Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box - Page 5

There are so many pieces that need to be analyzed for this market.

1. Television Set - Essentially a monitor with a TV tuner and HDMI built in. Apple can bring a much better factory calibration and classier look to the set. The former is very important while the later probably isn't going to improve much or be a hug factor to most people.
2. Content - This is where the cable and sat companies have Kung Fu grip. They buy the content in bulk and then distribute it in packages. A la carte is more expensive per show/episode (and I doubt that will ever change). If you watch more content you might think that Apple is better but it will end up costing you more. That's a deterrent.
3. Digibox - This is how a lot of Americans get their content. This is also the UI they use with their TV. This is where I feel Apple can really make the biggest impact to how we access our content.

It really makes no sense for Apple to make a TV that has a great UI that we rarely access because we're stuck using the digibox's UI for content. The only caveat i that you wouldn't have to switch inputs on the TV if Apple made a TV, it would just be an overlay of the moded Apple TV UI, but that also goes for Apple making a digibox that could connect to content from you cable/sat company, except that it would be more integrated and surely cleaner, smoother, and more intuitive than what we currently see on the market.

If Apple makes the TV the way Ireland wants it you get to hook up speakers but no Blu-ray player (or anything else that connects via HDMI). This seems like a complete fail to me because Blu-ray is and will be the de facto way to watch the best quality content in your HEC. It's not right for a "PC" but it is for your HEC. I'm sure Steve Jobs watched Pixar movies on Blu-ray at home with his family. If you make a set that alienates that segment of users that want "the best" you basically alienate a larger majority. IOW, the Venn diagram would have a lot of overlap.

 

Uh… huh…

 

This is a contradiction in terms. Settle that internally before continuing.

 

I gave you the link. Just click it. And you can get to the link without leaving the forums in the first place.

 

Yeah, I'll just go ahead and use these apps and… whoops! I have a remote with 7 (9) physical, hardware buttons! I cannot possibly ever use any of these apps designed for a TOUCHSCREEN.

 

Right in the name: Apple TEE-VEE. Any apps (Channels) for it would be video-specific content. There could easily be an official The Weather Channel Channel showing a live stream of the broadcast channel that also has an interactive local setup therein. Instead of just a uselessly simple image like this:

 

 

on the screen for just a few seconds, you could select any of these days and see hourlies, percentages, and such. You could edit the radar maps to show whatever you wanted, local or regional…

 

Sports could thrive. I mean, you've seen those recent multi-game whatever in the sports packages, yeah? Imagine that, but with a decent interface and fully interactive.

 

But the straight up App Store? That's what AirPlay is for.

If it's popular and profitable for the company that created it isn't that more than enough reason for its existence? I suspect the iPad mini will sell more units than the iPad. It could even generate more revenue and profit than the iPad in a short time. I certainly expect its adoption in units to be faster than the iPad.

Can't forget the "hug factor". I always hug my TV whenever Khaleesi is on lol.

LOL See, this is why these discussions are good. I would have never thought about hugging my TV. I also haven't watched any of S02 of GoT. Perhaps I'll start that this weekend. She is my favourite on the show. I hope Martin doesn't kill her off (haven't read the books).

You haven't watched S2 yet? What's wrong with you man? Between GoT and BE HBO has really raised the bar. Unfortunately I believe those 2 shows split the vote allowing Homeland to win the Emmy. BTW did you know that Martin begged HBO not to make the show? He didn't think they could pull it off.
Edited by dasanman69 - 12/8/12 at 11:26am

I still haven't seen this season's Boardwalk Empire either. I'll likely get to that one when the series is over.

I am up to date on Showtime's Dexter (and, embarrassingly, up to date with CW's Arrow).

Don't be too embarrassed, I like Arrow as well.

It's Gossip Girl meets Smallville and I am way too old be watching either so I think it's healthy that I feel somewhat embarrassed by this guilty pleasure.

 

Well, we are well overdue for a single device that does all of the set-up box job, but I think they will have no choice to still make a cable box, especially if they do a partnership with cable. I am hoping Apple will be able to change how Cable package content, but it will be no picnic.

 

In the mean time, there is still a lot of things that could go ahead of the of full TV set, like Apple TV app store, FaceTime, Siri, ...

 

Obviously an Apple TV app store would mean you cant just get iOS ipad app, it would have to be a separate store with apps develop especially for it. The thing is if they want to do it ahead of the TV set using the 99$ box, they will have to release a new way to control the TV , or new remote.  Apple TV beta suggest they are putting bluetooth into it, its the first step.

 

And Airplay is nice, but maybe a customer who buy's an Apple TV would not want to have to buy a 500$+ ipad just to play apps on it when the box already have the power to run the app natively.  Maybe they will be able to produce a control for something like 150$, something not far fetch considering logitech harmony remotes are not cheap.

Get your eyes checked. The first one is a PDP5020FD Pioneer Kuro TV with built in speakers. The other is likely a 60" Kuro Elite monitor panel with no speakers. Both have their logos removed. Whether Apple is paying Pioneer or not is irrelevant to this conversation. All you need to know is both those TV are Pioneers.

