or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs wanted Apple to reinvent TVs, textbooks & photography
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs wanted Apple to reinvent TVs, textbooks & photography - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by poke View Post

I don't really trust Isaacson to appreciate the significance of Jobs's remark, since he has proven himself to be technically incompetent, so it could be that Jobs had merely "nailed" the UI aspect of a television but hadn't yet worked out how to deal with the cable companies, content companies, bandwidth issue, etc. Who knows what the context is here?

So eager are you to rag on Isaacson's very good biography, you miss the big point here. We are not getting either details or context because Isaacson is deliberately suppressing them out of concern for Apple's trade "secrets," though that may not be exactly the right word.

Yes, Siracusa could list a dozen or more instances of Isaacson's non-mastery of the technical background, but it is naive to trash the book on that basis. It should have been the publisher's job to shepherd the project through some expert readers knowing that the author was weak on the tech. Maybe there wasn't time.

Siracusa rashly accuses the author of being lazy and uninterested rather than taking a more charitable and mature view that would have included the possibility of time constraints or editorial failures. To say that Jobs hired the wrong guy is arrogance. Gruber wisely backtracked a bit on the last 5by5, saying that it may have been strategic decision not to have a tech reporter nosing around Apple's business details.

The book is well worth reading for its insights into Jobs's penetrating native intelligence, and for the background it gives for his unique countercultural approach to the art of technical design. I know that's a vague statement, but it would take a while to flesh it out. Reading the book is a really good way to find out why it is Apple alone that has raised user experience to the level it has.

Update: Siracusa's second show on 5by5 about the book reveals that he just isn't seeing Isaacson's character study. He says the opportunity was squandered, we don't arrive at an awareness of Jobs's whole persona, and that's more important than the technical errors. Gruber is essentially in the same position; see his post today, where he shows how Malcolm Gladwell doesn't get Jobs either. So that's three who are blind to what I think Isaacson details very well. It seems to be a generational and (counter)cultural blindness on their part. Details available, if anyone's interested.

Update 2: At least Siracusa does say that everybody should read the book, but that's after doing his best to make everyone not want to. (This is an age of complainers who don't understand the effects of their complaints.) I would say it's the best biography we have of the most influential person of our time, and it's a great read. Don't miss it.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple needs to build an all-in-one TV. That's the whole reason for no HDMI ports on the back; to force simplicity on the situation. Not just for simplicity of set up, but for one remote, one remote, one remote.

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology where each viewer may bloom, secure from the pests purveying contradictory truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause, one remote.



Removing HDMI means you can't connect a games console - that locks out about 200 million potential customers. Locking out Blu-Ray and cable networks is also not a good thing to do. It also means you can't use direct iPad mirroring, although Airplay can cover this somewhat.

People are happy for peripheral devices to be locked down because they are like leaf nodes in a network. The home media setup is a hub and can't be locked down in the same way to be just another peripheral.

I personally think that content is far more important than simplicity here. You can have the simplest device in the world to use but if it fails at its primary purpose then it's not going to sell.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Removing HDMI means you can't connect a games console - that locks out about 200 million potential customers. Locking out Blu-Ray and cable networks is also not a good thing to do.

I don't know about you but I think being able to only watch Apple-approved TV programs on an Apple TV seems a nightmare to me.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

He admitted he was wrong about the Apple tablet running a full blown version of Mac OS X.

Perhaps, but I doubt he'll put it in his sig. I stand by what I said but it still mildly annoying which is his intent.

If I were petty I'd stick the fact that he's admitted to domain squatting an Apple TV domain in my sig. Which is what I mean by ethically challenged. I don't think much of domain squatters...a bare step above email spammers.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkateNY View Post

Plenty of folks would simply love a voice-responsive remote that works only with Apple products.

Why only Apple products? The remote control codes are public knowledge - most equipment that comes with a "universal" remote control lists the codes for all the other manufacturer's devices so you can program your remote. If Apple built an iPad/iPhone app that could control anyone's device with a killer UI, that would interest me far more than an Apple-branded TV.

The problem today is that each remote is missing several important things for the other devices.

For example: the remote to my A/V receiver can turn my other devices on and off and control my BD player, but it can't get to the adjustment menus on the TV and while it has "TV control", I actually need it to control the channels on the cable box, but the volume on the TV and I've never gotten that to work. Also, it's really poorly designed and while the buttons light up, the labels above the buttons don't. Apple would never make such a mistake.

