First Apple TV prototypes "in the works" as Apple reportedly shopping part suppliers - Page 2

Content is a separate issue altogether and isnt affected by the AppleTV being interior or exterior to the TV or whether it's licensed by vendors. The same situation still happens where it's less desirable to only have 3 panel sizes with no other TV options for the many places owners want to place them, and you still have the issue with content. I'm not going to give up cable TV simply because Apple put the AppleTV in a TV so my question still stands.

I am not going to elaborate again on the fact that its impossible to stream live TV over the internet for large amount of customers.

But I will mention that the most important "feature" of a new Apple TV, way way more important than any "expected gadgets", is built in IPTV support and Cable or AT&T partnership.

The future of television is IPTV. If Apple want to enter this market and revamp it, they need to be the first to produce a TV with it. IPTV is the set-top box killer. AT&T U-Verse and Bell FIBE TV are still young and just starting up.

Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.

They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.

I play everything off my Time Capsule (unformatted for iTunes) using my Apple TV and ATV Black. Works a charm. Avi, whatever. Between that and iTunes Match I don't keep my computer on in the evenings any more.

Solip- what I'm saying is that an ATV box does not allow for an all inclusive easy to use user interface. I still have to go to my tv, change the input to my apple tv box, then do the same tedious junk when Im switching back to Uverse (or cable).

Its not getting rid of your cable box. Your cable box is integrated and there is no longer a need to switch inputs, or use the cable menu guide. Its all done through ONE interface that apple controls. The interface would control your cable, apple tv, DVR and Blu Ray. That can only happen on an integrated TV. That would be the advantage for an integrated TV over a box.

Now again- if content was revolutionized (which isn't going to happen), then a box would be all you need. But I think IPTV will be the future of the integrated Apple TV. The set top box will still remain a hobby and novelty (although when used in conjunction with the Integrated Apple TV, it can mirror the functionality of the full set)

Read herbapou's post- he hits the nail on the head.


I agree 100%. And the fact is when you say that it is impossible to stream live TV over the internet for a large customer base- you're dead on. Thats why what you said below is the most feasible option. It isn't revolutionary- its just simplistic interface- and that will have a niche market that doesn't mind paying a premium. Enough for Apple to make great money, but not enough to throttle the internet and take it to its knees.

Apple sues Samsung for using its rectangle TV.

The problem with live TV is more at the ISP level than on the internet backbone. Once you enter the ISP network, a large amount of stream coming from the net will bring down the network. ISP will have to get in and reduce those stream bit per second the same way they do it with peer to peer transfert. But with live TV that means the live stream will be unwatchable.

An IPTV network is a complex system that is implemented inside the ISP network. The live feeds are broadcast to nodes close to homes using fiber optics. The streaming occurs between those nodes and the houses. This is why its crucial for Apple to strike deals with Cable and AT&T.

The way I see it, Apple will be providing the smart-TV ecosystem, TV's and set-top box. Cable wont have to invest money trying to build an ecosystem. The real negociation will be over Video on Demand. Apple need to strike deals that split the profits between the ISP and Apple. Apple will provide the VOD ecosystem and manage it. The ISP will distribute it inside there network for reliable streaming without consuming internet bandwith. An ISP could also strike deals with google or Amazon at the same time, different ecosystem and VOD sources, they get there cut on all sides and the consumer gets more choices.

I cannot stress enough that trying to fight the ISP over live TV would be a major mistake.

...

Considering that the USB port on the current ATV is useless ("For service and support"), this would make me happy. I don't understand how Apple can't tell that people have more content in their libraries than is available on iTunes. At least with music, they openly acknowledge that people want a way to get media from other sources.

From the iTunes page:


I don't care if this kills things like Handbrake, but it's unacceptable that in 2012, DVD ripping is still considered taboo. This is especially true when you realize that because ATV 2 is streaming only, you need a consistently fast network connection to do anything. It reminds me of the 1st-Gen MacBook Air (Wireless only and only a 10/100 USB Ethernet dongle), which was hamstrung for this very reason. Why in the world is the Ethernet port not Gigabit?? Again, there's no good excuse for this.

