Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit - Page 5

Don't forget the MacBook air SuperDrive for your apple Eco system so you can also play DVD discs on you itv, controlled from your $600 iPad. So I think that rings the apple register for a, roughly $800 tag. Not bad for them. Coarse this only applies to apple virgins as for many it will just be one more incremental purchase in a string of accumulating kit.

IOS has no pointer. If the remote acted as a trackpad for example, how would you know whAt on the screen you would be manipulating. Just a guess here... As usual Apple would likely surprise us with an entirely new and innovative idea.

Yes. No one streams 1080 content and there isn't the available bandwidth from most service providers even if the content existed. This request is ahead of its time. And for most people with tv screens under 50 inches irrelevant.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination for app developers to design an interface with icons/prompts on the ipad screen to make selections on the big screen. And games would be controlled with accelerometer and gyroscope. Think different?

DNA, lol.

That's interesting. A souped-up plug with Bluetooth remote and an App Store. Very interesting.

And you think all these apps will get made for iTV with zero resistance?

You don't to record TV when you have iPTV. That's the point.

Are you saying Apple (Steve) would block apps from the likes of those recently announced by HBO and FiOS because they are still being CIRCLE JERKED by those stupid Networks? Yea somehow I think Steve will smile like the grinch on Christmas Eve and say "Oh, come right in HBO & FiOS, have a cigar and a glass of brandy, you're apps are exactly what we're looking for." while messaging his assistant to not accept any more calls from NBC, CBS, FOX and the rest of the network numbskulls... "We don't need to speak with them anymore!"

While some say Apple wants to sell iTunes content... and well yes but it's only a means to an end. He's stated on millions of occasions that the iTunes store is as close to a 'loss leader' as Apple has ever come and it's sole purpose is to encourage the sale of iPods (and now iPhone and soon iTVs).

- An iOS App for Free HBO Streaming to all HBO subscribers!
- An iOS App for FiOS Subscribers to get unfettered access to all the channels they subscribe!

In a pinch I think we can agree that next to selling iTunes content to promote iOS sales those apps above come in as a 'close second', and those will be just the beginning...

- Dish or DirecTV has also stated they are woking on something (I think)

and if FiOS is offering this to iOS based devices then you gotta know that Comcast, TW and Cablevision will be kicked in the ass to offer a similar lOS based service.

And Steve will be happy as a clam!

Suddenly it wouldn't be too strange to speculate about major cable channels doing their own iOS streaming apps... and the networks!?!!?!? $%#(%&* the networks! They'll be just short of worthless once this stuff starts happening and wondering what the hell were they were thing short stroking Steve for 2+ years straight.

Just like Steve said to Eric over coffee a few months back...

I Think a DVR capability would be on the number 1 on the many good ideas for good sales points for a revised Apple Tv/iTV (whatever they want to finally call it) Complete that with point and click episode/movie recording done with Apple finesse, And this thing would sell like hot cakes.

But They should still NOT forget about the Mac Desktop... That would be a BIG downfall for Apple. Now that is something I WOULD NOT like to see.

mmm, Yep. the term "HD" (1080p) is misused in lots of modern LCD or Plasma TV monitors.

BUT, there is some, only SOME content that is shot in full 1080p from the studio. So you do miss a bit of resolution there.

Also, I think that there should be a law stating that "the HD label is NEVER to be used in a product that has a resolution lesser than 1080p"

That is misleading advertising, I have seen it in catalogues, and on the net. DONT be mislead...

1080p is future-proofing yourself, so I would say BUY it. Some of the TV's that are on offer do NOT even have the correct resolution for 720p never mind 1080p. (Well that is here in Australia anyway)

Misleading advertising. HATE IT!

There is nothing WRONG with conversation, unless we have all become robots or telepaths.

iRobots, iTelepaths.

Not to be evil or anything, but you are overlooking youtube, which can now do both 1080p, and even 4k (about 4 times the 1080p resolution) While not technically movies, just wanted to put it out there that it is possible.

The relauunch of the AppleTV/iTV signals the start of an open war with Big Cable, and Apple has to play the same kind of hardball they did with Blu-ray.
That is, go for the jugular.

