or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Steve Jobs left iTunes creator in charge of connected TV initiative
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs left iTunes creator in charge of connected TV initiative - Page 2

post #41 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPedro View Post

That would make no sense in the context of Steve's revelation in the book. He wants it to be as simple as possible. He talks about controlling the entire user experience just like Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. You can't control the ENTIRE user experience if you have to deal with other manufacturer's televisions. When he said that the cable companies' grasp on the industry couldn't be solved by selling people an add on box because they still had to pay for it when cable companies' were giving their boxes away for free, it was true. Saying that he cracked it, means that Apple would have to have the user in their hands the second they walk out of an Apple Store with one of their TVs. You get home, plug it in, sign in with your Apple ID and it already has your iCloud content already on the TV and new content ready to be purchased and watched without involving cable companies.

An Apple TV won't have a lot of the commonly used connectors at the back. Apple is notorious for retiring old I/O in favour of upcoming new tech. Coax, RCA and component are goners. I imagine it will have to have HDMI to gain industry acceptance but even that is not guaranteed.

A simple plug in TV with a power cable, Thunderbolt, with built in Apple TV software, SIRI for more complex actions than what Apple's simple remote can be practical for (text input), a FaceTime camera and WiFi for straightforward connectivity with iCloud and iOS devices.

I'm convinced Apple will hit this out of the ballpark with one minor exception: the price. Apple needs to price this to sell. Otherwise it won't. The days of premium priced Apple products for fanboys are over. Apple is pricing their products more aggressively than ever. They're still higher than the competition, but not enough to keep them out of the hands of most consumers. I don't think they can sell this for more than $1,500 and that's already very high for a 50" HDTV.

So pretty much any TV Set with XBOX360+XBOXLive+Kinect. WOW way to go. That is what Windows 8 already promised.
post #42 of 70
That's true and Windows 8 will make that a reality for any machines running it.
post #43 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by holy_steven View Post

So pretty much any TV Set with XBOX360+XBOXLive+Kinect. WOW way to go. That is what Windows 8 already promised.

Links here and here show Xbox TV deals an Kinect integration.

First point... This is basically Microsoft admitting that the only way they are able to bring a TV solution to their ecosystem is to deal with the existing market players. I don't see this as an ideal solution (although it's worlds ahead of what we have at the moment).

Second point... we don't know how this will work in with Windows 8. Personally I think Microsoft would be insane to not deal with Windows 8 PC's and tablets the same way they are dealing with the Xbox. However Microsoft divisions are notoriously bad at working together, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

Final point. If Apple never did their version of products that already exist they would never release anything. Just because Microsoft are already doing a "NUI" IPTV solution doesn't mean Apple can't do one as well.

The truth may even be the opposite in that, because Microsoft is entering this market it's a damn good reason for Apple to expedite their own plans.
post #44 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

iTV will not have FaceTime.

you're crazy. sure it will. Apple is building FaceTime into all its hardware without any exception, clearly a long term strategy. i bet you there will be wifi FaceTime on even iPod Nanos as soon as next year (the Dick Tracy wrist TV phone at long last).

and btw everyone, it can't be "iTV" unless Apple buys the rights from the British network that owns an uses the name. which i don't expect. maybe "iHD" - i don't see anyone else using that now.
post #45 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Unless Siri is enabled through a connected device. Not intended for use across a room but with your iPhone, iPad or iPod if you so choose.

no, it's got to have Siri built in to the iHD too. that is part of the breakthrough idea, so no need for a physical remote control of any kind for everyday use. you'd only need an iOS device to run apps on it that need a touch UI.
post #46 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizzpooper View Post

I know the Fanbois think AAPL invents everything, but you do know that the Fall Xbox update will make the Xbox do all of these very same things? Steve Jobs wanted to make the Xbox without games, brilliant!

but it's still a "box." which is directly opposite the whole point of the concept of not needing a "box" anymore.

yes, most "boxes" of all brands do mostly the same things nowadays, including Apple TV (does Mango have its version of wireless AirPlay/Screen Mirroring via XBox like iOS 5 does with ATV? oh, needs a USB cable? ... so sad).

and XBox/WP 7 is also a totally closed and proprietary MS "walled garden" as much or more than iTunes/iOS ever was. got that Gold XBox Live account?
post #47 of 70
like many others, i see two huge problems in the way of a revolutionary Apple television, no matter how terrific the hardware/software might be:

- content

basically, Apple will have to make deals with all the medico's to have rights to the content they need to be a success. that will put them in direct competition with all the cablecos, satcos, and telcos (don't forget U-Verse) that do the same thing.

