Apple set top box = iPod dock

dude thats an awesome idea, i hope they see that.

Yes, you do have a point here. Could put all sorts of plugs on the back of the iPod Dock the possibilities of its use could be dramatically increased.

Perhaps even mirroring the iPod display on a TV while listening to music through it that would be cool. m. 8)

just like i said in an earlier post, steve seems to be quietly setting these things up brick-by-brick and then later the end result shows. ipod has a "dock" what do you do with a dock? just like the one on the desktop, you add things to it...

I have been thinking along similar lines. Imagine an Airport Extreme Basestation with a 160 GB hard drive, an iPod Dock, and s-video in and component out.

I think I'd rather have them all seperate. I'd keep the basestation near the jack coming into my wall, the harddrive on or in my comp, the dock on my desktop and the S-video in in my desktop

Nah, the iPod has a dock, for the same reason as so many other MP3 players or MD players - to recharge and sync with the thing nicely stood up. Even some digital cameras have these. I wouldn't read anything else into it.

that would be awesome!!!

I disagree. I would like any set top box device to have a HUGE upgradeable hard drive. I am pissed enough that I have to have a duplicate of all my iPods music in my laptop as well as on the iPod itself. Shouldn't there be one, stationary repository for all of your music, images and movies...? A set top box would certainly be large enough to handle that, not to mention it would certainly be stationary. It would kind of be the "media server" for your whole house.

Let your computer store applications and documents, not media.

I have to disagree with that one. Computers are devices used to control digital media. You started off with moving calculations to digital electronics, followed by electronic versions of documents. If you are migrating your audio and video technologies to the digital format, it is only natural that computers should be used to manipulate / control them.

On the topic of duplicate storage, I personally think every house should have something similar to a firewire 800 based wireless SAN with all devices interlinked to it.

I am speaking of STORING not MANIPULATING movies music etc... When in my house, I want to manage my music and movies from my livingroom where my TV, component stereo and large amplified speakers are. I will always have some music on my laptop (but mainly my iPod) so I can take it on the road. But I have have a 40 gig HD on my laptop, and a 40 gig iPod and 45 gigs of music. Right now my only solution is a remote firewire drive.

Soon, we will all be storing movies too. Can you think of a better place to store all these huge media files than a set top box...? Maybe someday we will all have a few terabytes of networked storage in the basement. Until then, I will take a 250gig drive in my set top box please.

Many of you see the drive-based set-top box as something that will "duplicate" information. I tend to think of it as a back-up. Do you really want to trust a portable computer and an iPod to save all of your data. They could easilly be lost or stolen and there goes all of the music you've ever downloaded from iTMS, all your digital photos, etc. What should consumers do...use Retrospect or Apple Backup and buy yet another device that will have "duplicate" data set anyway in addition to the set-top box?

Apple wants to sell Macs. Period.



You want a centralized server for all your media files? That's what your Mac is for. You can back it up, edit, store, whatever... it does it all.

A set-top box would be for *viewing* them remotely. Why on earth would you insist on having the storage with the device in your living room? Why not have a machine on the network that handles all the actual server work (which is already built in to MacOS X quite nicely), and just tap into it? Seems to be a much better option, and one that is doable today. Want more storage? Add it to the server, not the set-top box. The STB is just an access point. Witness the iPod - you store on your Mac, you organize with iTunes, you access with iPod 'remotely'. If the iPod were on a 24/7 network, streaming would be doable instead - a STB has that option that an iPod doesn't.

Apple will go with pushing the devices that give them the strongest long-term strategic advantage, and highest profit margins. Those are Macs, ultimately.

Now, if the STB had a FW port for adding an external HD for storage as an option, that might fly - you would still need a Mac to get things *onto* it, but once you did, you could have it be standalone. Mac still need = happy Apple.

With all this talk about an Apple Front Projector, a set top box, and an iPod dock, it got me thinking about how Apple could really get the whole home entertainment thing integrated with the Mac. I figured the best way would be with a set top box, but with an important difference: How about actually making it something useful?

Imagine, if you will, an Airport-connecting, Rendezvous-enabled, iApp-integrated set top box.