Apple TV Take 2 was fine in terms of hardware but the software wasn't really done. With version 2, it's the opposite problem. It's just depressing to see a company like Apple not be able to figure out how to put the pieces together.

Steve even said as much during ATV 2's introduction:

It's not supposed to be 'used', so it's not useless. It serves the purpose for which it was designed.


And even if you were to buy everything in iTunes, you'd still need a place to store it. I'm talking not random AVI and MKV files that you've pirated and thrown onto a hard drive, I'm talking about giving access to properly formatted iTunes libraries full of iTunes-supported content that are stored on hard drives connected to your network directly, not inside a computer and NOT with said computer on and iTunes open.

No way would they ever give you a way to look inside randomly placed folder trees. That's nonsense. Just iTunes Libraries over the network, Apple. I'll rip my DVDs, encode them in HandBrake, pop them in iTunes, and add metadata to them myself.


Well, it's illegal, so.


To get people to use wireless over wired. That's the reason.


Yeah, LowTide isn't the best. I sent Tim the diagrams I made up of my take on HighTide, but obviously he can't respond to that.


"People don't want computers connected to or inside their televisions. People already HAVE their computers, and they want them separate from their TVs."

I sure hope you're not working on the Apple TV projet...

I really appreciate your posts on this topic. Very well informed and thought out. I wish more people would read what you write instead of jumping to unfounded or blind conclusions.

I wish the content companies would realize that getting a few pennies from a lot of people is better than no pennies from no people.

On-demand streaming is the future. People want to watch anything and everything at any moment.

The reason the content companies don't make much from Netflix streaming is because the content isn't that great.

But if they put a brand new release on Netflix streaming... millions and millions of people would watch it that night. That would make them quite a bit of money almost instantly.

Sure, it's not as much money as if you went out and bought the DVD on the night of release... but I don't know anyone who does that anymore. Behaviors have changed.

Renting is the next logical choice... and you see the content companies' attitude on that. They delay the rental release... hoping you'll buy the DVD instead.

I don't. I wait until it's in Redbox or Netflix. My behavior has changed.

I think the content companies and movie studios need to realize that getting even a little bit of money from streaming is better than getting no money because people simply don't wanna drive to the video store anymore.

My issue with it is that (likely due to studio pressure) it was designed with Apple in mind and not consumers/users. It's as if Apple said the following:

"Here we have what appears to be a USB port, but you (the customer) can't really use it and its entire existence is known only to us."

If this is the case, why have it accessible to the user at all?


As I said before, this is one alternative I would take, but it seems like Apple doesn't really understand how people watch TV or want to use ATV to do so.


This is exactly what I think a lot of people would like to see and the company certainly has the money available to make this part of any deal they sign with content providers. Even if they have to spend $1 billion+ per provider, that's not a huge deal.


If they can get someone to make an 802.11ac chip that can do Gigabit speeds, this could work.


I don't think that adding some form of local storage back in moves it from appliance to computer territory, but my issue is that they flip-flopped on this and made things more complicated.

Apple TV 1 (Take Two) explicitly did not require a computer and had local storage. Apple TV 2 is a simpler device, but assumes that people have a computer turned on in order to access anything on their TV. In it's current form, it's not a standalone device.

Thanks. I work in IT so it kind of give me an hedge over that tech stuff. I have also worked for BCE in Canada. I am currently working for a major Canadian bank on the central clients database systems and on the ATM systems, all on the IBM mainframe.

For RESTORES. Its ONLY purpose is for restores. And the user can do that. You have access to it for that purpose and that purpose alone.

I don't get what's confusing about that.


