or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Tim Cook hints that Apple plans to redefine the television set
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tim Cook hints that Apple plans to redefine the television set - Page 6

post #201 of 212
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post
I see it more like a iPod with a power button on top right, volume controls on upper left slide, home button(used for Siri, menu, hopefully multi tasking) the click wheel (touch screen is possible but maybe to much) a HDTV camera above it(maybe strictly to TV) headphone jack at bottom( not necessary) plus one or two microphones, this still only uses 8 buttons but a much simpler format designed more apple like with a Apple TV interface.

 

Since I posted that, I've been reminded we don't need a power button. Volume on the side, interesting… I like that. What the frick would you need to multitask on a TV?!

 

Zero reason for a click wheel. Zero reason for a camera. Zero reason for headphones. Zero reason for a microphone.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #202 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Since I posted that, I've been reminded we don't need a power button. Volume on the side, interesting… I like that. What the frick would you need to multitask on a TV?!

Zero reason for a click wheel. Zero reason for a camera. Zero reason for headphones. Zero reason for a microphone.
True about the power button, I realized it minutes after I posted, Multitasking I believe is not needed, but for people running different apps
Click wheel is on current remote and yours, Camera as said could be there or on TV, headphones for complainers(not needed), microphone is for Siri to hear the user better than the other people in the room.
post #203 of 212
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post
Click wheel is on current remote and yours…

 

That's just a D-pad. The click wheel is something different.


…Camera as said could be there or on TV…

 

Yeah, but why? 


…headphones for complainers(not needed)…


Heh. This would force the remote to be Bluetooth, too.


…microphone is for Siri to hear the user better than the other people in the room.

 

That's what iOS devices are for. Though you bring up a really good point. No, know what, I've changed my mind. You're right. If there's Siri capability through a future box or screen, the remote therewith will have a microphone in it. None of this "there is no remote" crap. That will never happen.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #204 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post



Yeah, but why? 


Heh. This would force the remote to be Bluetooth, too.

That's what iOS devices are for. Though you bring up a really good point. No, know what, I've changed my mind. You're right. If there's Siri capability through a future box or screen, the remote therewith will have a microphone in it. None of this "there is no remote" crap. That will never happen.
People will probably prefer there to be FaceTime and a camera has to be somewhere.
I know I think the remotes should have had headphone jacks years ago do to poor sound quality yet now it would be stupid especially on a Apple TV. But people probably might still want it.
Thanks for agreeing with me about the microphone in the remote, I once thought of the no remote but realized Siri might need to hear you up close.
post #205 of 212
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah View Post
People will probably prefer there to be FaceTime and a camera has to be somewhere.

 

But WHY? Who wants to see others like that? Who wants to be seen like that?

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #206 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But WHY? Who wants to see others like that? Who wants to be seen like that?
Me and probably many others who have posted but even though I have had a iPhone 4 for over two years (now a 5) I just did my first FaceTime of course it depends on the living room set up on if a FaceTime camera should be, but hay you know what leave the FaceTime to the mobile IOS and Mac OS. The current way of thought of the TV Zooming into your face is stupid, a bad angle is a major chance, of course that is back to the remote FaceTime but holding remote toward face yet watch there's on TV. That just brings us to a touch screen remote how ever sounds good but with all that it is just a regular TV. With a special air play that comes with a smooth interface but at $1500 is a iPod and a TV (with Apple TV features) that you could buy separate devices at nearly half. So instead of a market flip just FaceTime on mobile IOS. Not a TV.
Note:I am saying mobile IOS because of I believe a Apple TV to be IOS but it of course stationary device.
post #207 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But WHY? Who wants to see others like that? Who wants to be seen like that?

FT is on iMacs, would having it on a TV really be that different?

I like the idea of FT, but understand that drawback. It seems a lot of device makers put video phone capability into the devices, I wonder how many people used it, and how much beyond just playing with it once or twice. I've even suggested showing people how a product works over video phone, no one needed it yet.
post #208 of 212
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
FT is on iMacs, would having it on a TV really be that different?

