Apple television predicted to headline three core product launches in 2013 - Page 5

Originally Posted by dasanman69 
Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?

I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one piece of plastic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


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

I would say, by far, yes. Perhaps not the display itself, which they'll likely source (and corner the market on), but simply the whole banana, the whole experience from when you take it out of the box. And the idea of having a room with one TV (made by Apple) and no other boxes, excites the hell out of me. I'd love my Apple Television to be my one place for everything living room: TV, movies, games, everything! And yes, one remote control for my living room, finally (I detest universal remotes).

The living room IMO is currently broken, and as far as I can see it, Apple is the one and only company within an asses-roar of a chance of fixing it - if only they can get the content.

And yes, Google, Samsung and all the rest with immediately start their copying machines. Smart TVs exist, just like Smartphones existed before the iPhone. Fixing the TV will be every bit as difficult as fixing phones was, even more so "go-to-market"-wise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one piece of plastic.

Aluminium.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
Aluminium.

I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one ludicrously heavy piece of aluminum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one ludicrously heavy piece of aluminum.

Elegance, cohesion, and the ultimate, most simplistic setup.

By design, it can't get more simple than a TV that does everything. One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.

No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.

Done.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.

 

No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.

I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).

A better strategy is to write and publish it here to show ur different voices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).

I would much rather pay for 'perfect', 'cause that's how I honestly see it. And if they can get the content and offer some kind of subscription, they may then be able to subsidise the TV. Not to mention, TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next (not you specifically) you can buy it from Apple. And being Apple, they'll likely make it so appealing that lots of people will, shall we say, upgrade early.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin 


Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.

They may include a GB Ethernet port, but I get your point. Relying on your router is an issue, I'm not saying there won't be issues, but this setup is all but inevitable, in my opinion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhongmin Li 

A better strategy is to write and publish it here to show ur different voices.

Huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin 


The TV itself being well designed is expected, it could even use carbon fibre for reduced weight. But what about the distribution method?
If Apple feeds multiple data streams in server-side and filters it down through a single internet stream, that works but why would the content providers go for it when Apple's TV marketshare is zero?
If it works with TV boxes, iOS devices and Macs, that's a lot more people but then why would people buy a TV if the service works with much cheaper devices?
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
I think they should do something like live streaming with content licenses, no encrypted streams and delivered to any device. To prevent copying, they can even superimpose a license key into the content every x frames and re-encode those blocks - the license key would be sent to the server to authenticate the stream. You can superimpose a license by adjusting the colour of content by a faint shade.
For example, take an image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer, add a text layer and make it huge, centered. Set the text color to 98% white and the layer to multiply then merge down with one of the image layers. You can't see the key.
However, if you set the layer with the key to subtract and merge down, you get the difference between the layer and the original, which should be the license key. You can see it clearly if you adjust the image or use edge detection. This way, if anyone did illegally distribute content, they can revoke that license.
I would have liked to see a pay-per-view method, perhaps in addition to subscriptions so that you get to watch instantly without having to subscribe. You'd just flip through content and movies and pay as you watch with no commitment to buy. It can work out to be quite expensive that way for heavy watchers though so the option to subscribe would be there too.
The TV itself I don't see as the important element here.

It appears that you have identified the fundamental flaw in a certain group's conception of the Apple HDTV. Theirs is not so much an Apple TV set as it is an Apple replacement for virtually all visual entertainment in the home. Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.

Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner. In the early days of HDTV, few sets included tuners for over-the-air reception. These were labeled as "HDTV monitors." It is no longer legal to sell HDTV monitors, except for those with tiny screens, to consumers.

An Apple HDTV must be able to receive OTA digital broadcasts out of the box in much the same way that an iPhone must be able to place a "911" emergency telephone call prior to activation. In order words, each Apple HDTV will include at least one ATSC tuner. In my view, if Apple includes ATSC as a matter of law, then it will also include ClearQAM as a prudent business decision. Along with tuners for OTA and cable providers, prudence also dictates that the Apple HDTV will include a selection of peripheral ports to match those from the competition. These include HDMI, component video, composite, video, TOSLINK, and such like.