I know. I LOVED THAT (never actually had a first-gen, but loved that feature of it). That's the ONLY thing I would have changed about the current model. The first one used 100 watts IDLE. This one uses 6 watts MAX. Apple should make the new one exactly the same size as the old, give it an A6 chip, and have the option of either a 128 or 256GB stick like in the MacBook Air. Since I realize they'd never do that for whatever silly reason, I ask only for a middle ground between the first and second models: access to network storage without a computer being on.

If it is only to restore it and Apple has shown they want to eliminate wires, why not just extend this to accomplish the same thing? It's slower I know, but it would solve most issues. A real port may still be needed to verify that the device itself is still OK, but some form of Internet based restore would give people fewer reasons to mess around with the port that's there.

The port exists for when your wireless doesn't work on the device or you're not near Wi-Fi how's that going to help? It's a final solution for when all other forms of restore have failed. That is its only purpose.

Each of my suggestions addresses this without forcing the consumer to either throw away their current TVs, but from multiple vendors with any combination a consumer may want, update the AppleTV HW ahead of the TV monitor, and allow Apple to make a higher profit for a lower cost item that appeals to more consumers.

I think Shaw Wu and Katy Huberty are tied for first.

That was the old wish for Apple with winning the HEC but Jobs backed in an interview with Mossberg(?) the issue of broadband TV having no consistent network throughout the US. I don't think Jobs addressed the issue of the global market but that is also a major concern that needs to be planned to allow for eventual growth. As great as it would be to have an Apple cable box it always seemed complex.

Why AT&T first? Because of their previous relationship? How many regions does AT&T's U-Verse operate? How many US customers does that cover?

It can see a scenario for Apple to do that and then get customers to essentially force providers to offer Apple's boxes but I'd think deals with larger providers might be advantageous here.

Let me break it down by each of your two suggestions.


This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen. That'd be no different than how the ATV2 works currently.


This could happen- sure. But I don't recall Apple being prone to supplying the software and letting someone else sell the hardware. I remember it on one phone, which failed royally, and Apple regretted. Apple will sell the hardware and software combined. So this is more likely than Apple working the content deal, but still very unlikely. I'd love to have a $199 Dell netbook be able to license OSX, but it won't happen.



Just my opinion- so take that with a grain of salt- but Apple does not want to send their software off to let a hardware manufacturer(s) handle it. They want to be in control. I also believe there is no chance they work out a content deal (a la carte, etc.) because- single handedly- of sports (amongst other reasons). I don't think either of your suggestions are reasonable.

So my one single reasonable reason why this is better is.... Connected User Interface. I don't believe Apple TV working within a different hardware TV is reasonable. I also believe without a cable or IPTV deal worked out, that there won't be a good user interface either (meaning- I still have to use my stupid cable/uverse/dish TV guide).
Bottom line- I'm tired of changing inputs between devices. It's annoying. An integrated TV fixes that (and makes it easier to record, search channels, play music, etc.)

Sure it does. My options allow for the best of both worlds. The AppleTV becomes the de facto UI for any of the models I've presented.

Now, I didn't get into details of it earlier but I had assumed you knew what I was getting at. It now seems like you may not know what I was stating about an external device. I've mentioned this type of setup for years on here and I didn't say that the current AppleTV was perfect as it is at least the latter should be a clue.

To restate, I think it makes more sense for the AppleTV, as a stand alone device, to make the TV into a simple monitor. It hooks up via HDMI for video (and possibly audio) and the power connects to the back of the AppleTV just like with a cable box. Now the TV turns on and off with the AppleTV remote and never has to be moved from the Video 1 input. Now this AppleTV is much more like a router with a built in switch except with HDMI. It was one HDMI out to the TV and 2-4 coming into it so you can plug in your cable box/sat receiver, Blu-ray player, etc. Now all your input go through the AppleTV so at any time you can use the AppleTV remote to switch inputs if you want to use one of the connected devices and at any time, regardless of what UI you are using the AppleTV's UI will be able to take over. The AppleTV's UI could even overlay for showing you items like who's at your front door, when there is a call to the home phone, and other Growl-like options for certain services.