 

Yeah, because it makes sense on an iMac! You're sitting 2-3 feet away, not 10-15 feet! And you're sitting up, properly, not cranked back on a sofa or recliner. You can dictate the terms of your appearance at your computer. In front of the TV, people tend to be relaxed (you use a computer to turn your mind on; a television turns your mind off), unkempt. No one's gonna answer the phone!

 

Vanity killed the videophone, back when home phones were all we had. We didn't want people to be able to see us at any conceivable time simply because they called. The same will be true of FaceTime on a television.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #209 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, because it makes sense on an iMac! You're sitting 2-3 feet away, not 10-15 feet! And you're sitting up, properly, not cranked back on a sofa or recliner. You can dictate the terms of your appearance at your computer. In front of the TV, people tend to be relaxed (you use a computer to turn your mind on; a television turns your mind off), unkempt. No one's gonna answer the phone!

Vanity killed the videophone, back when home phones were all we had. We didn't want people to be able to see us at any conceivable time simply because they called. The same will be true of FaceTime on a television.

It probably didn't help that it wasn't any good and cost too much, by the time it was and cheap, most people realized they really didn't care.

Why on the iMac at all then? It seems to be the standard feature that few people use other than to take three photos in Photobooth.
post #210 of 212
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
It probably didn't help that it wasn't any good and cost too much, by the time it was and cheap, most people realized they really didn't care.

 

Really? I seem to recall videophones from the '60s that gave 320x240 video, which I think is impressive. Granted, some of these are publicity photos, but the screens wouldn't show up on camera very well, anyway.


Why on the iMac at all then?

 

Again, because the computer is a place of productivity. Videoconferences with other(s!) are important. I wish Apple would guarantee us a future for iChat Theater, given that AIM is supposedly down to a skeleton crew of support staff only, doing no new work on the protocol and hanging by a thread. If that part of Messages is shut down, Apple will try not to bat an eye, given that they have a "replacement" for AIM in the form of iMessage, but iMessage+FaceTime can't do four (and by now it should be more than that) person videoconferences or 10 person audio calls. They can't do iChat Theater, either. 

 

Does Apple just expect people not to videoconference anymore? That won't happen. They'll just go out and buy multi-thousand dollar hardware from someone that isn't Apple, have a terrible time with it, and get things done that way. Or they'll use Windows-only software to do it on their computers and just not buy Macs at all. 

 

Apple needs to kick Skype (and that one dedicated collaboration application, what was it…?) in the groin in both application UI and scope of functionality when it comes to this sort of thing. It'd be just one more little way they could break into the corporate world. 

 

"Ah, the server team sent this memo out. Seems we could save $20,000 on our dedicated conferencing hardware by changing to Macs and iPads as part of our usual computer rotation. And those last longer than our old computers, too, so longer rotation periods."


It seems to be the standard feature that few people use other than to take three photos in Photobooth.

 

But if this is the case, shouldn't that also kill the argument for it on the TV? "It's not really used, so don't include it" is modus operandi for Apple as of late (and of early).

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #211 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Really? I seem to recall videophones from the '60s that gave 320x240 video, which I think is impressive. Granted, some of these are publicity photos, but the screens wouldn't show up on camera very well, anyway.

Wasn't it like 2 frames per second with super expensive hardware and subscription service on top of a phone line?

Quote:
Again, because the computer is a place of productivity. Videoconferences with other(s!) are important. I wish Apple would guarantee us a future for iChat Theater, given that AIM is supposedly down to a skeleton crew of support staff only, doing no new work on the protocol and hanging by a thread. If that part of Messages is shut down, Apple will try not to bat an eye, given that they have a "replacement" for AIM in the form of iMessage, but iMessage+FaceTime can't do four (and by now it should be more than that) person videoconferences or 10 person audio calls. They can't do iChat Theater, either.

Does Apple just expect people not to videoconference anymore? That won't happen. They'll just go out and buy multi-thousand dollar hardware from someone that isn't Apple, have a terrible time with it, and get things done that way. Or they'll use Windows-only software to do it on their computers and just not buy Macs at all. 

Do people really video conference like it's something useful to make up for the hassle? If anything, one can get camera add-ons. But it doesn't mean much without good software, which Apple didn't provide until FT.