My TV remote will also power on/off the other components and it will control the STB, but it also won't control the drawer on the BD player. It also won't get to the display info or the audio selection of the BD player, without digging deep into menus.

My cable remote has two functions the other remotes don't have: a "Favorites" button and an "Info" button. So while I can use one remote "mostly", I'm still stuck using four remotes.

Some of the components can be controlled via an iPhone app but the functionality is limited and you can't power the components on because a signal from the network can't power them on.

And while there are some remotes out there (Harmony) in which you can program a chain of events ("turn down the lights, close the curtains, turn on the TV, the BD player, the hi-fi system and set it for 7.1"), they are difficult to program and problematic in other ways as well. There are also a few iPad based tools (iRule), but they have their faults as well. If you look at related Forums, few people seem to be able to build working remotes from these tools. If you're a programmer, you can probably get these working quite well, but if not, you're out of luck - it's simply not an intuitive build tool to use.

I would love to see Apple pull this all together not in their own TV, but in a STB and a quality iPhone/iPad app.

The problem with a supposed Apple TV set is that in the name of simplicity, Apple will probably kill all of the controls that most sets come with today: Black level, white level, white balance, the ISF controls that permit calibrators to properly calibrate sets for the best picture, etc. While many people don't care about this stuff as long as the picture looks "okay" and I will readily admit that making 100 settings is not a good end-user experience, many sophisticated consumers do want that control. Also, as others have posted, I can't see Apple permitting a lot of connectivity to other devices. For me, when I'm watching a movie, I want the sound coming from my multichannel sound system. And even though Apple (and others) thinks that only the Cloud is the future delivery mechanism, I still want to use my BD player, which still provides the highest level of picture and sound quality generally available in the home.

Furthermore, while no one needs access to every content supplier, when a Samsung, Sony or Panasonic TV gives you net access to Netflix, Amazon On Demand, Pandora and about 50 other services and Apple only gives you access to iTunes, how can Apple compete? I also don't know how Apple can use Siri to search content on cable/satellite networks because so much of cable is locally based. Even if they had access to the data behind the program guides, those guides are frequently wrong. But Apple is certainly smarter than I am and maybe they really do have answers to all these problems.

So I'm (probably) not interested in an Apple TV set per se (unless Apple surprises me), but I am interested in anything Apple designs that would clean-up the remote control situation and the user interface of most electronic devices. It's shocking how bad the UI of most electronic devices are today. I got into a big ado with the customer support people at Sony who couldn't properly explain their own settings and consistently gave me obviously incorrect technical information. I happen to be an ex-recording engineer and even I have problems understanding some of this stuff because it's designed so poorly.
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Perhaps, but I doubt he'll put it in his sig. I stand by what I said but it still mildly annoying which is his intent..

I get frustrated with his idea for a product without any thought in how it could be accomplished. It reminds me of Karl Pilkington from The Ricky Gervais Show where he has an "idea" for a watch that would tell you how long you have to live. When questioned about how it would work his response is "Just pop it on your wrist."

»

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJxcQt6nCC0
Quote:
If I were petty I'd stick the fact that he's admitted to domain squatting an Apple TV domain in my sig. Which is what I mean by ethically challenged. I don't think much of domain squatters...a bare step above email spammers.

He doesn't come across as a domain troll, more like some passionate about a concept.
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 #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

Who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of money on an Apple Television just so they can have one remote control? Just buy a multi remote which controls all your devices for £20.

No this has nothing to do with remotes. This is about extending Apple's cloud strategy. The cloud will become your digital hub rather than the computer. Store and stream or download as you wish. The Apple TV will simply be another "device" in the Apple ecosystem. Instead of beaming programmes from your iPod/iPhone or mirrored games - everything will be accessible fom the TV: iTunes movies, tv, music, games, the internet, etc. It will replace your hifi coz it will have fantastic internal speaker system.

If you want to add cable/sat ok then add the extra box. If not you have a one box solution for all your enterainment needs.

Wrong again. To the fastidious Jobs, these stupid remotes & clunky tv interfaces must have made him furious!
post #48 of 65
AppleTV: Siri!

Reminds me of the story when apple was developing the iPad and jobs was shown the "rubberband" scrolling effect and he immediately said we have to make a phone! He put the iPad on hold and concentrated on the iPhone....Siri is apple's answer to multiple remotes and clunky tv/cable interfaces.


