Smart TV makers forming alliances out of fear Apple will soon dominate their industry too - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

So, what, when all these stupid rumors don't come true, where is there left to move? "Apple is making a game console"? I guess they could always go back to that one. What else do consumers buy? What do they generically "like"? I guess Apple could be getting back into speaker systems. Or microwaves.

I know you don't believe they are making a TV, but I think you are perhaps using an incorrect analysis to come to that conclusion.  I don't see that the choice of entering one market or another is about what consumers "generically like" for Apple.  It's always about what market or product is so f*cked up and complicated that it could benefit from a complete re-think and simplification.  

The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is the TV.  

There are other things that could really use this treatment but mostly outside of Apple's strengths. The automobile is a perfect example.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


That's my thinking - an 'Apple TV' box will do almost everything that you can do by integrating it. The only exception would be if they decide to put a BR player in the TV. I could be wrong, though.
What I really think they should do is license iOS for televisions with strict quality standards. They could bury Google TV overnight.

 BluRay in a Apple product  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

License iOS?  AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You know nothing of Apple DNA. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


I have a feeling Apple TV will continue to be a hobby. If there was something big going on we'd have heard rumors by now.

fair enough...  Until Content channels are acquired, there is no 'new' AppleTV. (box or Screen).

maybe. but since we have aapletv, haven't watch an hour of normal cableTv, except some liver sport event. And think iTV will be much more capable than the small box

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxSampleXX 

There is not enough value to be added to the idiot box to allow Apple to sell TVs and the steep margins they demand.  If Apple really does come out with a television set, it will probably be one of their few missteps over the past few years.  That speaker they made for a while is the last blunder I recall.  Interesting, another piece of entertainment hardware.
 

And the iPad is just an overgrown iPod Touch. And the iPhone isn't necessary and won't succeed because smartphones already do everything people want. And the iPod is just another mp3 player. And...

I glad Apple is run by people who are always so wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is the TV.  

Absolutely, but I'll make one change to what you said:

It's subtle, but I think you can see where I'm going with it.

Know what I want to see? I want to see Tesla go to Apple and say, "Make our batteries." I'm planning to get a Tesla myself, but imagine one with Apple battery tech behind it. 

We're talking 500 miles per charge (MPC) for cheaper than everyone else's 200 MPC vehicles.

And Tesla is doing just about everything else with vehicles that needs done, not just the means of fueling. I respect them greatly for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterK 

There are so many places for television to go that I don't know that it will ever be done. Microsoft is working on interactive linear television using the Kinect, where you can choose to take part (or not take part) in an episode of Sesame Street. What if you could play along with game shows? What if you could vote on American Idol? No one has done anything with the signal going back the other way. We have video conferencing on TVs, but no one has really popularized it yet. There is far more to the television than just improving the picture quality. Then there's all the voice command and logic stuff that people have been guessing at. The "play the latest episode of game of thrones" stuff. That's much better than searching through your TIVO or finding a channel. Maybe you can just say "I want to watch stuff about cars" and the tv can pull in a playlist made up of TV shows, movies, and youtube videos. Sony just bought an OnLive competitor, so TVs can have a game system that is played on some distant server and beamed back... so you always have the latest and greatest games on your TV. No one has great glasses-free TV yet. No one has done holograms yet. To say Apple has nothing to add to this conversation is short sighted.

The day all this comes to pass is the day I move to a remote island in the Pacific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

So, what, when all these stupid rumors don't come true, where is there left to move? "Apple is making a game console"? I guess they could always go back to that one. What else do consumers buy? What do they generically "like"? I guess Apple could be getting back into speaker systems. Or microwaves.

And if they are true will you shut up for a while?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 

 

Apple is unlikely to come out with a new product line unless they can target pretty much everybody as a potential buyer.  I suspect that there are not enough amateur/semi-pro users to justify that as a new product line.  Not only that, but the market is well served now by Nikon and Canon.  Apple is only going to enter a new market with something new.

As a mainly Nikon user (professionally) for around 40 years I have to agree with you... just wanted to allow myself a little wishful thinking on a Friday evening whilst NCIS LA is repeating itself on French TV. I do sometimes wonder, though, whether Ives has such a prototype locked away in his toy cupboard/bunker  ;~)

Quote:

Originally Posted by elroth 
And if they are true will you shut up for a while?