This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. NetFlix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your TV.

When Steve Jobs said that Apple had solved TV, he did not mean that Apple would foist onto the market a device that locks-out everything except Apple-provided content. The model to follow is the iPhone. Rather than restricting users to Apple-products, the iPhone created vast new markets for mobile software and peripherals that were here-to-fore unimagined. And what is more, everything that you could do with your pre-2007 cellphone can be done with your iPhone. The iPhone forced us to sacrifice nothing.

There are many things that Apple could do to enhance our viewing experience. Some of these will require the cooperation of cable and satellite providers. Others will require the cooperation of component manufacturers, many of whom will be new competitors for Apple. Steve Jobs was able to get the record labels to cooperate in an earlier decade. Perhaps, Tim Cook can get the TV providers to cooperate in this decade.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Me 

Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.

No cable TV? Indeed.

No satellite TV? Clearly.

No DVDs? That's not to say you can't rip your DVDs and have them stream to your iTV via a computer or a networked hard drive to a third party iTV app you download from its App Store.

No Blu-Ray? Physical media is soon dead, anyway. (soon, meaning relatively soon)

No video camera playback? If you own one you can do it from your Mac to your iTV, wirelessly, but AirPlay and other apps will take care of most people's needs.

No game console? iTV will also be a game console.

No broadcast TV? That doesn't mean there will be no live news and sports. Apps can provide this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Me 

Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner.

Whomever presumes you have a democracy or open market is dead wrong. There goes government "fixing" technology again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Me 

This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. Netflix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your TV.

It will have an App Store.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
..TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next…

So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.

Doesn't sound reasonable. I'm in the market for a new panel when my panel dies. I'm in the market for new hardware when I can't get the newest software. These two times would never coincide on a TV. 

No one would pay $2,000 every three (let's be generous and kick them in the crotch for FOUR years) when they could pay $1,099 and then two-three years later pay another $99 and have EXACTLY the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
It will have an App Store.

Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.

You're not supposed to do anything, but be realistic here, Apple would be well aware the normal lifespan of TVs, and if phones are any indication, Apple will support you for far longer than other smart TV makers.

It will have an App Store.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.

And a game store. And an everything else store. I'm sure Apple has great plans. On a personal level, though, I'd like to see a subscription TV service for TV, as opposed to "a channel store", but that may be asking too much. Or, like I mentioned before, this may be the very reason we've yet to see an iTV product from Apple - they may be waiting to get a subscription TV show deal, to give customers the shows they want, and to very likely sign people up with a 12 month or so TV contract, so they can somewhat subsidise the cost of the actual TV, and make their usual Apple-profit margin.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
It will have an App Store. And a game store.

There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.

Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…

I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.

You WANT a dystopia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.

 

 

Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…

 

I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.

 

You WANT a dystopia?

Just makes you want to find the line at your nearest Apple Store and wait for it, doesn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.

Imagine where you connect your aTV to your cable outlet and it automagically configures itself to talk to the Time Warner backend with all your account info (except Netflix).  Access to the entire cable lineup without the hassles of cablecard, etc.

Branding/customer relationship is probably the most significant roadblock between TWC and Apple.  I dunno, I just don't see TWC under the same competitive pressures as AT&T was.  Even where they have some competition.

As much as I dislike comcast I'd drop fios and go back to comcast if they had this. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


I've found references at least as far back as 2008, so 5 years is probably about right

Easily 2006.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/06/11/02/apple_wont_sell_tvs_alongside_itv_set_top_box___analyst

Everyone from back then will also remember Rolo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

He released the Apple TV. I have physical proof that your sarcasm is meaningless.

 

 

Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language.  Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning.  Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.

I have maintained that AirPlay is the key piece to Apple's living room strategy...and of course that required an aTV at the moment.

Game console?  iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.

App store?  iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.

Content?  Everyone wants to reach the mobile user and they can't afford to ignore the iPhone and iPad.  They may require you to have a cable contract but once you have that most of the mobile content is enabled even if some are blocked from airplay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.

One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Also the iMac design pretty much means that dangly boxes are part of the design language.  Dangly box for DVD ripping/burning.  Dangly box for any thunderbolt peripheral, etc.