Apple has to leverage over the air HDTV - make it simple, and accessible somehow - to give people a reason to cut the cable bill entirely.
They need to integrate over-the-air completely with web tv offerings. Fast Company has a great update on the latest web television breakouts.

We all know Apple could create a killer web version of TV Guide.

That's the only way that 99-cent reruns will seem like a bargain, and still keep local news and sports in the mix.

I want 1080 too - to watch the HD movies I've created with my camcorder.

It's a pain to edit and then save back to tape in order to watch a decent 1080 picture.

I bought my Apple TV to watch family HD movies and photo albums. For those two reasons alone, I felt it was worth it. I have a PS3 which I guess can do the same, but it doesn't sync as easily to my Macs.

It's hard for things to be successful unless you can explain them in a few words.
e.g. The Playstation 3 - "It let's you play games on your TV."

But what about the Apple TV?
"It lets you watch TV shows off the Internet,"
"But I can already watch TV shows on my TV,"
"But it's better, because X, Y, Z..."

But you have already lost by that point, as soon as a conversation is required to explain what a thing does, it's all over but the shrug of the shoulders. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's a good rule of thumb I think.

Given that there haven't been that many iOS devices so far -- just 2 really, iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad -- it may be premature to say its defining feature is support for a touchscreen. If instead, iOS is defined as an ARM version of OS X, and the UI (and input system) is merely viewed as a layer on top of that, its use on AppleTV makes more sense.

Just as developers had to redesign their apps for the iPad, they will probably need to tweak them for AppleTV, and certain "events" won't exist as input, while others can be mapped to new events or apps tweaked a bit to support a new set of input events roughly analogous to a basic set of touch events. But, I don't think the CocoaTouch libraries need a complete overhaul (from the client perspective) as many of the interface elements would, I think, work fairly well for a 10-foot UI (think giant iPad). Maybe just some minor mods and they call it CocoaTV.

So, no touchscreen, tweaked apps, on-screen pointer, no need to plug into another computer (that is definitely not a defining characteristic of iOS), although WiFi/Ethernet iTunes syncing/sharing is certainly a possibility, and perhaps a Wii-like remote with an iPod-like click-wheel and/or a few buttons, with bluetooth support if you want to hook up a keyboard and/or mouse/trackpad (but these would be entirely optional). And, since it'll all be in a little box like the current AppleTV/Mac Mini, there's no reason it can't have ports, and support, for connecting game controllers.

For apps like Netflix, it would be trivial to tweak them to run on AppleTV. Games would mostly require new graphics, and maybe adjustment for new input methods, although there's also the fact that some games may not work as well on the new form factor, while some may work better, and developers will likely jump on creating new ones. Other existing apps might not make much sense on a TV, while others may just need a few UI tweaks.

I use to frequent here eons ago, and have returned. This is a great site - hats off to the authors and people behind the scenes.

now onward! I can't remember the blog where someone touched on this type of idea, maybe daring fireball?? sorry... or maybe uhm sorry name escapes me now.

But I think this person was saying, "what if tv networks developed apps?"
so you could download the ShowTime app ( hey you can! ) and watch their shows.. like Dexter and they would let you pick what you want to watch - maybe subscribe through that?
The money would go directly to them in that case - and Apple would get their slice via developer % and iAds maybe.

imagine having a folder on your iOS device, which has all the 'tv' apps. voila' now you have a set of channels in that folder. your virtual tv. Just pick the channel , I mean app!

And now the people who don't want to pay premium cable tv have another option, to
watch their show. So more choices, not necessarily shutting out one thing or the other. Although Cable companies might complain... i dunno.

People would finally get the 'ala carte' option to watch only the channels you want to watch.

and those licensing issues would probably go away, because the networks who licensed the content or own it would still be in control of whos' viewing the content, it's just being viewed on a different device - but still in their app.. which subscribers can only use.


J

I realize that you're banned now, but in the off chance you're still reading this thread:

http://jamiedubs.com/googlealarm/
And then the "Block Google" Safari Extension blocks it entirely.

Now take off your freaking tin foil hat.