I'll shut up when they shut up. Or at least have a logical underpinning, unlike presently. 🌰

They don't even need any concrete evidence, just a reason for being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider 

Largely oblivious to tight-lipped Apple's precise plans for shaking up the Smart TV segment, these alliance-forming TV makers are reportedly banking on features for their own designs that will resemble those available from Samsung's industry-leading set designs. 

Oblivious? Wrong word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years, you dial a number and you can talk to another person. 

Yes, they did, in that the features therein were greatly simplified, changing the way people perform the actual actions. This, as a side note, was supplemented by simplifications to the UI. Of course, that comes back to bite me (or so they'll say) when referring to the below, which I wrote prior to this… 

Why is everyone still talking about the UI? I'm not talking about the UI. I don't care about the UI insofar as it's secondary to the actual reimagining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Having to open the phone app is easier than punching numbers on a already available keypad? Can't see how that was made simpler.

You're missing nearly all of the big picture and ignoring most of the small one.

"Smart TV makers forming alliances out of fear…"

Anyone who's endured the absurdity of helping an elderly person set up a television system in the last 25 years can only smile at the thought of the various companies involved soiling themselves in terror that a competitor might offer an elegant alternative.  Given the lunatic plethora of interfaces and devouring cable octopi they've been smugly inflicted upon the general populace for decades, the irony of them all filling their pants with precisely what they've been selling is nothing less than magnificent.

Any person or groups of persons who make anything crowing "I can sell this!" rather than asking "Will this make the world a better place?" deserves no sympathy.  For decades, TVs have been as overpriced, wasteful, stupid, irritating, and ugly as the content they deliver.  If their creators now find themselves in the position of of American auto manufacturers 50 years ago (i.e., "Ohmigod, we've made a fortune  selling unreliable gas-guzzling junk to idiots and now someone's is offering them a superior alternative!"), well…  good.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sensi 

People claiming that Smart TVs don't sale must have overlooked the 25 millions (out of 50) that Samsung (sorry) is set to sale this year alone... Speaking of 'mult-year head start on the competition' (sic) over vaporware projections coming out of thin air, that's rich... For now I will stick with the actual numbers...

yes there are a lot of "smart" TV's being sold now. my LG is a smart TV. but i bought it solely for the price/PQ ratio (better deal than Samsung or, moreso, Sony), and never use any of its smart apps. i checked them out once. except for Netflix they are pretty worthless, and you can already get Netflix easier many other ways. working with such apps via iOS/Apple TV is far superior to fussing with the TV remote to do the same stuff.

that is what is fundamentally wrong with the "smart TV as app platform" idea Samsung and the rest of selling lots of now. the UI always sucks. how many typical consumers - not geeks - actually use them do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


It already exists, it's called Cable card and it has failed miserably. It would take a company like Apple to finally make it work correctly.

only TiVo really uses it anymore. and it works great. $3 per month from Comcast vs. $10 for their stupid box. of course, you gotta pay TiVo $x per month too. but their setup is the best. you can export recordings to your Mac.

were i Apple, i would have bought TiVo just for the patents, and then done its DVR better without subscription fee for iCloud customers. but i know they won't .... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


After nearly 30 years of using Macs, I know quite a bit about Apple's DNA. I also know that statements from Jobs are situation dependent and subject to change.
BluRay on an Apple computer isn't likely. The arguments that Jobs gave involved licensing and security. The fundamental problem is that with a computer, it's too easy to rip the BluRay content to disk and then distribute it illegally - which complicates the CRM and licensing. If Apple were to make a TV (not that I consider it likely), those problems wouldn't exist. The licensing would be exactly the same as any other BR player pays to the consortium. None of the problems of BR on computers would exist.
Licensing? Obviously, Jobs was opposed to it.That doesn't mean that Apple can't ever do it. What was the problem with licensing the first time around? Apple basically set up competitors who undercut Apple's products. Other than that, it worked reasonably well. PCC tended to have systems that had better performance than Apple systems at a lower price. Motorola had some nice low end systems. But all of them took business away from Apple - which wasn't a good thing. OTOH, if Apple licensed the OS for a TV, it would have no impact on Apple's business (it would actually be synergistic as it might encourage people to buy more Macs, iPads, etc). And since a TV does fewer things than a computer, it would be simpler to manage.
I don't see anything in Apple's DNA that makes either of those things impossible.
I'm skeptical of the whole idea, but if it happens, that's exactly the kind of thing that Apple would bring to the table. Better image quality is a waste of time - very few people would see any advantage over BR/1080p. Apple's value would all be in the UI and content. That's similar to their methodology in the other markets they're in - they don't usually shoot for the highest specs (retina display is one of the few exceptions), but choose good specs which are applied in a way that no one else can match.