P.S. And apple will leapfrog Google in search too with Siri!

Best
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Wrong again. To the fastidious Jobs, these stupid remotes & clunky tv interfaces must have made him furious!

I agress that the multiple remote thing annoyed Jobs. No one likes it, but I don't see a good solution to get around it. A TV won't cut it. You still have sound bars with remotes, A/V receivers with remotes, Blu-ray players with remotes, game consoles with remotes, and sat/cable receivers with remotes.

Completely ignoring the whole content distribution conundrum and Siri, the most streamlined HW solution seems to be an A/V receiver with a built-in AppleTV. This would allow any TV to be a dumb monitor. You set it up and toss the remote in the back of some drawer. You can then plug in any and all HEC appliances (and speakers) to the AppleTV A/V receiver so that your AppleTV interface will always be connected by Ethernet or WiFi and will overlay your game console, Blu-ray, sat/cable whenever you have a call come in, someone at your door, an important message from email/twitter/iMessage, and all without ever having to be off the AppleTV UI. It'll always be there waiting to pop up on demand without any input change. You'd still have to change your input to switch from, say, Blu-ray to cable, but you do that from the AppleTV remote, not from the TV. This eliminates a big nuisance and it allows current models to integrate with it.

I'd love to hear a way that Apple could destroy the current network ownership and distribution method that allows all your content to come solely from Apple, but thus far no one has come up with any plan that would make sense outside of a Pop Sci home of the future vacuum. Channels as apps is the closest I've seen to that but how would local channels work for this? Are they willing to give Apple 30% of their revenue and people really willing to pay $5/month for Ã* la carte channels they typically don't often watch or didn't think they'd miss? I don't think so.

I'm more inclined to think Jobs cracked it by created a software based AppleTV cable/sat box that is versatile in all US markets without considering the rest of the world at large than to think they created a TV with no ports and only Apple as the content providers.
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 #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It shouldn't be free if you're the one collecting, preparing and selling it. There is no such thing as a free lunch...

You might think so, but in this case you are just buying in to the major lie that allows the scam to be perpetrated.

Textbook marketing is one of the longest running and most successful business scams there is. The trouble is that it's closely tied in with the crumbling University/College business market which is almost impossible to change (given that Universities are based on a model from the Middle Ages).

Professors are given what are essentially kick-backs (promotional materials, preferential pricing, cash payments and sometimes even holidays, cars and houses), to "write" books like "Chemistry 100" and "Introduction to Biology," and paid further if they can convince their colleagues and the Universities to purchase large amounts of them. Because at most colleges and Universities, it's the professor who picks the books for the course, they are in complete control of the ordering process, so by bribing this one individual, the book producers can ensure not only massive sales, but also a blocking of the competitors products.

I've seen cases where entire Universities comprising tens of thousands of students all needing the same entry level book switched over to a very similar but differently authored (and published) "Biology 100" book and then switched back again the following semester. These books all cost in the range of a hundred dollars or more and the old editions become worthless if the new edition is from a different publisher.

This is especially shocking when you consider that all the information in these books is public domain. There is nothing really "new" in Biology at the 100 level, the curriculum simply doesn't change that much at that level and never has. These giant lower level textbooks are some of the most expensive items a student has to buy. They are forced to buy them (and buy specific versions from specific publishers), by the same professors that wrote them and the same professors that are receiving the kick-backs and payments from the publishers. The Universities are powerless to stop this as in a University, the professor is unassailable (that medieval model again), and cannot be fired if they have tenure.

It's a scam.

The same information has been repackaged for years and years by publishers all battling with each other to have the "definitive" edition even though the difference may only be an extra colour slide or two. They all steal ideas from each other and can't be caught because the information is at root, public domain. All that changes is the pictures and the layout of the pages. All the information contained in most textbooks is freely available elsewhere, but the students are forced to use the books the professor tells them to.
post #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsa View Post

I always shake my head when I hear people say that a mobile phone has a good camera. I'm a bit surprised that Steve thought the iPhone has a good camera. Basic physics tells you it's impossible to make a good camera in such a small device.

Ignoring the snobbish remark in the first sentence, I can tell you that you are completely wrong about not being able to put a good camera in a device as small as a phone.

If you search around (I'm not going to ruin it for you by telling you), you will find that there are cameras in the prototyping stage today, that would fit into an even smaller, thinner device than the iPhone and yet give better results than the best SLR. The giant lens SLR camera is going to be a thing of the past in less than ten years.