Dangly boxes for the iMac are a stop-gap, because most people don't use them anymore.

Are you comparing an iMac, to a TV? That is not a strong argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Game console?  iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.

App store?  iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch to aTV via airplay.

That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

One TV remote, yes, absolutely, that's the ideal. For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking. It's about making common sense, practical decisions when it comes to controllers.

Oh and remote...iPhone or iPad.

There isn't a single piece of the living room that doesn't have an app to control it somewhere in the product line.  TVs have apps for control.  AV receivers have apps for control.  Blu-Ray players have apps for control.

None of this requires Apple make a TV and if they do, it probably won't be all that special.  A nice high end TV with a nice high end price and relatively modest market footprint.  No bigger than say the Sony Bravia line. 

My guess is that the TV itself will have little smarts and just the ability to natively do airplay and switch between inputs.  All the "smart TV" functionality will be resident in the paired iOS device...so when the TV apps need 512MB RAM and more CPU horsepower all you need is a current gen iOS device for you to have the most up to date "Apple TV".

For a $2500+ TV they can toss in an iPad Mini as part of the package.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
For games, however, a dedicated hardware games controller, with physical buttons, makes the most sense - that won't change no matter what setup you have. You're nitpicking.

NITPICKING?! You demand an "all in one" system, you demand one remote, you demand a "full" app store instead of one that would actually make sense for the device itself, and then you throw the demands of your entire setup RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW by saying customers will need to go buy a* third party (YES, THIRD PARTY, BECAUSE DO YOU REALLY SEE APPLE MAKING A VIDEO GAME CONTROLLER, NOT TO MENTION ONE WITH PHYSICAL BUTTONS, GOING IN DIRECT CONTRAST TO THE CONCEPTS SPEARHEADED BY THE CREATION OF THE IPHONE AND FORCIBLY LIMITING GAMES ON THE DEVICE TO THE CAPABILITIES OF SAID CONTROLLER) controlling device just to use some of the apps designed for the television, despite having a perfectly capable and far more versatile first-party system already in place in the form of every other iOS device.

That's not nitpicking. That's seeing a giant hole in the ground that is surrounded by those orange and white striped traffic cones and a couple of cops who say, "There is no hole in the ground. Please do not walk through the cordoned off area." 

You talk of "the ultimate simplicity" and yet willingly ignore this for the sake of putting specialized software where it doesn't need to be and forcing the creation of specialized hardware whose existence undermines "simplicity". 

I cannot be the only one that sees this! 

I would FAR rather have a TV of my choosing, an Apple TV box connected to it, a Channel Store, where I can buy access to live aired television shows (or entire channels) a la carte, breaking the decades-old TV stranglehold, one remote—an Apple Remote—modified to include only THREE more buttons (power, volume up+down) to allow it to control both the TV—whatever model—and Apple TV box, and use my iOS device and AirPlay for every other conceivable application that I'd want on a television screen. Note the name of the device: Apple… TEE-VEE.

Sounds a lot better than a TV that costs twice as much, is supported half as long, has the same old subscription-based television content, is itself SUBSIDIZED by paying for said content (meaning the content is raised in price from the current solutions, simply because you own this specific TV), has an app store meant for "everything", regardless of how well some of said apps can, would, or should be used in a television format and when restricted to the buttons of the television remote, and then forced to buy one or more third party "controllers" with hardware buttons to play any games at all and told that this is "simplicity".

I can sum up my vision for a non-hobby Apple TV thus: Exactly the TV content you want, exactly the way you want it. And upgrades are $99.

I can sum up yours thus: The same old TV content in a shiny, new case. And upgrades are $2,000.

*"a controller", used lightly, in contrast to multiple controllers—plural—which would be created/needed for the reasons following in parentheses.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.

You're just blind, is all. That you cannot even fathom the concept of being able to control something without looking at it shows that you have zero experience with touchscreens whatsoever. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

That is far from an ideal experience. You want to look at the TV when playing games on the TV, so AirPlay is really a game gimmick when it comes to this. If you think otherwise, you're fooling only yourself.

Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller?  You look at the TV for playing and the iOS device to see how much ammo you have or access your backpack or or choose the next play or whatever.

Hardware controls?  

With Bluetooth you could use any controller to connect to the iOS device.  It just requires Apple to add BT game controller support into the core APIs.

There's no reason that the iPad 4 can't be the heart of the Apple living room gaming experience.  If you think otherwise you're simply incapable of thinking outside the box (and not very outside at that).  It's not XBox/PS3 level but better than the Wii.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Which is why the WiiU has a tablet for a primary controller?

Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD.

For someone talking so much about games and how they require dedicated whatever, you sure don't seem to "get" games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

For someone talking so much about games and how they require dedicated whatever, you sure don't seem to "get" games.

Yeah, because you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland 

Who said the Wii U was a good idea? The Wii itself was a much better idea. They should have made a better Wii, made it black instead of white and called it Wii HD. Just one man's opinion.

While there are many games that don't use the WiiU display area effectively you can see that when done well it provides for better game play options.  

Apple has the advantage in that there are many iOS devices in the household that it can leverage for the same thing.  In any case, by keeping the brains of the living room on the iOS device that Apple wants you to buy every 2 years anyway addresses the criticism that any Apple branded TV becomes obsolete at the same rate as iPhones (very quickly).  

If you put the CPU into the TV as you insist then that continues to be a significant problem that you always fail to address.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
Yeah, because you do.

Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this. 

I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well. Time will tell how well the experiment works, but they have a history of wildly successful "experiments" on their side.

I particularly like that all other controls are just done with Wii Remotes, so everything's forward compatible. Additionally, as they did with the Wii, the last generation device's games will play on the new console. Really I would have only changed one thing about the WiiU. Were it to upconvert Wii games to 1080p, they would sell a WiiU for every Wii sold. I'll never understand why they didn't put the effort in the emulator to actually do that. Particularly when I can already run Wii games at higher than 1080p on my computer in a fan-made emulator thereof! 

Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Oh, come now. We've had an intelligent discussion until now; no need to drop to this.

Talk about melodramatic. You said I didn't "get" games, I found that insulting. No doubt you think you're right where I'm wrong, but I believe you're the one who can't see the forest for the trees. But that's just my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

I "get" that Nintendo is choosing to stick with the proprietary console hardware game in this time of surging tablet growth. I respect that; it's what Apple would (and did) do. They're doing something else brand new with the creation of the WiiU controller, and I laud them for that, as well.

Yes, they should be lauded, but that doesn't make it a good product, which in the end is the only thing that actually matters. Besides, they are clearly trying to ape the iPad, but are putting what they believe is a clever spin on in. The Wii was a revolution, this product, the Wii U, is not. They should have made a better Wii, I believe they've made a worse one, by focusing on the wrong things (I'm aware you're going to disagree).

A controller with a 4 hour battery life? On what planet could that be called a good idea?

People loved the Wii, but the one complaint they had about it was graphics. If Nintendo had focused solely on graphics and power, while staying through to the original, without the distraction of this poor man's, Playskool, iPad knock-off, I believe they would have created a product a lot more people would be interested in: Wii HD. Which for marketing purposes, I'd call: Wii 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Would I like to see Nintendo properties get their own games on iOS? Yes, that would be nice. They'd also be ludicrously successful there, to the detriment of Nintendo's hardware (and hardware-specific software) sales. But they lose the control that has served them so well in the past. Apple wouldn't cave on that, and I respect Nintendo for doing the same.

That's all lovely. Here's your moral medal. I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.

Originally Posted by Ireland 
Besides, they are clearly trying to ape the iPad…

Hardly. They'd be making a handheld console for that, likely with physical buttons. This is their attempt to ride forth the tablet bandwagon in a way that is different from any other.

Why? Why is that?

They. Did. I don't get how you don't get that. The specs are in every single way improved. It's more powerful than any current-generation console, and it runs all Wii games.

Wow. Yes, I was right; you don't get games at all. You claim the Wii was a revolution and yet you don't have a FRICKING CLUE why that was. You don't have the merest inkling of what it represented to their industry as a whole, not just in video game UX. 