Your DNA samples are polluted by the years Apple was whoring with Sculley and Amelio;-)

I never owned a macintosh prior to Mac OS 10.1 ...  But I've run OS X 25 years. on white (yes, fat binaries) and black (I still have upgraded '040 cube) HW. Purity of Essence, I guess.  

Phones did fewer things than a computer... until Apple came along.  would you say the same thing...  other than an exposed bus... can you 'compute' less on an iPhone than a Mac Pro?  I mean, I can do calculations locally, enter information locally, display media locally, and I can connect to the web and other compute servers... what else does a computer do?

mutation is always possible.  However, I think Apple is less about 'never' when it comes to 'internet delivered services onto Apple HW' (books,  movies, 7" media... when Apple deems it cost/quality effective).  It's more about never when it's integrating tactical media (blue ray), and licensing (never, ever, give up the core HW UI).

Licensing:  Two words... Motorola RAZR.

BluRay: the issue is the distribution model, not the medium.  Apple is _ALL_about internet distribution.  It fits their partnerships, their economic model, their data sharing model.    Unless you are 20/10 vision and have a 55" plus device, plus a $2000 sound system, BluRay is overkill (sort of like 128Bit AAC was 'good enough' for most listeners) I can see an Apple TV have a 'switch' to 'display remote media' (via USB or HDMI), but I can't see a built in BluRay.   If a DVD was the first to go on an MacBook Air, the BluRay option is out on the TV.  

I truly feel that Apple will not diverge it's model.  When they can deliver the HW and the interface at a decent margin, and the content in a reasonable manner, Apple will deliver a TV solution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


Having to open the phone app is easier than punching numbers on a already available keypad? Can't see how that was made simpler.

Problem to solve: I want a phone that I can check my email messages and text and do some internet surfing...  

tradeoff:  I need to have a 'home' menu that made all of those 'equal' and got rid of a 12 character pad when I needed a QWERTY keyboard.

Once you got over that hump... the old interface became a  detriment 

If all you make is calls, then an iPhone has little value for you.   don't hire it as your portable comm device.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SockRolid 

 

And Apple must be absolutely loving the fact that everyone, from pro-Apple bloggers (AppleInsider) to traditional media (New York Times) to their future TV industry rivals (LG et al) is focusing on what the Apple television might look like.  And on what components it might contain. And the LGs of the world think that circling their wagons by creating their own smart TV app standard and building out some cloud storage might help them survive.

 

In other words, everyone is looking only skin-deep.  Have LG and Changhong signed deals with the major movie and TV studios in Hollywood and New York City?  Doubt it.  Negotiating with entrenched content providers is time-consuming, costly, frustrating, and requires serious consumer electronics and entertainment industry leverage.  (And negotiations take even longer when you need translators.)  Do LG and Changhong have the cash to build out their smart TV infrastructure around the world?  Doubt that too.  Even if they do have the money, are they willing to gamble it all on something that may never make a profit?  It could take years to build out modular data centers like Apple has built in North Carolina and is planning to build in Oregon and Texas.

 

Those are just two of the harder problems to solve: securing content deals and building out the massive infrastructure.  I'm sure there are plenty more.

I agree with another post who said they aren't just releasing a TV, but planning to redefine the space...

Apple's in an interesting position aren't they? Merely RUMORED to be considering making a TV based on a single line from S.J., and an entire industry ramps up innovation, develops partnerships, circles wagons, all in the off chance this game-changing company actually shows up to play...

Apple could change the world just by saying they MIGHT decide to try changing the world? That's not actually a bad thing.

Perhaps they should "leak a rumor" that they're developing a new energy source… leak a quote from Jobs or Ive about having cracked the "clean, cheap, and ubiquitous" energy supply conundrum… and see what happens to that industry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff 

 

+1

 

It's all about merging 

- the DVD player

- the OTA Antenna

- the cable connection (and delivered channels)

- the DVR for 'Local/Live' content (OTA/LocalCableAccess)

- Internet based media (netflix, iTMS, etc)

- Cloud based DVR and 'live delivery' of premade content (why should 1000's of people DVR Breaking Bad, when one Content Deal with the production company would do it)

- Cloud based 'network/Live[or DVR]' (Internet delivery of paywalled cable content... boxing, MLB, NHL, NFL network).