For my suggestion that Apple license their tech to vendors is basically the same exact thing as above in actual usage the only difference would be the remote would likely be theTV's remote with some AppleTV buttons. I include this option but Apple doesn't have a history of such camaraderie.

At least these options would allow for you to get your cable/sat content (something that Apple can't do without a lot of deal but even then it would be tricky if your cable provider is your ISP), play Blu-ray quality videos (something not going to happen with streaming for a very long time even after 1080p is available from the iTS), allows you keep your current TVs, allows you add multiple AppleTVs in the house at a price less than buying one Apple HDTV, and allows you to update the AppleTV HW in a cycle that is different from your TV's replacement cycle (these last three will not only allow Apple to sell more AppleTVs right away, but sell more to repeat customers who don't see a need to buy a new HDTV every year or two despite HW and feature updates to the AppleTV components.


Licensing their tech doesn't necessary mean the TV vendor makes or even sells the AppleTV HW. It could just mean they make the TVs to a certain spec, get a special logo on the upper left corner [TV] and have a special connector in the back specially for the AppleTV to tie into so it's seamless. These TVs would cost more because Apple would be getting a fee from vendors and then Apple could get money from us from buying the AppleTV device. You could then get a smaller TV for your bedroom from a different TV manufacturer and then put the older AppleTV unit on the smaller TV and get the newer, better AppleTV unit for your TV in the HEC. Now Apple has gotten licensing fee from two TV vendors, got you to by two AppleTVs, made you more connected and profited on the sale of all 4 items.


Me too, but I don't think it's so much of a pain that people are willing to spend a couple grand to replace all the TVs in their home with new TVs are only come in a few sizes and little to no other options. And Apple should be trying to find away to get users to buy a new AppleTV every time the HW is updated, something that surely won't happen with an Apple HDTV.

OK- totally not what I was thinking you meant.

So it works just like a Amplifier/Receiver does now (Onkyo, Dennon, Pioneer, etc.) where it only has one "audio/display" out? Got it. Seems logical, but I don't know if Apple would do that. Not to mention, it still wouldn't help with the User interface. If my Uverse is plugged into that apple tv, how could the apple tv decode all that info and put it into their UI. Same with a blu-ray player? I would still be handcuffed by using Uverse's tv menu layout.

I think you might be onto something though- if the small box (or even a little bigger) ATV could partner with an IPTV (like a Uverse) and fit it all into that little streaming device, then it could handle the majority of the UI work- at least regular and cable programing, streaming, etc. The only time you would need to change inputs is for dvd/blu-ray, or xbox/ps3/wii,

the thing is AT&T is the only one with a working IPTV network in the US. But apple could still convince a major cable operator to convert to IPTV. Cable has no choice, they know they have to replace broadcast QAM for IPTV at some point to remain competitive. In Montreal, Bell FIBE is already hurting Cable co Videotron, which is losing customers at an alarming rate.

aT&T has a huge advantage, like Bell in canada, its a country wide company. At some point, it will deserve the entire country with its U-verse offering.

Who says? This is Apple we're talking about. King of making deals that no one else can.

And you'll never have the same interface for your Blu-ray player as you will the rest of your Apple television solution.

Yes, an A/V receiver is a more apropos comparison. I don't know about you but I am not a fan of letting the TV handle all the sound or even using the TV's speakers. Some higher-end TVs have good speakers but it's just pointless to me. If I'm going to pay for sound I will have 3rd-party speakers that are separate from the TV.


Just like an A/V receiver sits between the TV monitor and all the connected devices it can overlay anything it wants whenever it wants because all the data is passing through it. The AppleTV UI will always be there when you want it, like your cable/sat box or Blu-ray/DVD UI is always there when you want it when there is content playing.

Sopil- you're still missing my point. There can be an overlay, but it's still your cable's UI to use the tv guide to pick the channel, or record the game. That can only be done if the set top box or integrated tv controls the content (via a la carte, teaming with a cable/iptv company, whatever).

