.

Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.

An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?

On the other hand, the current Apple TV can be controled through the remote App on the iPad/iPhone/iPad touch, or by the included remote. I'd expect the same to apply for the new Apple TV, with possibly increased interactivity like the things you suggested.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #38 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Then must put a cursor, think of a Macbook trackpad with the screen being the TV. So you need a cursor. Only when using an iphone/ipod/ipad has the remote can you get rid of the cursor.

Yeah, and I was suggesting that that could be the control method for the new device. It pushes more Apple product and allows you to do what you need on the small screen, selecting things on the iDevice, but people watching the TV will see the same changes you do on your small device.

I can picture the iPad edition of Scrabble working well with this kind of setup. I can also imagine iTV based games that allow you to select different controller configurations and while it opens the game on your TV, it transmits a controller config to your iDevice. Now you have the gamepad and buttons and such on your iDevice and use it as the controller.
post #39 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.

An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?

I disagree with his iPadTV idea, I expect the iTV will have pretty similar guts to an iPad, but different formfactor. Maybe one of the newer dual-core ARM processors.


1) The screen is a large chunk of the current iPad cost, you can remove that completely and insert the cost for whatever body they use for the iTV, likely something similar to the MacMini.

2) Bluetooth. Who needs wires?
post #40 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

I think it would be best if it only played the codecs that Steve gives us in the iTunes store. Otherwise, it is needlessly complex with no real benefit to the vast majority of users.

You're just begging to be reamed by Apple.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV will have ARM processor, App Store access - report