Logitech has been doing something about that - its called the Harmony Remote series of remote controls - true it doesn't change the actual interface of the devices - but allows a very highly customizable remote to control all of the functions on all of your devices. (various models support different number of devices, some including RF devices not just IR including IR to RF repeater options for control of hidden devices).

I disagree. You do realize that many people purchase their tv and movies instead of rent? You do know that BILLIONS of $ in video film and television are purchased each year? Don't underestimate the buyers of media both physical and the newer digital download. Have you ever heard of the new Ultraviolet format that will be coming later this year early next year? There is room for both rental and purchase of digital media.

Hooray, more DRM. I'll go ahead and never buy anything using this nonsense ever, thank you.

Sell at a loss? Has Apple ever sold anything at a loss? Ever?

True. You pay a monthly service rate but it also allows you to watch many show ie Big Brother (last time I looked there were like 8 ready to watch) or CSI MIAMI,NEW YORK, LAS VEGAS. Right there are at least 38 shows that would cost $38.00 on iTunes and that's if they can even get them for .99 cents. Plus anything else you watch in that month. You coud watch most of those shows in one weekend if you a hard core fan of the show or V or some of the bigger shows coming out this season. NBC looks like they may have a hit with a show called The Event and Big Brother offers the latest episode about an hour after it airs on the pacific ONLINE as do most big shows and all for free. Of course not even counting torrents.
iTV could cost more in the long run.

Most shows you can now watch online. Some even the same day. With torrents you can watch anything. If apple added a DVR with program guide so you can record stuff later in the week, it would do so much better. And as I said in my last post, paying for shows that are free, even at .99 cents could, in theory, cost more than cable or dish. Maybe offer lots of free shows that are hits, .99 cents to watch it before it airs. I just don't see a device that wants u to pay for what is free with no dvr can be a huge hit plus now most shows are online. They could make a full blown hit, maybe subscription but not .99cents.

They coud make a killer device including iPhones but it messes up their iTunes store $$$$.

That's funny .... when I went there it was available for chrome, firefox and safari.

Steve, I am ready to cancel my cable ... just deliver something that will convince me to do so.

I am tired of giving Comcast my money, paying for more channels than I actually watch, and receiving marginal service and signal (HD channels especially are fraught with tiling issues and loss of audio, etc.

But I don't want to pay $100 a month for TV ... get me what I want, allow me to choose and pay for what I watch, save a little money and I am game.

Not that Im aware of. They always seem to price HW as the main profit center with any auxiliary SW and services as a means to promote their HW, but still at a profit.

Vimeo posted about the reality of streaming 1080P. Vimeo's encoding technology is exponentially better than that of YouTube. Vimeo described how very few people have computer screens that can display 1080. On top of that there are trade offs with compression, storage space, bandwidth. By the time you deal with all of that it doesn't really look much better than 720P. Which is what most people are capable of viewing in the first place.

Well I have news for you. Big Brother puts their shows up 1 hour after it airs pacific, and it's free. Jobs bows this. He has to convince people to PAY for something thats FREE. Sounds like a huge uphil battle to me and if you watch slot of shows, e en at .99 cents that could costmore than cable orDish etc that Aldo offer on demand and dvr recoding of two show while watching a 3rd.

Big Brother? The government or is this a website that has contracts with the networks and content owners?

If its about convincing people for the same features are you also saying that these shows are downloadable or are you just comparing this to streaming sites like Hulu?

Too much marketing and not enough facts are going into these industry terms without any concern for the picture quality. Ive heard that Xbox LIVEs 1080p has a lower average bit rate than the iTunes Stores 720p bit rate, but I havent tested this myself.

Well I've seen 1080i as well as 720p on a 27" desktop display connected to my mabook pro and cable ( the display features sound, USB 2 and hdmi), and I can spot the difference instantly. Perha maybe due to working a/v but the 720p wins hands down. It looked like glass. 1080 interlaced is not as crisp and know one pumps 1080p yet.

With regard to the other talking aboutu big brother, I m talking about the tv show and how they offer it in decent quality one hour after airing pacific time. So Steve has a hard sell coming. How do you compare free shows to buy this for .99 cents when most shows are free or offer on demand and you can watch 4in a row. Shoot Atv could cost more than cable down the road.