(Google thought it could cheat everyone by just just "scraping" all this content from everybody else's web portals for Google TV without paying for it, but that got totally crushed.)

i thought, well Apple can just buy DISH network for $10 billion to get these medico rights (and dump the retail customer part of the company to someone else - and just fold Blockbuster into iTunes). but the rights are not automatically transferable.

and the mediacos are all scared to death of Apple (or hate it), and keep hemming and hawing ...

- distribution

Apple still has to depend on the ISP cablecos and telcos now to get its service to end users. and they can throttle the service and/or jack up the rates. and they will.

i thought, well Apple can just buy DISH network to get the national trunk satellite distribution network, but it still needs local ISP's for local retail service (until the receivers can built right in to the TV's indoors). or maybe Apple can set up its own ISP business, like other independent ISP's, buying bandwidth delivery to Apple customers at low bulk rates and passing the savings along to the customers.
post #48 of 70
I don't reply on these boards often, but this one really piqued my interest.

First off, I don't think Apple would be crazy enough to build the TV screen. Sure, they could (to get in on that action), but the real deal is the software. It has always been about the software. Hardware is nothing more than a portal to the software. That said, I see the following happening:

ATV 3.0 comes out. It comes out in one size (8 GB), with the option of putting an external HD to it either directly or through an AEBS or TMBS. The reason for this is simple, storage of purchased content. I don't just mean music and movies, but I mean apps as well. It will also have a A5 chip in it for two reasons: FaceTime and Siri. If you don't think that it will include Siri, you are missing the boat here. Apple is betting the farm on Siri. It makes perfect sense, especially in the home entertainment area. For instance, think of the following scenario:

-----------------------

Me: "Siri, record the series 'Two Broke Girls' on CBS, and set a reminder for the '60 Minutes' special about Steve Jobs"

Siri: I have setup the recording of 'Two Broke Girls' and setup your reminder.

Me: "Siri, show me the 'Weather Channel'; I want to see the 5 Day Forecast"

Siri: Changing the channel to "The Weather Channel". It is currently showing "Storm Chasers", do you want me to get the 5 day forecast from the internet instead?

Me: Yes.

Siri: Getting your local forecast right now. I will show it to you on the lower portion of the screen.

Me: Can you put it on the upper portion instead?

Siri: Certainly, I have put it on the upper portion right now.

Me: "Siri, setup a FaceTime call with my Dad at home"

Siri: Sorry, but they are not there. WOuld you like to leave a video message instead?

Me: Yes.

Siri: Recording Started

--------------------------

This is definitely a real possibility. Plus, with the auto-focusing of today's cameras, plus the iOS software, there really is no reason why not to do this. Also, think of the one area that Apple unintentionally propelled itself into: Gaming. Everyone has been saying that since the iPhone 4, its graphics on there have been at, or just below console gaming. Now you have a dedicated device that can do just that, and allow your iPhones/iPods/iPads act as controllers for it.

Yes, this is a bit of a jump, but it is nothing that a little bit of logic can't take you down to.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #49 of 70
The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.

All I'd really like to see is a TV with an easy to use interface, good image calibration settings, low input lag and no extra processing things to turn off.

If it has support for things like apps and whatnot that would be nice, provided there's a software that allows you to stream video in any container or format similar to what I can do with PS3 Media Server on my PS3. I really don't care about having Facebook on my TV - I want to see how and if Apple can make it better for watching movies and TV.
post #50 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post

I don't reply on these boards often, but this one really piqued my interest.

First off, I don't think Apple would be crazy enough to build the TV screen. Sure, they could (to get in on that action), but the real deal is the software.

