Apple television predicted to headline three core product launches in 2013 - Page 4

Nice hobby.

That's already two devices, I don't like that right off the bat. And right now you need a third device if you want to game on your TV. And throw in a universal remote to get it all working right, and that's after you set the whole thing up. You, meaning Joe.

I'm the type of guy where my ideal would be an Apple branded TV I can take out of the box, put in the living room, plug it in, enter my wireless network password, followed by my Apple ID and everything is set up and ready to go. One remote!

Followed by a bonfire in the garden for all the other crap it takes the place of.

Even with the set up you're on about you've two remotes. Right away that's a bad experience.

One of these days, if they can somehow manage to get the TV show content, via a subscription package, they'll be able to sell an Apple caliber AIO TV at a decent price, and people will buy it. It's that simple. I expect than they'll likely continue to sell the Apple TV box, but when the TV is release it'll be the only device that gets an App Store. My wish on the gaming front for iTV, is an optional hardware controller with real, physical buttons - which you can add on at checkout. Are you a gamer? Then add on a controller, or two, or three.
Edited by Ireland - 11/25/12 at 8:27pm

 

You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.

 

Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.

 

… One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.

Huh?

I said one remote, not none.

Huh?

 

TV, remote, iOS device for controlling the games.

 

Nearly identical to TV, Apple TV, remote, iOS device for controlling the games. Operationally identical, actually.

 

And we could easily have just one remote! Just takes some engineering.

 

Want me to mock it up? You just need the four directions, volume up and down, accept, and menu. It can basically look the same as the Apple Remote right now.

And you think it's me that's living in the dream world?

Just simply, lol.

And gaming via an iOS device on your TV would be (and is) a gimmick, and an awful experience.

I had no idea your argument was just so horrendously weak.
Edited by Ireland - 11/25/12 at 8:53pm

 

Explain how my vision differs from 1) yours or 2) reality.

 

One step for setup with both devices, so yes. Doesn't matter what they have to do to get it working, matters how the user has to use it. Simply.

 

You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand? 

I have several of the Apple Bluetooth Keyboards. To be kind, they are unsuited to the task with tablets.

 

There is no identity crisis. There is, however, denial on your part that there is a need for such a product. I don't subscribe to the "if I needed it Apple would have provided it" school of thought. I see people struggling with the third party "make do" products and putzing around with the Apple Keyboard. There are, and always will be, situations where text entry is required and it is more than an abbreviated OK. For those situations, an actual keyboard is still vastly superior to tapping on a virtual keyboard. 

 

In the situations where a keyboard is not necessary, you just don't carry it.

 

An iPad + Apple Bluetooth Keyboard = an inelegant solution.

 

Yep. 

 

 

I don't recall saying that. I recall saying they exist and implying Apple shouldn't waste their time making one of their own.

 

 

I need a flipping dock before I'd consider a newer iPhone. That I know. Really wish Apple would make one.

 

 

Sounds like exactly the situation in which an Apple Bluetooth Keyboard works. I don't get the inelegance. You'd rather have a keyboard built into your case whether you need it or not?

Did you actually look at the picture or read the description? It's detachable.

 

Identity. Crisis. It becomes a laptop that you're forced to touch. Make the darn thing bigger and most people won't want to use a physical keyboard at all. That's why I've been for larger iPads since before the iPad was announced.

No, you are not "forced to touch" it. If you don't care for the keyboard either don't use it or, better yet, don't buy it. I don't see how making the iPad larger overcomes the inability to touch type. If it were 30", you would still need a better text input mechanism on some occasions. Your argument simply is not logical.

 

So how exactly is it one step setup for people who are also in the market for a new TV? An experience Apple has zero 'control' over. Notice the word I highlighted, there? And if they are not in the market for a 'new' TV, are you not counting TV setup at all? In your scenario you've two devices to setup, two devices to work together and two (TV) remote controls. Not to mention, the Apple TV doesn't have a hard drive, besides its buffer drive. And if you want a decent gaming experience you'll still need hardware controllers with physical buttons.

 

You're scenario is basically the existing nightmare we have today, and with no games. Unless you add in a third device, like a PS3, a 360 or a Wii. And then it becomes even messier.