 

into an interface a 10 year old and a 65 year old can instantly grok ('touch - All Shows or On Now'....touch 'breaking bad'  'touch play last show' or 'add to one of your 'channels' [On Now gives you the selection of all 'live' media you currently have available to you, presented in a scrollable interface on you iOS device or onscreen]

 

The 'magic sauce' is all the content deals, and the revenue pass through (pay per view... through AppleID... I for one would pay $$ for Breaking Bad, but I'm not paying Comcast $55/month for the privilege, plus the DVR costs... I'll pay $1.99 at 720P internet delivered for it though).

How exactly are you going to deliver all this content without a broadband connection from your local cable provider? You know the same Comcast you can't stand. All they will do is jack up their broadband prices instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav 

Really? You think TV watching is perfect. I'm glad it is for you. Seriously. It's not for me. There's tons of room for improvement, and I'll pay an uplift for it.

 

Yes, the speaker was a blunder because there was nothing to add there. If Apple could have made a much smaller speaker that still sounded good, then they would have had something.

Younger people don't watch very much television. Ever seen the apartment of someone in their 20s? Typically no computer desk, and a wall mounted TV if they have one at all. It's not necessarily a financial thing. It's just culturally TV is a very tired concept, and viewing has been split among a larger number of media devices. Given that Apple's differentiation isn't as much about raw hardware specs as people want to think. Usually with hardware specs, they adopt things with a high coolness factor early on. They skipped 1920x1200 displays as incremental upgrades on everything below 17". This generation they released the rMBP. Again they wanted something cool rather than evolutionary, but they aren't about chasing the latest hardware specs. I'm not sure what they'd really add that couldn't be added by updating the Apple TV. If anything Apple TV could carry a better upgrade cycle. They could release one that can run the full IOS. If I'm wrong and they do release a television, I'm not buying one. My television is pretty old at this point, but I don't watch it that much. I've debated ridding myself of cable and grabbing shows from itunes or hulu when I want to see them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

Talk about directing the course of the industry. Apple's come a long way. And they've earned it at every step. 

I kind of wish they catered to other markets more, rather than feeding the culture of everyone looking down at their phones constantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


The Apple automobile
The Apple personal water craft
The Apple biplane
The Apple space shuttle
The Apple sex doll
The Apple fashion accessories
The Apple living room sofa
There's no end to the kind of silly rumors that people could start.

As long as it bears no resemblance to Tim Cook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


That's my thinking - an 'Apple TV' box will do almost everything that you can do by integrating it. The only exception would be if they decide to put a BR player in the TV. I could be wrong, though.
What I really think they should do is license iOS for televisions with strict quality standards. They could bury Google TV overnight.

Licensing doesn't seem like Apple's thing. It would be easier just to provide it as an IOS box compatible with certain output resolutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips 

Now if only Apple were entering the banking industry .... Talk about and industry that needs starting over!

Couldn't agree more

Quote:

Originally Posted by umrk_lab 

Without or with Apple, Tv makers struggle for survival, with razor thin margins. Only panels producers can capture a significant part of the added value.
this has always been the case in the electronic consumer goods industry : those who think that the only important part is the hardware (forgetting about the software, and the ecosystem) cannot survive ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 


Much of those issues are in content delivery and use tracking and could be done by Apple without making a tv. Which is what makes these rumors a tad laughable

You could have said the same thing about the iPod and the iPhone.   Apple's strength is in combining well-designed hardware with a software eco-system.     Instead of the crap applications that come with most TVs (ever try to input a web address with a typical TV remote control?) imagine if an Apple TV supported the use of apps - whether apps unique to the TV or apps the same or similar to iPhone/iPad apps in another open marketplace.     

And the cable companies have never understood (or maybe just didn't care) about UI.   CableLabs, which is an organization that sets standards for the cable industry, including metadata interchange, probably should have taken a lead here, but they never did.    Just like most people never learned how to program their VCR, especially the earlier ones, and had the ubiquitous "12:00" flashing all the time, many people I know never learned how to delete channels or create favorites and therefore have a hard time navigating to the shows they really want to watch.    In a thousand-channel universe, a good UI is essential and we don't have it.    I've set up some sets for people who live in my apartment building and most of them didn't realize they were watching the SDTV channels instead of the HDTV channels.  I think Comcast does tell you that there's an HDTV version available if you tune an SDTV version, but the major cable providers available in my building don't.    I've always said that if you set your cable box to output 720p or 1080i, the box should automatically hide all the SDTV channels that have HDTV equivalents, but they don't.     And don't get me started on the fact that on my cable system, if you delete a channel from your list of channels that are controlled by the remote, it puts a checkmark next to the channel number instead of an "X".    Talk about bad UI.   