I would submit that they'd be crazy not to do this. And an all-in-one TV from Apple fills me up with a sort of feeling of living room utopia. Apple's strength here is that TV companies are not software companies, this is why Apple could come in and steal the show. Not to mention, but Apple strength is not software per se, but the way they marry software and hardware, and by building a TV they reduce complexity, reduce the number of remotes per living room to one, and they fully control they end to end expierience just like they do with iPods and iPads. If they can get the TV show content an Apple television is a no-brainier. And would give them an iPod/iTunes position in the living room. Not market share wise, but expierience wise. And that's a winning strategy.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #51 of 70
The inference in the article's title is that Steve controls who does what after he is gone. It is up to Tim to decide now, unless he is going to be running Apple from a list of 'to dos' SJ left him. I am sure Tim is in charge and there is no such situation.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #52 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post

Yes, this is a bit of a jump, but it is nothing that a little bit of logic can't take you down to.

Partial Quote:

I agree.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #53 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasakka View Post

If it has support for things like apps and whatnot that would be nice, provided there's a software that allows you to stream video in any container or format similar to what I can do with PS3 Media Server on my PS3. I really don't care about having Facebook on my TV - I want to see how and if Apple can make it better for watching movies and TV.

Who said Facebook? I think you're thinking about the wrong style of apps that store may be known for. And I totally agree with you about the streaming container thing, but given that those apps are available on the App Store I see no reason why they don't exist for iTV too.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #54 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post

Me: "Siri, record the series 'Two Broke Girls' on CBS, and set a reminder for the '60 Minutes' special about Steve Jobs"

Recording on demand IPTV is like recording a permalink.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #55 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I am not sure about that.

The iPhone, Macbook or iMac are natural devices for FaceTime style video chatting, because you're the right distance from the camera. The TV? Not so much, IMO. Where would you sit? Close to the TV? Far away?

I think that facial recognition and an 8 mp camera, in combination with auto digital zoom to the face (like the auto-cropping Apple now uses for video stabilization) could work to address that problem. There is an interface issue for sure, so that the camera isn't zooming on the portrait on your wall, or to allow group FaceTimes, but that should be manageable.

I think people will really want this. Imagine group FaceTime for family holidays....

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #56 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasakka View Post

The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.

Same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

but it's still a "box." which is directly opposite the whole point of the concept of not needing a "box" anymore.

yes, most "boxes" of all brands do mostly the same things nowadays, including Apple TV (does Mango have its version of wireless AirPlay/Screen Mirroring via XBox like iOS 5 does with ATV? oh, needs a USB cable? ... so sad).

The point of a "box" is that it is cheap and can be upgraded every 2 or 3 years, whilst a TV should last 10+ years. Build it all-in-one and you lose that significant upgrade advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

and XBox/WP 7 is also a totally closed and proprietary MS "walled garden" as much or more than iTunes/iOS ever was. got that Gold XBox Live account?

You say that like it's a bad thing?
post #57 of 70
Why must we assume it's an all-or-nothing thing? That it's either an all-in-one OR a set top box? Are they really mutually exclusive?

Apple doesn't only make one computer. They make the all-in-one iMac, but they also make the standalone Mini and Pro.

Apple could release a 32", 37", and 42" AppleTV, alongside a set top box that connects to any display. Apple could even have a "Made for AppleTV" program.


Also, I wonder if Apple's secretive multi-billion dollar strategic investment has anything to do with this. Netflix just increased their investment in content rights to about $1.5B. Could Apple, with it's $80B in cash finally pay enough money to get the content holders to finally get out of the way of progress? Everything is for sale right? It might not be immediate, as existing deals with HBO are halting some things, but maybe 2013?
post #58 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by willb2064 View Post

The point of a "box" is that it is cheap and can be upgraded every 2 or 3 years, whilst a TV should last 10+ years. Build it all-in-one and you lose that significant upgrade

Well, we used to replace our phono turntables once every 10 years or so. Now I buy a new music player (iPod or iPhone) every couple of years.

Not quite the same I know, but technological change can radically change behaviors and buying habits. When big smart TVs drop below $1000, why would we not replace them with the same kind of frequency as our computers?

The only reason we upgraded our TVs so infrequently is that the technology improved on that kind of cycle. Not true with computers and other computationally-based equipment.