Don't bother arguing about it. The last thing Apple will be doing is adding Siri to their TV. The most simple thing imaginable is a self-contained TV with a simple Bluetooth remote. An oversimplification, but yeah.

And yet you think something so simple that they could have done a decade ago is the "cracked nut" Jobs referred to in his biography. Just like when you predicted that any Apple tablet would run Mac OS X because it was simpler than creating a new OS for the device you need to look at this from Apple's perspective. Apple doesn't do simple; Apple does complex so that the end result is simple for the user.

 

That's just Bluetooth keyboard support; nothing to do with control.

 

I've… been thinking about the TV. 

 

I think I get the idea. I'm warming a little.

 

I'll sleep on it. 

Snap out of it and stand your ground. Lol

 

This actually happened: a friend of mine bought an iPad last year for his wife. She loved it, but returned it because it wouldn't fit in her purse. As a guy, this use case never occurred to me. Now with the iPad Mini: problem solved.

Gassée doesn't think the Apple TV will be a "TV".

He's makes an excellent and logical point. Hadn't looked at it from that particular angle for some dumb reason.

Really? That has been my primary argument since this idea cropped up. The rebuttal has always been that Apple wants to build everything just as they do with the iMac which simply doesn't hold up well for a TV.

The idea that anyone can just put their lives on hold to watch a TV show at a particular time is completely antiquated.

The innovation is not in the TV screen. The primary innovation needed in this space is a shift from broadcasting to on demand. The second is to put an end to the double-charging for accessing the same content in more than one media format.

At the moment content publishers have built big businesses around the idea of selling the same content multiple times: cinema, DVD, pay TV subscriptions and free-to-air TV. The sooner that dies the sooner we can move on to a rational system.

Apple just need a way to comfortably accommodate paid, advertisement-free content and free, advertisement-subsidised content in a way that doesn't annoy users and doesn't completely break the business model of those who produce content.

I'd also like to see Apple do away with this "region" nonsense and harmonise to a global iTunes and App Store.

That unfortunately is not something Apple can do, unless they start becoming content owners which seems to be the one area of entertainment they are not going to become. At best we can hope to have Apple influence Disney and all their subsidiaries to license their content worldwide and be available within a timeframe that isn't an archaic throwback to VHS rentals (This time I'm linking to a Frédéric Filloux article on Gassée's Monday Note site: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/11/25/the-release-windows-archaism/)

What do you make of this then? http://www.cultofmac.com/204829/could-tim-cooks-new-made-in-usa-mac-actually-be-an-apple-tv-rumor/

Of course Tim Cook said it would be an existing Mac line that was to be built in the US. But about the rest of it? Who knows. Though I can't imagine Apple would be stupid enough to build a TV with just a power cord and noting else.

Even if we didn't have Cook specifically stating a current Mac line will be assembled in the US it doesn't add any credibility to the Apple HDTV rumour. Frankly, I hope they do make a complete line (as noted above) but I just don't see it happening (also noted above).

Funny how Moore's law hasn't made my 5 year old iMac obsolete, and that runs a full desktop OS.

They'll make a TV, and you'll gobble it up.

Um, you need to educate yourself on Moore's Law.

Apple will probably not make a full fledged TV, it will just be new, larger thunderbolt displays.  The Apple TV will then sport a thunderbolt port to connect to them.

Nah, when Apple usually says stuff like this they are being sincere. My guess is Mac Pro.

OK. Care to explain why my 5 year old iMac is not obsolete, but my 2 year old Apple Television will be? Because that's his argument as to why Apple won't make a TV. And I believe it's a flawed argument. You think Apple isn't aware a TV should last you longer than 2 years?

Or they'll make a TV.

 

I'm actually with Ireland on this one; TV distance resolutions and monitor distance resolutions aren't anywhere near the same. "Larger" Thunderbolt displays masquerading as TVs would be in the multiple thousand dollar range.

I own an Apple TV. It's an iMac. Got rid of my TV. Got rid of my cable sub. Works great. Looks great.

 

Apple might make a TV but, in fact, it will be a computer in sheep's clothing. Like the iMac. Apple makes computers and only computers because that's what it loves. Computers. That's Apple's lust and heart's blood and mission in life. It also knows people have learned rightfully to hate computers. So it disguises computers as phones and walkmans and maybe TVs.

 

Maybe. Apple's learned it is not enough to disguise the computer or even to make it damn pretty: Apple knows it also needs a firehose of highly appealing content. Content that's relatively cheap and relatively exclusive. No buck a tune, no iPod. No buck an app, no iPhone. And no buck a show, no iPhlix.

 

…which is designed as a computer, sold as a computer, and used as a computer. I don't get it.

 

 

 

 

*shudder* But you're right. And it'll be a piece of cake to get purchased shows down to that price. Just you watch.

 

Pun intended, but not when I typed it.