Maybe this makes it clearer:
Your way you search channels is not the same. Apple controls your tv guide through your cable content. Is that clearer ( sorry if I'm communicating it poorly)

If you pop the AppleTV in a TV you are still needing to connect a cable/sat box for content.

If your original point was that Apple will alter the way content is delivered then my original point about the AppleTV being popped inside of a TV is irrelevant and completely separate issue.

Are you talking about the way content is delivered or the way the HW is connected because they are completely separate issues.

I had the same results when they launched here and almost cancelled. I held off, and they started enough new material to make it worthwhile. We still don't have Shameless like the U.S. but hopefully that will come soon.

In February, they're starting Netflix produced content, LilyHammer.

Ok... please reread everything I said. lol. What herbapou and I were both saying is that an integrated TV would have the cable box/card/iptv/whatever built INTO it. So there would be no cable box to hookup. Apple would partner with the cable company in that- you would still pay (example) Uverse, but Apple would be the hardware provider and provide the menu, UI, etc. A TV, with Apple TV, Cable Box, Blu Ray Player, DVR, etc. but Apple is the hardware maker of all of them. Example- Motorola creates the cable box for X cable company. Motorola designs the UI of the set top box. If Apple is now the hardware manufacturer of the "cable box/card" (integrated inside the TV)- now Apple designs the UI for everything.

I addressed that already. U-verse is limited. It's a single provider. Apple would have to get with the majority of providers throughout the US to cover the majority of the US. But you haven't addressed all the different setups throughout this country. You haven't addressed the issues of that. You haven't addressed how this could be a global product. You haven't addressed why this has to be all inside of a TV instead of just being a cable box. Your idea only saves you from flipping the TV input from cable box to Blu-ray. Not a big deal that would get me to replace 4 TVs in the house with one of 3 different size supposed to be offered from Apple, especially when I don't want anything over 32" for the bedrooms. Yet I do want AppleTVs in those rooms. I do want cable box for content in those rooms. What I've laid out are HW options that allow for ease of use, a specific UI, and not having to change the TV's input thus making the TV a simple monitor as it should be.

You need to separate the issues instead of lumping them into one big mess. There is the HW issue and the content distribution issue, but putting an AppleTV INTO a TV doesn't resolve the content issue and putting a cable box into TV isn't a solution that has been shown to be realistic nor is required to be IN the TV as opposed as simply in the AppleTV.

The HDMI spec allows one HDMI device controlling another. I don't remember whether that was a required feature

Apple starts in America. Remember the iPhone? AT&T only. How limiting was that? One provider, one country, then they rolled it out and other countries and providers were clammering for it.

And I disagree- you have to lump hardware and software together- it changes the situation entirely. If Uverse did team up with it, and the box/card/components/dvr were much larger than apple tv 2, then it might require a full fledged tv. Although they might be able to fit it all into a box- in which case would be the best scenario (unless apple wants to make more $ going the tv route). At any rate- they're smarter than us and we'll know soon enough- or not.

I enjoy the discussions.

IPTV is an international spec, in fact its a lot more popular in Europe than in the continental US. For having worked at BCE I can assure you IPTV put those QAM cable box to shame, they are not even in the same league. Mark those words, every single ISP is going to move to IPTV in the next 5 years. An Cable co. that doesnt is going straight to the graveyard. Most cable monopolies are going to get challenge by the "other" cable going into your home, the telephone cable, and AT&T IPTV offering is far more advanced than cable. IPTV is 10 years ahead of the QAM cable box.

If Apple wants to turn the TV market upside down, IPTV is the ticket. And they will have to make set-top box. Its not like its all speculation, its already happening right now in Toronto and Montreal, Cable co are losing customers in huge numbers to Bell FIBE TV.

One provider over the entire country. Sure, there a few places AT&T didn't touch but with a cable service you are talking about ignoring most of the country. In fact, I just checked a bunch of random people I know in the US and not one of them has U-verse available in their area. This is a completely different game. Aren't they only in half the US states right now?