 

I basically want one TV, one remote, and nothing else. And if you're a gamer, you add in a games controller, or two.

 

 

 

Like I say, an Apple branded games controller, available as additional purchase. I basically want them to heavily copy the PS3 controller. Are you a gamer? Then add on a games controller, or two, or three.

 

The regular TV would come with a remote, and the gamers out there would acquire some games controllers from Apple. The idea of using an iDevice as a controller for a game on your TV is beyond gimmick. Gaming directly on an iDevice is one thing. You need to feel your controller to game on a TV - and I'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

It's a tablet! You're forced to touch it! You can't control the OS completely from the keyboard! What are you talking about?!

 

One remote control. Really, I don't get how you're not seeing this. If you're really just not, I apologize.

 

Hold your Apple Remote facing the TV. Hold Menu, tap volume up. If nothing happens, tap it again. Continue tapping volume up while holding Menu until the volume goes up on the TV. Boom. Let go of Menu. Now it works with your TV for volume and Apple TV for controls.

 

In the background, where the user couldn't care less about it, it's cycling through the settings for different models of TV. Ever seen one of those giant charts on the big programmable remotes where they give you a list of codes to put in? Forget that. Two buttons, one cycle; the remote does all the work. 

 

 

I still don't like that about the two newest models, but it wouldn't matter if Apple would just let us have NAiTL support! What, you actually expect a hard drive inside this TV? Talk about artificially dating it.

 

 

So… that's two "remotes". You hate that.

 

 

Not the nightmare, as I've outlined above, and games via iDevices.

 

 

It would be a lot better if you'd just actually outline your idea instead of throwing together a bunch of mixed signals. You whine about having "multiple remotes" and then claim they're necessary for the full experience. You whine about having "no games" and then claim you have to have "another device" for them in the first place. 

 

Here's MY idea: 

Any TV. Plug in an Apple TV. One remote. Controls the functions of both. Third party software creation specifically for the device is limited to video content, since it's a TV. You want games, AirPlay from your iOS device, and also control them from there. Developers can, of course, build support into their apps for 1920x1080, with the intent of them being played on an Apple TV via an iDevice. 

From what I'm understanding, your vision is identical, except you want to remove just the Apple TV from this equation (and make people's TVs obsolete every three years) while still requiring a non-Apple game console. Now here's the part where you tell me what is correct and what is incorrect about my view of your vision.

Edited by Tallest Skil - 11/26/12 at 8:54am

 

LOL, so user friendly. Apple should hire you. You're too funny.

Yea, really? That is not the question or the subject. It's text entry. You may recall that I pointed out the touchpad in the photo of the Asus device and commented that it was not relevant to a discussion of the iPad. Just what are you talking about?

 

This response shows that I have not incorrectly defined your view on the television, proving that you've contradicted yourself multiple times above.

 

This response also shows that you can't think of any better way of doing it and are mocking me for trying. Imagine if everyone didn't try.

 

Oh relax, I've argued about it with you for years now. It gets tiring. We'll wait and see, but I think you're misguided.

 

That was my prompting you to actually answer some of the questions I've posed, but I guess not.

I've read all your comments. I don't agree that plugging an Apple TV in every brand of TV is a good solution. It's not terrible, I own one, but it's not good and certainly not delightful. You're solution for the Apple TV Remote controlling the functions of the TV sounds good on paper, but back in the real world it would never work, you've too many different TV's out there, and they still provide an un-Apple experience. Even if your idea worked (and I don't think it would) you'd still need the TV remote to turn on the TV. That experience is not delightful.

In my mind, the only solution is an AIO TV. In 30 years time people will look back and laugh at the fact that you used to have to physically connect devices to your TV, and people had set-ups with 3 remotes, etc. It's bad out there, I hope Apple gets the content deals they're looking for - I feel that's all is holding this up at this point. That's my dream living room setup. One AIO iTV that works. No boxes, no wires - a display and a power cord.

 

The ONLY thing the TV would control is the volume. The implication is that, while they're still designed for systems that precede the Apple TV, you wouldn't mess with any of that crap, owning an Apple TV.

 

Fine, nine buttons on the remote.

 

In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.