Given that 1080p 22"-23" monitors go for a whopping $170-$190 I'm thinking the excuse that most folks don't have a 1080p monitor is...ah...disingenuous.

Random deals from the net.

http://www.pcconnectionexpress.com/I...i_sku=11399230

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16824009255

(coupon code drops it to $189)

Ironic there's a Direct TV advert on this forum for $29.99/month.

My thought is simple: By the time Apple brings it's data center online, it will have already:
a)bought Netflix
b)debuted the apple television (as in, a big fuggin' TV set)
c)folded tv/newspaper/print/music content seemlessly into iOS an the iTV (box or television)
d)have a steady stream of iAD money coming in (whose profits will offset any 'losses' of offering content competitively against cable/google/dish)
e)pwn the livingroom with movies, music, games, apps (daytrading, cooking, exercise, etc.), news.


done. DONE. and dOnE.

just picked up 50 shares of Netflix this afternoon. $40B in cash...why would apple re-invent the netflix wheel.. netflix already HAS the content deals, the 'genius picking' technology, the slick GUI/workflow, the hyper efficient streaming technology, the customer base and accounting, etc. that apple would need. the *most* valuable thing that netflix has is years and YEARS and VERY hard work working negotiations with the *content* providers...which are the SINGLE most important part of this equation. Netflix makes hulu and redbox look like childs play, and even at $126/share, Netflix is cheap looking forward...they have something that Apple couldn't do on their own for years and years...and would buy Apple a 'jumpstart' ahead of Google, almost overnight. Netflix can SCALE to the apple data center immediately. it's a match made in heaven, and the ONLY team I am betting on to own majority content distribution 2 years from now.

Long Netflix, Longer Apple.

It looks like Apple has figured out that while they can provide a content delivery channel for their devices (iTunes), if they want to succeed it can't be the only channel. This is what the AppStore is all about. Allowing alternative channels and third party developer types of content is a critical element of iPhone/iPad success, and is what AppleTV lacks. Until AppleTV gains the AppStore, it will remain a hobby product. When it has this crucial piece, it will move out of the realm of being a hobby. That shouldn't be interpreted as "it will become an instant smash success", but it will become a serious product because suddenly the opportunity to have a "killer app" will exist. The term "killer app" is an old one and isn't used much anymore, but it is remains appropriate... or perhaps it should be amended to be "killer apps". No single delivery channel will make or break the device, but the aggregate of what is available will determine how compelling a device is. The price point is crucial, as it was for iPad and iPhone. If the rumoured $99 is true there will be a large number of people who will buy one (or more) simply because they are willing to just write off that amount as an experiment. That number is very likely going to be large enough that Apple will move enough devices to draw the killer apps it needs in order to be a success. I expect that momentum will build more slowly than it has for iPad... but if the right players bring apps to the platform, then it will build irresistibly.

IPTV is starting to take off. Various companies are delivering in this way, and the AppleTV+apps could replace the existing set top boxes (most likely on a customer-by-customer basis... rather like the Kindle app for iPad/iPhone vs. the Kindle device). If Apple can maneuver their way into this market (principally by authoring an app or two, and negotiating with key providers), then their device becomes a more compelling alternative because it really does begin to deliver the traditional TV stream as well as other forms of streaming through the Internet or from the local Mac/PC. Client-side DVR functionality won't be available with the rumoured new device, unless it uses the Mac/PC for storage... feasible, but not without technical issues.

Even without IPTV, apps such as Netflix, Hulu, iTunes, etc will enable streaming to stand alongside the regular TV services that come through existing boxes. Again, the low price entry point will enable the hardware to spread. The more that are out there, the more content providers and developers will look closely at it as a delivery platform. Many people are itching to cut out their regular TV service subscription... enough to make it an interesting market when addressed by a juggernaught like Apple (as opposed to a bit player like Roku).

Personally I'm looking forward to such a device... if it arrives priced as rumoured (and no, I don't care if it can only output 720p to my 1080p TV) then I'll order one immediately. If there was one feature I'd wish for, it would be to give the device two or three HDMI inputs... so that I can route all my devices through it and never tell the TV to switch inputs (TVs have miserable user interfaces).