The Wii showed developers, it showed competitors, and it proved to Nintendo themselves that Graphics. Don't. Matter. The experience matters. Sounds a little familiar to me. Wonder what parallels we can draw here. OH YEAH. Apple products. They ain't the fastest fruit in the knife, and they ain't the cheapest barrels in the drawer, but darn if they aren't the single best product with the single best experience available, proven time and again by user retention and satisfaction records.

Whyzzat, though? The Wii, that is. Well, Nintendo had the best software. Not just the way their software was written, but the intellectual properties therein. The Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, Metroid, Pokémon, Kirby, and the rest of their franchises. This is time-tested stuff that people love. That's step one. Not hardware. You can have the fastest hardware in the world. No one will buy it if you don't have desirable games. Step two, something that no one else seems to take, is making innovation. People laughed at the Wii controller when it was introduced. And yet the Wii is the most popular console of this generation by a large margin.

Know how else I know Nintendo is right? Everyone else pulled a Microsoft and abandoned their original controllers to copy it. Not just Kinect and Move, no. The Wii Remote was revealed a month before E3 2007. I'll never understand why they didn't pull an Apple and keep it secret, but they didn't. At E3, one month later, Sony had changed its PS3 controller from the boomerang design (yes, that was STILL going to be the design) to… the exact same controller as before, "but we have motion controls in it!" And they didn't really work.

But let's talk about hardware now, too. The Wii is the "slowest" of the three consoles, but it's also the one that was released with an actual plan for the future. The Wii changed games forever. Sounds a lot like a phone that came out around the same time. The Xbox 360? Just a faster Xbox. The PlayStation 3? Just a faster PS2 that cost hundreds more. And yet people bought the Wii. The Wii, capable of 480p with terrible anti-aliasing (if you put it on a larger resolution). They bought it because of how it controlled. The UX. JUST like Apple. Apple doesn't have the fastest computers, but they have the best experience using them. And with the way the software is written, they BECOME the fastest computers when actually used. Nintendo proved to the video game console industry what Apple proved to the computer industry once, twice, three times over: that graphics (speed) don't (doesn't) matter when you make the UX welcoming.

You. Don't. Get. This. This is on par with the idiots that (STILL) slam the iPhone for not having a MicroSD slot or a removable battery. YOU DON'T GET IT. PERIOD. You don't have a clue. You're looking for Carmen Sandiego, but she got married and lives in Boca Raton with her husband and two kids. In 1998!

And your lack of understanding here is a perfect mirror for the topic of the thread, which we've fallen away from somewhat: you don't have a clue about what would make a truly revolutionary television. Just as you want exactly what is wrong for the Wii, exactly what the Wii is supposed to completely destroy the "need" for, you want exactly what is wrong with television combined with exactly what software doesn't work natively on a television. 

Originally Posted by Ireland 
I am dumbfounded why you feel it necessary to make this comment no one would disagree with.

You truly are blind. "No one" would disagree with it? Thousands do. I made the direct assumption that you did, given your lack of understanding about why Nintendo has done what it did. It was the only explanation I could envision for you not understanding their way of working. Now I'm just completely gobsmacked. Plenty of people want Nintendo to get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding money" on hardware and could make a lot more on iOS devices. Again, that's like saying Apple should get out of the hardware game, simply because they're "bleeding marketshare" and could have considerably more by licensing.

Ok. Let's wait and see.

I agree it will be all about services not hardwear. They could have made a normal TV years ago. My guess is they are working on software and partner agreements to offer TV in an entirely new way. I envision a system akin to itunes where you can watch what you want when you want, and only pay for what you want. I know PVR can sort of accomplish some of this but imagine subscribing to actual shows, instead of channels. You can do it online for free the following day through network websites but they are a day late, awkward, and slow. 

I think in five years ordering a cable package and looking at the schedule will seem as silly as going to a CD shop and listening to samples before deciding what album to buy.

Think of the parelles with music. There was a time when is was not only free (albeit stolen), but more convenient to illegally download music. I would say the same for TV shows today. Apple made legal downloading of music better for a reasonable efficient fee. Can they do the same for TV?