Just plug it in, and hook it up to your TV (and other home theater equipment), and it will instantly connect to your Airport Extreme network (or to your ethernet network, for the wire-bound). Using Rendezvous, it searches out any Macs (and later, PCs) with appropriate iApps loaded, all with no user configuration required. Here's where the iApps come in:

iTunes: Accesses your iTunes library and playlists, letting you play your entire music collection on your big stereo, all without extra wires or clunky "Media Center PC" sitting right there. Plus, if desired, song information and iTunes visuals can play on your TV.

iPhoto: Accesses your iPhoto library and albums, and lets you show slideshows on your TV, with an iTunes-supplied soundtrack, of course. This would be a Mac only feature, unless Apple found a money-making reason to port iPhoto to Windows.

iFlick (or iShow, or iVid... or whatever): A new iApp, which would be a combination of iTunes for video, and a PVR. While watching TV, the set top box can simultaneously beam the video to your Mac, where it'll save it to your harddrive in Quicktime format. iFlick will, of course, manage and organize all your TV shows (and any other Quicktime videos you may have) in a Library and playlists/albums. There could also be an iTunes-like browse feature to search for shows by channel, date, or other meta data (like all your "Friends" episodes, or all movies starring a particular actor). iFlick would integrate with other iApps as well. iMovie could export your completed videos to your iFlick library, just like GarageBand exports to iTunes. Also, iFlick could send saved TV shows to either iMovie for editing (who wants those commercials, anyway?) or directly to iDVD. Plus, once broadband actually gets fast enough, and Apple sorts out an agreement with the Motion Picture Association, there could be an iFlick Movie Store... probably more of a rental store, but whatever. Of course, I shouldn't have to mention it, but iFlick could obviously send any stored videos back to your TV, through the set top box, for later viewing, and would provide all the playback features current PVR users are accustomed to.

iFlick would be a cross-platform iApp, just like iTunes, because it would help sell the set top box (just like iTunes sells the iPod). Plus, when the video store opens, you want a big customer base.

I don't think bandwidth should be a problem... I've never tried streaming video over Airport, but considering the resolution you can get over DSL/cable, and considering how much faster Airport Extreme is than that, there shouldn't be any problem. Plus, Apple wouldn't need to worry about supporting HiDef for a few years, and by then Airport super-duper-extreme will be around anyway.

Plus, cost could be fairly low. It's airport, a processor, and a bunch of memory. You probably wouldn't even need a hard drive, since the Mac is doing all the video recording anyway... unless you want a small one for buffering, and it turns out to be cheaper than extra RAM.

The set top box could all be controlled through an iPod-like interface, although with a very snazzed-up and Aqua-esque appearance. In fact, the remote would not likely need many more controls than those found on an actual iPod. You would basically select the computer from the auto-discovered list, then select the iApp (or more likely, the type of media you're looking for), and then browse the playlists and stuff. Apple could even skip the whole "select the computer" stage, and have the device list media from all connected computers in a blended, seamless list.

Do I actually think Apple will make such a box? Not likely. Should Apple make one? Well, it's another digital lifestyle device with potentially high margins. It integrates with and adds value to almost all of iLife. And it would get all those analysts off their backs for not having an answer to the Media Center PC (and yes, most analysts are bone heads, but they do affect Apple's stock price). Plus, of all the computer companies trying to get into the home entertainment business, only Apple has a clue when it comes to style.

Why would it matter if it's in the living room? It will have airport extreme, right? I don't want to have to buy some crumby, third party firewire drive to back-up my data. It makes sense that the machine that will act as a media player stores the media. It would be a server, but the not kind of thing where you would have to actually que a data back-up, or even schedule one, but a constant synchronization to the STB between all macs on the network in the background.

The problem with using a Mac as your server (unless it's dedicated) is that it will slow down whatever the user on that machine is doing. Not to mention setting up permissions, share points, etc. is something most consumers aren't going to do.

Serving up media is a no-brainer, and doesn't slow down the computer for a logged in user. Try it. I serve up songs, video and pictures from a 350MHz B/W G3 Rev A. in my study to the laptops around the house, and guess what? Almost no appreciable difference to a logged in user.

Config, permissions, etc: Rendevouz. iTunes Sharing. Etc.

I already do this in my house - a STB would just be a cheaper version of the retired Pismo I use now.

It really is pretty blasted simple with a minor amount of setup *now*... with an STB dedicated for this sort of services discovery, and playback, it'd be truly plug and play.


Waitaminnit... you're griping about needing to set up share points, permissions, etc, and yet you want this thing to *synchronize* with user's media files on various computers automatically?? Whaaaaaaa? Same situation, if not worse. "I'll share these files, but not these" vs. "I'll let the STB copy these files, but not these". No difference, except now you have copies to synchronize.

If you want a backup, get a backup solution. RsyncX and a 'crumby' FireWire drive (because goodness knows that's what web cookies leave behind...) will fit the bill nicely.

If you want an autosync networked storage backup solution, get yourself a SAN and then use RsyncX.