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #59 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasakka View Post

The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.

iTunes and its App Store are very sophisticated and powerful software that changed everything. they obviously still satisfy many, if not you. every media software like it has its pros and cons. just dismissing it all as a "POS" is a childish rant.
post #60 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPedro View Post

That would make no sense in the context of Steve's revelation in the book. He wants it to be as simple as possible. He talks about controlling the entire user experience just like Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. You can't control the ENTIRE user experience if you have to deal with other manufacturer's televisions. When he said that the cable companies' grasp on the industry couldn't be solved by selling people an add on box because they still had to pay for it when cable companies' were giving their boxes away for free, it was true. Saying that he cracked it, means that Apple would have to have the user in their hands the second they walk out of an Apple Store with one of their TVs. You get home, plug it in, sign in with your Apple ID and it already has your iCloud content already on the TV and new content ready to be purchased and watched without involving cable companies.
...

It's ridiculous to say one can't control the ENTIRE user experience if Apple TV has to output image to other manufacturer's TV. After all, it's just a display. I use a samsung monitor with my Mac mini, and I don't find the user experience limited at all compared to my iMac. I would probably find the experience similar if I use my Sony TV as the display head.

What you are describing here can easily be accomplished by a more beefy AppleTV hardware wise, probably not even have to beef it up. The quality of this service is entirely dependent on the software. Which could easily mean the new Apple TV is a brand new type of TV service that integrate very closely with some/all Apple devices.
post #61 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Well, we used to replace our phono turntables once every 10 years or so. Now I buy a new music player (iPod or iPhone) every couple of years.

Not quite the same I know, but technological change can radically change behaviors and buying habits. When big smart TVs drop below $1000, why would we not replace them with the same kind of frequency as our computers?

The only reason we upgraded our TVs so infrequently is that the technology improved on that kind of cycle. Not true with computers and other computationally-based equipment.


If you computer cost more than $1000, you would not be replacing it entirely every couple years. At least normal people wouldn't. Even then, it's really the software requirements that pushes people to upgrade. Furthermore, it's really the CPU, memory, hard drive, display card etc. that gets upgraded. The monitors go on a much slower cycle.

TV is essentially a monitor with built in TV signal processing hardware. By integrating additional hardware into it and essentially force people to replace a large monitor on a short cycle would almost ensure it to be a niche product.
post #62 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by willb2064 View Post

The point of a "box" is that it is cheap and can be upgraded every 2 or 3 years, whilst a TV should last 10+ years. Build it all-in-one and you lose that significant upgrade advantage.

yes, this is a very important point. of course the software can be updated, but not the chip. of course price is part of this equation too.

i used to get a new $2000+ TV every 4 years to keep up with the all-important improvements in PQ, but those days are over now that 1080p is the general standard that won't change for a long time. so my 4 year old XBR is still a great TV. it really might last 10 years. the OEM"s are trying to sell us 3D HDTV's now for $2000+, but it's still a gimmick and wearing glasses to watch is silly. once they have 3D without glasses, maybe.

and once all HDTV's are very cheap, as they soon will be, why would Apple want to be in that low-margain commodity business anyway - except to sell you a TV that is a key anchor for you entire home Apple ecosystem.

whereas, when the Apple TV 3 "box" comes out with an A5 chip that can do a lot more than the ATV2, i'll just replace my ATV2 to take advantage of that because it's only $100. that will always be true.

maybe the Apple HDTV will incorporate its equivalent ATV box that does all the smart digital stuff as a modular plug in unit that you can replace to update easily without buying a whole new TV. that would be smart.

sure, we can all imagine the "perfect" ATV we'd want - somewhat different of course for each of us. i think they'd all add several HDMI inputs to the "box" to connect all our other A/V components and enable you to run apps on an iOS device to control those components (like you can now with TiVo, Xfinity, and others). so the ATV screen would always be your start screen, with PIP's showing what is happening on each component along with all the other ATV services/apps you could use like now, including AirPlay/Screen Mirroring. it would be seamless, with no more cumbersome input switching and no more multiple remote controls.

this is what Google intends to do with Google TV i'm sure, and i think Apple is crazy to refuse to do this. but Jobs could be so stubborn. hope the new leadership isn't.