If Apple can get IPTV in the US then so be it but remember you are talking about a lot of regional providers that will have to support it just to allow Apple to steal their business. I see no reason why they would investment billions in their own destruction.

On top of that, being RF or IP based is irrelevant to the big picture. You attach a modem, you attach a router, and you connect everything to that. Either way Apple will be using an IP based system unless they've decided to force cable and sat companies to invest in Apple's set top boxes, which I don't think will happen.

If Apple build in IPTV that doesnt mean you would not be able to use the TV with regular cable, you just plug the cable box in the HDMI input. But if you subscribe to an Apple ISP partner, that would mean no external box and being able to use the ecosystem to its full potential.

Apple would not be stealing cable business, its the opposite, they will enhance it with an ecosystem, cable would have less set top box to manage and video on demand profits would be share. Live TV would still be fully control by the ISP. The way I see it its a win-win situation.

Like I said, if Apple moves against the ISP with an internet offering, ISP are going to reduce the bit rates of any Apple feeds to make them unwatchable in order to protect there network from collapsing, and, because they will love to. Volume and reliability is key here, all the internet offerings currently works because volume is still low, if everyone moves to internet for video feeds, the networks are going to collapse.

People with satellite TV go nuts when they lose signal because of a storm. This only happens a few times per year. Imagine if you subscribe to a net service and it almost never works in the evening...

Recap:

1. Apple offerings video stream in large volume at peak hours: expect an unreliable service at best.
2. Apple trying to negociate live TV with studios in many countries: welcome to hell. Not to mention many ISP have vertical integration, that mean they also OWN many speciality channels.
3. Apple already has VOD in many countries. No need to negociate anything other than making a deal with ISP's.
4. If Apple only produce a smart TV like all the other android Tv's out there, they are not re-inventing TV at all. They will just be like all the others, and they will even be late in the game.
5. Integrating the ISP feed into Apple TV means a consistent UI across all services.

1) Everything you've stated can be done with a separate box and doesn't require the AppleTV to be built INTO the TV.

2) Google already tried this and got shot down for "advancing" the ecosystem behind the backs of the providers.

3) You're still not separating the content from the HW. These are separate issues.

4) You haven't addressed how AT&T's U-verse which only covers about 7% of the US population and is only used by 1% of the US population makes this a good fit for Apple.

5) You haven't addressed why I would pay $2-4K for new TVs when the current ones work fine.

6) You haven't addressed how I would update the AppleTV HW outside of the TV panel which only needs to be replaced once every 6-10 years.

7) You haven't addressed how Apple's rumoured 3 sizes of TV that are all way too big for my bedrooms and den are going to get those TV connected.

8) You haven't addressed how all these "ISP feeds" are automatically and instantly going be using the same system or be compatible with Apple's HW despite no leaks from cable providers about working them to reinvent the cable box. Wikipedia lists 29 major providers. How many years did it take before Apple got 29 MNOs for the iPhone around the world, and that was using the same tech and frequencies.

The bottom line is that the only solution will be one that can be shared by the whole of the US and be scalable to the rest of the world as it becomes more connected with fast internet. There are two very distinct hurdles for Apple to overcome: having affordable content through their interface that will keep users on their interface, and making the HW easier to utilise for the average user so they will inclined to use it more often.

I have adressed those issues , but I see you are completly close down and just wont get it.

Here's an issue: I don't want to buy a TV for absolutely no reason when a box does exactly the same thing.

Apple is not going to stop making a box...

and some old contacts I have are talking about a possible TV plan. Pretty much like with the cell phone business. btw I never told you this. Makes sense, a 64g iPhone is the same price has a 52" TV and yet lots of people change them every 2-3 years.

So are you going to buy your Apple TV lock or unlock? :-)

Here is another leak : there may also be a QAM Apple TV's for cable. An Apple Tv's with both QAM and IPTV build in is only going to be available unlock.