But for goodness' sake, keep the separation of media storage and media playback separate. There's no need to combine the two, *especially* if you're in the business of selling Macs.

First off, I run a home server as well. I have a Dual G4 running Panther Server. But that's only because I work from home. A consumer typically doesn't have an extra computer lying around. Nor do they want to use RsyncX or a SAN.

Second, this hard drive-based STB could use Rendevous to automatically discover home folders on the network. I'm talking about backing-up home folders...not sharing all of them. Only photos, music and movies would be accessible by the STB interface for playback.

What you just described is a Rendevouz SAN. Cool device. Not a STB.

Well, if you look at my first post here, you'll see that what I described is essentially an Airport Base Station, STB, and SAN combined in one device with component out and an iPod dock.

Right. At which point I have to ask... why?

Sell the SAN backup system as a solution for small businesses, homes with more than one computer, etc, etc, etc. <-Make profit.

Sell an STB that plays media off of other systems, including the SAN if wanted. <-Make profit.

Sell a networkable iPod Dock that serves up the playlists to the STB without tying it to a computer, excellent for "Bring your own music" parties and the like, or for the person who just likes gadgets. (You can get audio-out Docks now. If you want more flexibility and funkiness, have a Dock that can just plug directly into... wait for it... the STB for on-screen selection, etc.)

These are two separate functions to be performed optimally by different devices. Tying them together just limits the markets of each.

Good design isn't a matter of seeing how much you can cram into one box - it's about finding out how much you can strip away.

You may be right. I just know that I like to have as few devices as possible. That said, I don't see why they could offer a STB with and without a hard disk.

Hence the FW port for an external drive...

I like the SAN portion of it, and have often wished I had a spare machine lying about with good networking, and huge disks just for such a use. Right now my BW G3 fills that niche in the household econetwork.

To me, an entertainment center/living room appliance should be as small, unobtrusive and *silent* as possible. The SAN doesn't need to be, which requires less overall engineering, hence (hopefully) a cheaper price. I see the two products as having somewhat conflicting constraints, and keeping them separate lets each do its dedicated job more cleanly, which generally results in a better product.

Honestly, the Cube was the best start at an STB platform I've seen yet - not the form factor, necessarily, but the basics of silent, small mobo, iApps (with sharing now), good networking, etc. Pare it down to the basics, add in a solid AV out board (composite, optical, etc), repackage it with a smallish HD, 512MB RAM, extremely limited internal expandability (it's 'not a computer'). Make profit.

I was thinking about using a Cube-ish design too, although it wouldn't have to be nearly as big.

It only needs a G4 processor (or low GHz G5, if it ends up cheaper/cooler/better), no optical drives, and even an HD is questionable, unless you need it for buffering streamed content from the networked Mac. Personally, though, I think that purely RAM-based buffering would be preferable, especially in the interest of keeping the thing small. You wouldn't even need a high-end video card for this thing... as long as it can pump out QuickTime video at DVD resolutions (forget HiDef for now), it's good enough.

Fanless cooling in a package like this would be a snap!

And as for upgrading? Forget it. Throw it right out the window! This is a consumer electronics device. How many TV sets or boomboxes give you extra RAM slots? If you really need to upgrade, you buy the latest model.

I could live with that. Though I think HiDef is necessary. How many non-HDTV's are purchased by people who would use this sort of thing.

Please Apple, anything that adds the missing spoke to the "digital hub"

Which "HiDef"? Over the air transmissions, Cable, or satelite? Also will it support standard analog OTA? The problem with adding a tuner in right now is that there are too many "standards". Also, as of today, HDTV (OTA) tunners are expensive (about $350 minimum the last I saw locally). Yet to add maximum functionality to the system you need a tuner for each broadcast standard that can be controlled by the computer to support recording of broadcast video. You also would need some form of "Legal" way to "rip" dvd's to HD to catalog in your video archive to be recalled whenever you want to view them.

The solution might be multiple devices.

• One for each TV on the network that just recieves a stream from the central computer on the Hub. Very low cost, but useless on its own.
• One that hooks up to the central computer via FW 800 which has one or more of a few different tuners built in. Depending on the tuner this could be very expensiv. Based on current products probably starting out at around $300 for standard analog TV, add an additional $300 for HDTV, Cable and satelit would probably fall somewhere in between.

I think the solution here is HDTV capable resolution on output, but no actual tuner. Heck, I wasn't envisioning even a cable tuner in this thing... that's what your cable box/satellite box/VCR/DVD player is for. This is just a streaming media receptor with video and audio out.