Everytime i stack up all the problems like this, and content, and bandwidth, i just don't see how an Apple HDTV really makes sense yet. Apple will need to pull some rabbits out of some hats, or it will be just another "hobby."
post #63 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Snitch View Post

Geez, today must have been AppleTV day or something. Well, we'll see. Still think this will be an Apple box that attaches to 3rd-party 'Apple-blessed' TVs.

Nah. Just a blog trying to make a buck.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #64 of 70
If Robbin is currently the lead software designer for iTunes, he's made some unfortunate decisions lately. iTunes 10 is full of bad design decisions, from the three buttons becoming vertical, the changed icon, the removal of color, the maximum artwork size being smaller, etc. Not to mention the madatory 'Ping" button in the iTunes 9 sidebar (later modified to be removable).

It's time to bring in someone fresh to iTunes design, someone who hopefully will split off music from the rest of it. When searching for music, why do I get a list of software, TV shows, etc.?
post #65 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

I think that facial recognition and an 8 mp camera, in combination with auto digital zoom to the face (like the auto-cropping Apple now uses for video stabilization) could work to address that problem. There is an interface issue for sure, so that the camera isn't zooming on the portrait on your wall, or to allow group FaceTimes, but that should be manageable.

I think people will really want this. Imagine group FaceTime for family holidays....

Except for the 8 MP camera, you just exactly described the Kinect. But good luck finding a monitor with which to display, and internet bandwidth with which to broadcast, an 8 MP picture.
post #66 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

.
and btw everyone, it can't be "iTV" unless Apple buys the rights from the British network that owns an uses the name. which i don't expect. maybe "iHD" - i don't see anyone else using that now.

Jony Ive will design it the iTelly.
post #67 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

Jony Ive will design it the iTelly.


i like that!

there's a small "iVid" company. Apple could probably buy that name easily. "iTube" is in use too by some small outfit. also "iScreen." and "iVideo." and "iView." iHD is the only one i can think of not in use yet.
post #68 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

maybe the Apple HDTV will incorporate its equivalent ATV box that does all the smart digital stuff as a modular plug in unit that you can replace to update easily without buying a whole new TV. that would be smart.

sure, we can all imagine the "perfect" ATV we'd want - somewhat different of course for each of us. i think they'd all add several HDMI inputs to the "box" to connect all our other A/V components and enable you to run apps on an iOS device to control those components (like you can now with TiVo, Xfinity, and others). so the ATV screen would always be your start screen, with PIP's showing what is happening on each component along with all the other ATV services/apps you could use like now, including AirPlay/Screen Mirroring. it would be seamless, with no more cumbersome input switching and no more multiple remote controls.


I think you are getting closer to what it Apple could be releasing.

Wrangling the multiple inputs and remote controls is key. If the box can get the ID codes from each device and present you with a home screen like you described, then you have integrated the Apple ecosystem without building the actual TV. Your home screen would simplify all the devices much like a custom programed remote does.

Just went through this awful scenario recently where we practically had to give a class to enable a guest to use our living room setup without our presence. Many phone calls later, finally got the TV, cablebox, DVD mavhine, sound system, Mini, Netflix, and movie HD running. UGH. I don't want to go through it myself anymore. We have a basket of 6 remotes!
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #69 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

but it's still a "box." which is directly opposite the whole point of the concept of not needing a "box" anymore.

yes, most "boxes" of all brands do mostly the same things nowadays, including Apple TV (does Mango have its version of wireless AirPlay/Screen Mirroring via XBox like iOS 5 does with ATV? oh, needs a USB cable? ... so sad).

and XBox/WP 7 is also a totally closed and proprietary MS "walled garden" as much or more than iTunes/iOS ever was. got that Gold XBox Live account?

Yaaawn http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817...id=EdxqOWVo-wv
post #70 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by iKol View Post

Jony Ive will design it the iTelly.

If Apple calls their phone "iPhone" they'll call their TV "iTV".

You could argue in a court that a TV channel which only broadcast in the UK & Ireland can be easily distinguished from a physical TV device, because I think it can, and I think Apple will.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Steve Jobs left iTunes creator in charge of connected TV initiative