Full-fledged television considered 'more in tune' with Apple than simple set-top box - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by winstein2010 

I'll bet Apple had the TV designed already. Just waiting for the technology to be ready and for the media contracts to fall into place.

yep, they sure have, for about 5 years now they keep showing the same minimalist TV behind their product on their own website.

AI, don't you get it?  It's not going to look like the Thunderbolt display, it's not going to look like the iMac.  It probably won't look like that thing on the Apple TV website either.  However, that image has darken the Webiste for at least 5 years now.  So they must have some idea what Apple thinks their TV should look like.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
What does that have to do with a television set.

Directly mirrors the supposition at hand.

It tells you a lot more than it says (it says three words), meaning that you're inferring most of it.

Hence my examples showing that this isn't Apple's style.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard

I think the problem is the TV paradigm is wrong.  Cable didnt' change the paradigm, it just multiplied it by 100.  the iPhone changed the model from a phone with a web browser, to a computer with a phone app.

Apple TV would be a computer application with video content management system tailored to me, assessible on what ever device I currently closest to my personal device.

I didn't say it's an Big Apple Monitor.   I said it would be be bigger (so the progression from iPhone/PodTouch - iPad Mini, iPad, MBA, MBP, iMac, Mac Pro/Cinema, then... the TV made by Apple (as opposed to AppleTV).  Nor did I infer the difficulty is in in the size. 

The Difficulty is not how we 'watch' television.   the iPad pretty much solves the 'watching' problem. The Difficulty is how we 'navigate features/content' from multiple sources.  The TV model hasn't changed since.... radio.  It's a network deciding when/howmany content should be delivered to l generate the most revenue .  The apple solution has to build a 'MyChannel' from Internet/OTA/Cable sources, which you can search by just saying "I'd like to watch the Football Game" and that context have it decide I mean the most recent Pittsburgh Steeler or Iowa Hawkeye game.  Not needing to understand satellite channel, cable channel, torrent, BigTenApp, OTA channel, whatever.  Doing that without the person buying an intermediary device that is in house that requires the person to learn how to debug connectivity problems (Apple will NOT send a technician to your house), one that holds true to their 'experience design.' and not about building another product line independent of their other products... they not only complement each other, they are interdependent to each other, in a semi-open way. (They don't want to be another Sony).  That's the difficulty.  

The glass is the easy part.  

The HDTV would need to have a longer lifeline of support than what apple currently does for many of its products. People will hold onto that 40" tv for a decade; will that TV be supported by apple's software updates in a decade? As providers change the software requirements to keep up with more modern functionality, can that hardware maintain? A $100 set top box is far easier to replace than a $1500 HDTV.

When are you people going to get it?

Siri doesn't "just work"...well

Siri would be an pain in the ass...on a TV

Siri is not the center of all iOS devices, it's not the be-all/end-all of anything...yet

Siri is a toy...a hobby...an nice to have but not need to have.

Just imagine how crap Siri would be in the living room, sitting down with the family, people talking, laughing, crying.  Siri can't even deal with basic background noise much less in very closed quarters...not to mention if you watch TV later at night and don't want to wake the rest of the household by talking to your TV.  There are many more examples of how this is a bad idea...but we've all gone over them about a million times on these forums already.

Siri for TV UI is the dumbest idea.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
yes because you're always in tune with Apple's style. And that's why the iPad mini never happened.

And this does what to refute the point I've made? What did I say that was in any way supposition on my own part? It is YOU who is making suppositions.

I maintain that the iPad mini was a terrible idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.

 

Apparently that was unclear.

 

Because a new TV isn't $99, unless you watch everything on this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia%26%23153%3B+-+19%26%2334%3B+Class+(18-1/2%26%2334%3B+Diag.)+-+LED+-+720p+-+60Hz+-+HDTV/5606251.p?id=1218671114012&skuId=5606251

I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.