I don't understand technically how Apple is going to get around the limitations of the cable box, but if they find a way, I think they can have another winner.    Imagine if instead of the crappy TV guides we have today, Apple found a way to live preview multiple channels at once like a live, motion Safari "Top Sites" view.

But having said all that, I do agree that Apple has to bring LOTS of added value to any offering, especially if it's priced higher than traditional sets and it probably will be.     And I also fear that in the drive towards simplicity, Apple will remove much functionality from a set, like the deep set of calibration and picture adjustment controls (no matter how confusing) that most sets have.     If Apple wants to take the high end of the market, the set would include a sensor and perform its own automatic calibration.    

I think it's going to be hard for Apple to break the cable/satellite monopoly because for that to work, they'd have to get all the major content channels up front.    And I certainly wouldn't want lower picture or audio quality for a net-delivered channel than I'm getting today on cable.     But I think that if one major cable channel licenses their content to Apple, whether it be ESPN, AMC Networks, Turner, Discovery or whoever, they all will cave in short order.    Especially if Apple is willing to overpay in order to create their market.    That would alienate the MSOs (and be completely disruptive to them in any case), but the cable networks hate the MSOs anyway, even though they need them.    In any event, if Apple enters the marketplace with content, it might finally force the MSOs to offer ala-carte packages instead of their current poorly-designed and customer unfriendly packages and it might also force the cable networks to stop forcing the MSOs  to take all their channels in order to get the primary ones.   So the threat of Apple entering the industry may improve the industry for consumers, even those not electing to purchase an Apple TV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitalclips 

Now if only Apple were entering the banking industry .... Talk about and industry that needs starting over!

I disagree.    The banking industry actually does a pretty good job in terms of most consumer facing services:    ATMs, online banking, teller services, etc.    In fact, when ATMs became ubiquitous, it was assumed that the banking industry would greatly reduce the number of branches and the number of personnel within a branch, but the opposite has happened.    In some cities, branches of the same bank prop up on opposite street corners and in-person banking hours have expanded.   (When I was a kid, bank branches were only open Monday-Friday from 9am to 3pm.   When ATMs first came in around 1973, there were only two in New York City and they were always broken.   When that happened, if I didn't already have cash, I was out of luck for the weekend unless I could find merchants who would accept a check).   

The reason we hate the banking industry is because of their investment strategies (that almost bankrupted this and other countries) and because of their confusing and non-sensical policies concerning loans, mortgages, etc.   First they gave mortgages to almost anyone who walked in regardless of their qualifications and now they'll only give mortgages to people who don't need one.   Someone close to me needs a re-finance or a home equity loan and they won't give it to her in spite of the fact that her monthly payments would go down with the loan and she's got about $500K of equity in her condo, condos which resell in a matter of a few months at most when they become available.   It makes no sense.   

But I'm not sure that an Apple would be much better at this.    When I download app updates to my iPhone and Apple has decided yet again to change their licensing agreement and I get confronted with a 65 page agreement to "accept", that's just as bad as what the banks put you through, IMO.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years,

yeah cause you could web surf, read email, listen to music, for the last 100 years. 

As for your TV comment, what is a TV. It's a display for AV materials. A display that has some of the hardware for supporting some forms of content built in. But for other kinds of content it's a dumb display that gets the info from an attached box. An 'add on' function that wasn't present when the TV was first created but added some 30 years ago. You ask what Apple could do to that display that hasn't already been done. Nothing. Other than change what those add ins are, how we use them etc. And yes it might just reimagine the nature of television. or even dumb displays

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfiejr 

 

were i Apple, i would have bought TiVo just for the patents, and then done its DVR better without subscription fee for iCloud customers. but i know they won't .... 

They already did basically. It's called iTunes in the Cloud. they just need to work out a few kinks like studio deals that are withholding seasons of some shows, quality of the offerings in terms of resolution, subtitles etc, and pricing. 

The existing Apple TV already does. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm 

Licensing doesn't seem like Apple's thing. It would be easier just to provide it as an IOS box compatible with certain output resolutions.

That is correct. if Apple's software is on something they have control of the design and production of the hardware. That is one thing that no one at Apple is likely to change if they even can.