Likely the first versions of the new cameras won't beat out SLR's out of the gate, but the potential is there to greatly exceed the capabilities of current generation SLR's. It is the 21st century after all. We should expect that our tried and true ideas about what's possible will inevitably be proven wrong.

post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

You don't get it. You never will.

You're right I wouldn't spend 2 grand on a TV thats main selling point is voice control remote.
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I agress that the multiple remote thing annoyed Jobs. No one likes it, but I don't see a good solution to get around it. A TV won't cut it. You still have sound bars with remotes, A/V receivers with remotes, Blu-ray players with remotes, game consoles with remotes, and sat/cable receivers with remotes.

Completely ignoring the whole content distribution conundrum and Siri, the most streamlined HW solution seems to be an A/V receiver with a built-in AppleTV. This would allow any TV to be a dumb monitor. You set it up and toss the remote in the back of some drawer. You can then plug in any and all HEC appliances (and speakers) to the AppleTV A/V receiver so that your AppleTV interface will always be connected by Ethernet or WiFi and will overlay your game console, Blu-ray, sat/cable whenever you have a call come in, someone at your door, an important message from email/twitter/iMessage, and all without ever having to be off the AppleTV UI. It'll always be there waiting to pop up on demand without any input change. You'd still have to change your input to switch from, say, Blu-ray to cable, but you do that from the AppleTV remote, not from the TV. This eliminates a big nuisance and it allows current models to integrate with it.

I'd love to hear a way that Apple could destroy the current network ownership and distribution method that allows all your content to come solely from Apple, but thus far no one has come up with any plan that would make sense outside of a Pop Sci home of the future vacuum. Channels as apps is the closest I've seen to that but how would local channels work for this? Are they willing to give Apple 30% of their revenue and people really willing to pay $5/month for Ã* la carte channels they typically don't often watch or didn't think they'd miss? I don't think so.

I'm more inclined to think Jobs cracked it by created a software based AppleTV cable/sat box that is versatile in all US markets without considering the rest of the world at large than to think they created a TV with no ports and only Apple as the content providers.

As usual, Sol. Very thoughtful comments.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Channels as apps is the closest I've seen to that but how would local channels work for this? Are they willing to give Apple 30% of their revenue and people really willing to pay $5/month for Ã* la carte channels they typically don't often watch or didn't think they'd miss? I don't think so.

I'm more inclined to think Jobs cracked it by created a software based AppleTV cable/sat box that is versatile in all US markets without considering the rest of the world at large than to think they created a TV with no ports and only Apple as the content providers.

With viewers moving more towards VOD and web-based distribution, I think it's time for TV broadcasting to transition to the web model. TV stations become websites essentially and this means no coding of apps for individual platforms.

There would just be a streaming protocol like the RTSP protocol and you could for example navigate to TV://HBO or TV://Fox. These channels would just send out an HTML5 video stream like you get from the Apple keynote.

Your subscriptions to the channels could be determined by an account held by a 3rd party, Apple, Amazon, Google or the cable network themselves.

You probably wouldn't have to type these links in as the links would be registered with a DNS and checked against your account so could simply appear as shortcuts and could be added/deleted manually.

It means the broadcasting is independent of even your cable box and allows you to watch on any device you own by simply authorising your device.

On-demand content would work exactly the same way and linked to channels. The TV:// protocol can allow any HTML5 interactive content including overlay ads if they are determined to be less intrusive than ads that break the program up.

As for Apple's involvement, they could do the whole hub idea of every device connecting to a box in a cupboard that uses Airplay to connect to a Tv that only has a power cord and use a virtual remote UI that maps to a Wii-like remote (no pointer though, just selection states). So if you want to map interactive buttons, you can have a virtual keyboard like iOS that allows you to take special buttons like coloured interactive buttons and do a custom mapping but the vast majority of them (numbers, characters and media buttons) use a common UI for all of them.

I don't think Apple would make a TV set without figuring out the marketability and like you, I personally don't think it's the right strategy but it all depends on the solution they come up with and the price they can compete at. The networks need a shake up first.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

With viewers moving more towards VOD and web-based distribution, I think it's time for TV broadcasting to transition to the web model. TV stations become websites essentially and this means no coding of apps for individual platforms.