Rather like the non-existent AirPlay Mirroring on my mid-2010 iMac 27" (grumble moan whine whinge bleat and sigh).

 

New TV every 2 years? You're crazy.

How's Apple going to make money on TVs then? 2 yrs is their target refresh cycle on current devices. They're all about maximizing profits on hardware. That's why I believe that they won't make a TV set where refresh cycles are 6-10 yrs. How much money would Apple have made if most people still had the original iPhone and hadn't upgraded 3-4 times since?

 

Two years, two months ago, the first-gen Apple TV was the most modern device available. Now it can't have anywhere near the newest software.

 

People keep their TVs for 5-10 years. This can't fly in this industry. They'd be FAR more likely to spend $99 every two years to get the newest software and features than they would $2,500.

YOU'RE crazy.

I don't think an Apple Television is going to fly if the "smart" features are obsoleted and support deprecated in three years like the original AppleTV. I think there's an open question whether it really needs to be built into the TV when most, if not all such features can be supported by an external box. It's easy to justify $100 every other year, replacing a $2000 TV in three years isn't going to fly. As it is, I'm not even sure I'm in any mood to replace my existing AppleTV, the UI is a little tedious.

Lets say they make 30% on the Apple TV, that's 30 bucks. And you buy a new one every 2 years. Say you keep your iTV for 6 years, that would mean Apple would need to make over 90 bucks from iTV for it to work out more profitable than Apple TV. Hmmm...

And on top of that, they can make iTV a more awesome product that doesn't need to be crippled every two years to force people to upgrade. So, they get AIO simplicity, they get an awesome Apple built TV, and they get a TV that stays up to date, via free software updates and a nifty proc. And people recommend iTV based on it as a product. Nice!

You're crazy.

Like I say, they can make as much profit on 1 iTV than 3 Apple TVs. So no matter if you upgrade the box every 2 years, or the TV every 6, Apple wins. And they win more if the sell you the TV, because the experience for the user becomes more elegant and seamless, which equates to a better product and happier customers, and they get complete control over your TV experience, and I reckon they get even more profit than 3 Apple TV boxes. Plus the iTV App Store ecosystem.

 

…What?

 

 

And what makes you think this would happen?

Because the TV would cost more, therefore can be beefier than a little cheap-o box.

Huh? What does beefier have anything to do with anything?

 

He's saying it'd have a better processor or more RAM or something. I don't see how that prevents Apple from doing their standard "three years of software upgrades per device".

 

Fair enough. You don't see it. Regardless, all this talk is nonsense, and going nowhere. I have my views, you have users, they seem to be polar opposite. We'll agree to disagree.

 

I believe Apple will make a TV, and I'm hoping a TV subscription deal. It's wait and see time.

 

I believe it too, but it'll be a total frigging crock. The cable/satellite telecoms won't relent, it'll have a smaller content library than the Apple TV now, and it'll be years getting off the ground.

 

Meanwhile, Google et. al. will bend over backward (and, er, forward) to be subservient to the telecoms and will make boxes with a UI stolen from Apple and content direct-fed from the telecoms the way they want it.

I've decided to name his style of logic a "Tolkien complex", speaking of which, people should spend more time reading.

Whose, mine or Ireland's?

Ireland's. He was inherently opposed to a second device. I've always said it depends. If the repurchasing cycle for the Apple hardware is every couple years, it's best as an external box like we have today. I also doubt they'd grab similar margins with a television. Most companies that make them are leveraging their own facilities. Even then the margins aren't great.

 

I would prefer an actual TV from Apple (and I own an ATV). We'll see what happens.

Yes... but I still like calling it a Tolkien complex, even if it's just for my own amusement. The ideal thing would be to simplify things like wall mounted implementations. If you've already dedicated housing furniture to the television, it wouldn't make much difference. Apple did some more customized display work with the new imacs. If they improve upon that, it could show up within a television. I just don't see it as a great idea unless they can differentiate it from what they already offer. Wall Street likes the idea because it represents a potential for growth, and it distributes profits across more products. Right now they're bound to iphone sales for the majority of their operating income. Its volume and margins exceed everything else, including the ipad. Launching products in different markets simply helps shield them somewhat from downturns, as long as they're able to move enough units.

 

Hmm, OK.

Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?