Is video conferencing from a desk a common thing? The closest I've done is screen share for software training. No one seems to be asking for live video demonstrations, aside from screen sharing (which doesn't use cameras), I haven't seen it offered in day-to-day business.

The software to do it certainly has been pathetic. My grandma and uncle are the only people that I know that do video calls regularly, and they only got that working because I found some obscure setting that previously prevented it from working right. Too bad Apple backed off on publishing the FT spec.

Quote:
Apple needs to kick Skype (and that one dedicated collaboration application, what was it…?) in the groin in both application UI and scope of functionality when it comes to this sort of thing. It'd be just one more little way they could break into the corporate world. 

"Ah, the server team sent this memo out. Seems we could save $20,000 on our dedicated conferencing hardware by changing to Macs and iPads as part of our usual computer rotation. And those last longer than our old computers, too, so longer rotation periods."

But if this is the case, shouldn't that also kill the argument for it on the TV? "It's not really used, so don't include it" is modus operandi for Apple as of late (and of early).

I am just trying to probe what's going on. I don't see much reason for them to be doing it in the first place. I figured if there was reason for the iMac to have it, I didn't see much reason for a TV to not have it. The posture thing doesn't seem like an actual show stopper, you just have to sit up if you're in a call. People are a mess in front of a TV, people are a mess in front of a computer.

A few game systems offered camera modules, so the idea might gain traction.
Edited by JeffDM - 12/26/12 at 7:52pm
post #212 of 212
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post
Wasn't it like 2 frames per second with super expensive hardware and subscription service on top of a phone line?

 

I don't know. That's entirely possible, given the infrastructure of the time. lol.gif

 

Do people really video conference like it's something useful to make up for the hassle? If anything, one can get camera add-ons. But it doesn't mean much without good software, which Apple didn't provide until FT.

 

I should think so! And I beg to differ; iChat's multi-person conferencing was (and is, since it still exists, silently) great! As well as iChat Theater. A former love interest and I viewed Monty Python and the Holy Grail over it once when we were apart!

 

The software to do it certainly has been pathetic. My grandma and uncle are the only people that I know that do video calls regularly, and they only got that working because I found some obscure setting that previously prevented it from working right. Too bad Apple backed off on publishing the FT spec.
 

Agreed. I want to see Skype kicked out. Or down or whatever the appropriate preposition is. They're owned by Microsoft now, right? It's nothing to do with that; I've disliked Skype since long before that. Their UI is horrible, they don't play well with Apple services, and their workflow hasn't yet stepped out of the late '90s. If Apple does with their video stuff what they did with WebKit (in a way appropriate for the medium, of course), I can see Apple's services being the premier way of doing whatever they're designed to do within five years (look at WebKit).


I figured if there was reason for the iMac to have it, I didn't see much reason for a TV to not have it. The posture thing doesn't seem like an actual show stopper, you just have to sit up if you're in a call. People are a mess in front of a TV, people are a mess in front of a computer.
A few game systems offered camera modules, so the idea might gain traction.

 

I see what you're saying, and that's a valid point to take on some issues. For example, I don't see why the iPad doesn't have dedicated Weather, Stocks, and Passbook apps when the iPhone and iPod touch do. And in reverse with Photo Booth. On the hardware side of things, I was always mystified why earlier iMacs had four USB ports while the Mac Mini had five. And why the Mac Pro only had as many as the Mac Mini and not more.

 

I guess when thinking of Apple in the television space, you have to come down on one side or another. Either it's "This is the simplest television ever created by the hand of man" or "This is the most feature-packed television ever created by the hand of man". Or external box, whatever your preference. And then from that you can build up a feature set. Either it's "what can we absolutely not do without" or "what have we always done without that we don't know we'd really like to have". 

 

Interestingly enough, while Apple leans heavily toward the former, they always seem to be quite respectful of the latter. Again, and whichever your preference in what the device will be, their step out of the realm of hobby should be impressive.

 

Unless those rumors about "the cable companies liking what Apple's doing" is true. Then the whole thing is a wash.

Originally posted by Marvin

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

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Tim Cook hints that Apple plans to redefine the television set