Folks keep saying this and I keep pointing out that cable and sat companies pay $32B a year in affiliate fees to content producers.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...1038593210.htm

32 Beeeeellion dollars.

Even Dr. Evil would like that. So would TV stations.

If you can show an alternative web business model where this can happen great...
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Folks keep saying this and I keep pointing out that cable and sat companies pay $32B a year in affiliate fees to content producers.

If you can show an alternative web business model where this can happen great...

It would essentially be the same model except without the proprietary cable box. You'd still have to pay the subscription to access the content streams - like if you visit a web page and have to put in a login. Once you authorise your device, the channels/web links are unlocked.

The difference is that by using the internet as a conduit, you aren't limited to the cable box. You can watch your favourite shows on your big screen TV and at night pick up your iPad and watch a show in bed just by authorising the device on the same subscription.

Money still gets paid to the networks so they can make deals with the content providers for exclusivity etc. They can protect content with the subscription accounts.
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

So, instead of punching 803 to watch the Science Channel, I'll have to do this:

"Change Channel"

Okay, which channel do you want to watch

"Science"

I don't know what that is

"SCIENCE"

Okay, I'm going to change the channel to syfy Do you want me to do this?

"cancel"

etc etc etc.

I find it sort of funny that the modern day Edison couldn't figure out a remote. Did his VCR blink 12:00 too?

If you know the channel number, why not just say, "Watch channel 803"? Duh.
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If you know the channel number, why not just say, "Watch channel 803"? Duh.

THAT is what Steve would have gotten rid of. Screw memorizing channel numbers. Screw needing to know channel numbers. Switching providers should be effortless.

Anyway, I don't believe in the non-iTunes television model, so I won't go further with the illustration.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It would essentially be the same model except without the proprietary cable box. You'd still have to pay the subscription to access the content streams - like if you visit a web page and have to put in a login. Once you authorise your device, the channels/web links are unlocked.

The difference is that by using the internet as a conduit, you aren't limited to the cable box. You can watch your favourite shows on your big screen TV and at night pick up your iPad and watch a show in bed just by authorising the device on the same subscription.

Money still gets paid to the networks so they can make deals with the content providers for exclusivity etc. They can protect content with the subscription accounts.

If you take out the proprietary cable box it's not the same model...essentially or otherwise. Comcast does not intend to just be the commodity internet pipe provider. There's a lot less money in it than providing full cable service as part of their "triple play". Same goes for Verizon, AT&T, Dish, Cox, etc.

They provide content providers 32 billion reasons to keep the proprietary cable box in the middle. The content providers are not going to move from this model unless someone can provide 32.1 billion reasons to do so.

At most Comcast and the rest will provide apps so if you are an active Comcast customer you can access the content on a mobile platform. But they sure as hell do not want an internet only competitor like Hulu taking customers away from them or content providers providing a la cart channels directly.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

They provide content providers 32 billion reasons to keep the proprietary cable box in the middle.

They pay the content providers so they have exclusive content. The box does provide some vendor lock-in but it can also be a big problem. In order to offer a good value service, the box providers have to compete on quantity of content because they are asking subscribers to only buy into their eco-system. They are forced to offer more content and reduce profitability and end up padding the quality content with so much trash that it ends up degrading their service.

With a content provider-neutral conduit, there is no requirement to expand the offering. Subscribers can pick and choose which packages they want and they'd have to pay for access to the exclusive content just like with the proprietary box.

While it does mean the higher possibility of lost customers to rival content providers, it also means a far higher potential subscriber base as well as a tighter focus on quality over quantity. It's very risky though and I think this is what holds a lot of technology back.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They pay the content providers so they have exclusive content. The box does provide some vendor lock-in but it can also be a big problem. In order to offer a good value service, the box providers have to compete on quantity of content because they are asking subscribers to only buy into their eco-system. They are forced to offer more content and reduce profitability and end up padding the quality content with so much trash that it ends up degrading their service.

If content producers could figure out what would be hits every time perhaps this would work but in the end the diversity of content might also suffer.

What happens now is that the few hits pay for all the failures. Some of which are expensive failures. Or even expensive successes. I loved Rome but the production costs were insane and even HBO/BBC had to cut it despite being a ratings success.

For every Sopranos and Sex in the City there are probably several failures.

Quote:
With a content provider-neutral conduit, there is no requirement to expand the offering. Subscribers can pick and choose which packages they want and they'd have to pay for access to the exclusive content just like with the proprietary box.