However, no one is talking about disposing pre-existing televisions.  My remarks were in context of someone suggesting that apple could sell both a full-fledged television and an apple Tv box contemporaneously, which is perfectly reasonable, at least to most people.  Very analogous to iMac/Mac mini (which was designed for 'switchers' who already had a monitor and keyboard/mouse)

I'm not sure I can be clearer.

Again, not saying they should make a tv, but its really not hard to comprehend the might produce a television (with much higher margins) along side the apple tv in a form not too dissimilar to how it now is now in order to gain a foothold into the market. That way, when someone is up for a new television set they might just buy the apple tv.  Halo effect.

Originally Posted by joelsalt 

I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.

Non-upgradability is worth $400 to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?

 

Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.

... but Apple does sell an all in one computer along with the Mac Mini.

I'm looking for the center in that combination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dasanman69 


Sure the TV model has changed. Although not perfect gone are the days of having to schedule your life in order not to miss a show. I watch very few shows when broadcast

That is not the model being changed.   There is no refactoring there... you shimmed a device into the model, to adjust it to your liking.  The actual choice of content hasn't changed, the delivery method hasn't changed, the payment method hasn't change (other than you adding costs to the model), the Other 500 shows that you didn't watch are still being paid for by your dime... Advertisers are seeking (or avoiding) your demographic and the lack of ability of content to attract critical mass of eyeballs may terminate your show.

Your sample size of one (or 1 Million) isn't a new industry  model. My (80yo) mother can't run a DVR, let alone wire one up to her cable box.   Video on demand isn't portable. My Mother can use an (G5) iMac and an iPhone.   before then she had neither a computer or a smartphone, and could barely use her flip phone without someone else programming it.  Now, she can program it herself.

Again, look at the world before iMac... and after.

before iPod and ITMS... and then after

before iPhone.... and after

Before iPad... and after

Those are models being changed... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Non-upgradability is worth $400 to you?

If the 400 delta buys me the quality and longevity of an Apple Device.

See iMac.  (I'm still running G5's in my fleet)

See Batteries in a MBA or an iPhone.  (my white 2009 macbook is flagging 'replace battery soon', otherwise, it worked great for my wife).

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff 
See iMac.

The iMac offers large hardware improvements over the Mac Mini. 

I do think Apple will stay out of the high high end.  Much like Mac Servers, 17" tablets, Gamer Tuned Graphics in PCs and Laptops, , Apple won't be selling 88" Plasma TVs.

and the $400 delta here, in this example, it would manage my OTA/Cable search as well as the ITMS library ("Siri, I think Notre Dame is playing Basketball right now, please tune in the game..."  instead of me trying to find it on the 30 odd channels of sports channels and apps (apps will be the new 'channels')).

Now, my temporary panacea is that the $100 AppleTV box will have a Coax connector and do the same.  Still that leads me to two remotes, a decision on how to do sound cabling to HT, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."

 

I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective.

 

I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.

1) If my 80 can do it, then a  65 yo can do it, and 65 is where the money is.

But then you start arguing my point.  so I guess I should shut up.

2) a different perspective is eliminating the complexity through computational power and ease of a single interface.   That's my argument.  You make it sound revolutionary.

3) as for your last point.  Cable and Networks are the Music Stores/Labels and bookstores/publishers of TV.   When it comes to content (and in the end, it's all about the content).  Apple wants to be the 'store' and get it's 30%.   Hence, they are in direct business conflict with Cable companies, and indirect conflict with Network advertisers, just like they were in direct conflict with wireless 'features' since they were sticky to the wireless carrier (email, voicemail, browsing, contacts, etc).   The only way this makes sense is for Apple to eliminate the waste of the current system, and bring a quantum change to the value proposition, like they did with ipods, phones, and tablets.

Apple+TV = Big Brother with a robotic woman's voice

TiVos come to mind, this had better be better than those (and that's possible) or it's no sale for me.