And content producers make far less than $32B but have to deal with individual customers and all the costs associated with that...so how is this a win for content producers? Customers which are going to have to pay increased $$$ for that last mile connectivity via Comcast, etc and aren't inclined to pay $$$ for content on top of that.

HBO already gets the majority of the per subscriber fee paid to Comcast, Cox, etc. without any of the fullfillment hassles because not having HBO is a significant competitive handicap. So Comcast and Verizon happily pay HBO most of the HBO sub fees to collect the other $70+ of base subscription.

How does offering content directly to consumers help HBO in any way? They aren't going to make any MORE money going the Netflix streaming route. Especially if Comcast/Verizon/etc drops them in retaliation.

Amazon/Google/Apple might be able to break the model a little by creating original content but they're going to lock it into their respective ecosystems as a competitive advantage.
post #62 of 65
The next generation of TV's is multiplying going by some of the latest news articles. A few days ago it was Sony saying they had something special in the works. Now today Reuters is reporting Samsung in the final planning stages with Google on a "Google TV". Almost feels like there's a flash mob in the planning with everyone seemingly converging on the same spots.

http://9to5google.com/2011/11/22/reuters/#more-11264
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The next generation of TV's is multiplying going by some of the latest news articles. A few days ago it was Sony saying they had something special in the works. Now today Reuters is reporting Samsung in the final planning stages with Google on a "Google TV". Almost feels like there's a flash mob in the planning with everyone seemingly converging on the same spots.

http://9to5google.com/2011/11/22/reuters/#more-11264

Heh, it's only a flash mob if the mob (customers) shows up. With Google TV 1.0 not so much.

I guess my inclination is to dislike AIOs...which is why I've always bought minis vs iMacs. I'm still using an older 24" dell ultrasharp (2005) long after same generation iMacs (G5) are obsolete. I can't remember if this is PVA or IPS but it's a damn nice monitor even today 6 years later.

I got my parents a pretty nice 46" bravia several years ago around the time that the first iPhone came out. Imagine if the TV had a ARM11 CPU like the original iPhone...and what would still run well on it...

Meh. At least with computers you expect rapid obsolescence, even phones. Perhaps it'll be okay if the architecture is driven by cloud services like OnLive and not driven by apps. This is the reason why I think AirPlay is a critical part of Apple living room strategy. They're less likely to adopt the OnLive approach than Google or Amazon despite having that huge new data center.
post #64 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

And content producers make far less than $32B but have to deal with individual customers and all the costs associated with that...so how is this a win for content producers?

I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.

So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.

You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

How does offering content directly to consumers help HBO in any way? They aren't going to make any MORE money going the Netflix streaming route. Especially if Comcast/Verizon/etc drops them in retaliation.

I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon. The way HBO etc may benefit is by allowing many more providers to offer the services and possibly even reach an international audience. If you go on holiday to Australia, and take your iPad, you can stream your standard TV over the hotel wifi.
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

I wouldn't see the content producers going direct to customers, they would still be packaged up by network service providers.

So for example, say you get your cable broadband from Comcast, they can offer you a subscription to 50 streaming TV shows e.g TV://HBO, TV://Fox etc. When you tried to access these streams with any browser on any device, you'd just choose the provider, login to authenticate your subscription and the provider would send the stream to you.

You still have to pay for packages but you can watch anywhere and it means you can easily get other services on top without buying a box per provider.

That's how xfinity on demand, HBO Go, etc already work. They just require a cable sub...and the box.

The cable companies (including Verizon, AT&T, Dish, etc here) don't want to become just dumb pipes or lose their more profitable Double and Triple play packages. They are providing the "On The Go" functionality for their users...and blocking any attempt to get access to that content by cable cutters via Hulu, etc.

Quote:
I think the content providers hold all the cards in this. If Comcast/Verizon drop them, subscribers drop Comcast/Verizon.

When cable forced Hulu to drop Boxee I think that showed the relative hands of content providers vs content aggregators

"Many people blamed Hulu for its decision to block access on the Boxee platform. These users simply didnt understand the power of affiliate fees. Comcast told NBC/Fox that if Hulu could distribute their content for free, then they would like to take their own affiliate fees (the newly negotiated ones in #4) to $0.00. This caused NBC/Fox to tell Hulu that maybe Boxee isnt such a good idea."

http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/...orld-go-round/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Steve Jobs wanted Apple to reinvent TVs, textbooks & photography