Make it simple, but make it quality.

After 20 years Apple needs to adjust



While I don't agree with the idea that "an all-in-one computer-and-TV device" is what is needed by Apple, they must address the glaring lack of easy integration with the major pillar of multimedia in the home - TELEVISION - like it or not, in the consumer sphere TV is King for entertainment.

Audiophiles will spend thousands on their HiFi's. Prosumers will spend thousands on their home theaters. Geeks and Professionals will spend thousands on their computers.

Average Consumers will only spend hundreds in any one of these categories, but they will spend thousands to cover all three. There are many millions of them though, and as a target audience, they can not be ignored.

A slick, simple, silent (or nearly so) inexpensive (but feature and capacity upgradable) set top box (or cube, or sphere, or trapezoid) that offers interaction with your HiFi and TV is what's needed. I'm sure that Mr. Ives can come up with something, if Steve will let him.

While I agree that any set top box could be sold cheaply if it were simply a conduit between your existing Apple hardware and your television, I DO NOT think that would be Apple's solution. Elgato Systems has already done that: http://www.elgato.com/products/eyehome.html

The appeal of the iPod goes far beyond the 3%-5% marketshare. It is an independent consumer device that anyone with digital music can enjoy. If you have iTunes great, if you have a Mac, even more enjoyable. It is a Trojan horse type product in the sense that it penetrates deeper than the Mac, and illustrates Apple's design sensibility and legendary ease of use. It is an advertisement for the entire Apple product line.

I would have to assume that based on the iPod's success, further expansion into the consumer devices arena would take this cue and be somewhat independent. You may not need to have a mac. If you have Apple hardware in your house you would experience greater functionality, a .Mac account, better still.

I know Steve hates TV, but the digital hub is not in the office, it is in the living room. And one spoke so clearly missing from the complete "digital hub" strategy is the television. I can not possibly imagine that a rumored 30" cinema display is only for the very few, and the very weathy video editors out there. You can always buy another monitor if you need that much real estate right? It has got to be tied to a greater plan to take over the living room.

If you are going to make them worth while you need PVR functions built in somewhere. To do this you need software control of your TV tuner that is hooked up to the computer through analog or digital connections. Since Apple doesn't have control of the people making the tuners, and there are few if any today that can be controlled via some network connection, then Apple needs to have at least one appliance that has the tuner built in.

What is more, the average consumer will replace most any component that is no longer under warranty if it goes out in their system rather than have it repaired.

Personally I would like to see a box that is easily expandable and has room for multiple large, cheap hard disks, and can act as a streaming file server across both Ethernet and wireless. For me this is a PowerMac and it doubles as my personal computer and development station, but for other people it might be a seperate device. Under or over the TV is not the best place for it to sit... high capacity cheap hard disks are big and noisy so why would you want to put one in the middle of your entertainment experience?! In case you hadn't noticed, the cost per megabyte of the small and quiet drives is sub-optimal. Add to that the need for multiple "nodes" in your home network (which might extend across the Internet while you're away from home) and it makes less sense to build it around a box sitting on top of your TV. Put the damn thing in a closet where it can double as a furnace.

Note that the current disk sizes in the PVRs are pretty anemic compared to what I expect to be the norm in the near future... we should be talking about terabytes, not gigabytes.

Right, everyone on this board would love an xServe and xRaid tucked away in a soundproof closet, and we'd all be more than happy to drill holes in our walls to run fiber channel to our workstations and gigabit ethernet to our HDTV's and FireWire to our stereos.

Consumers wouldn't even consider such a set-up. They want something that they can put right on top of their component stack, or stand on a shelf next to the TV (cubic?). They want it to be easier to hook up than a TiVo, and easier to use than a light switch.

As far as noise, my Sony 2000 (TiVo) has a hard drive and a fan. It is always on. I have never heard it in 3 years of use.

[disclaimer: to much loud music. many hours in loud aircraft, and to many rounds fired from high powered weapons has degraded my ability to hear hard drive seeks and low speed fans so, YMMV]

I disagree. A PVR is a tuner-based system for capturing broadcast video.

An STB is an interconnect between your hosted media of various sorts and your home entertainment system.

Again, two different beasts.

Keep them separated.


And, I have this funny feeling Steverino agrees with me...

MacWorld interview


Apple's thang has always been content *creation*, not content consumption. Expect that to continue.

And as long as that "thang" continues, we will forever be locked in our "niche" and suffer ever smaller market share in the computer Industry.

Let us not forget the lesson of the iPod, a media consumption device. What was it Steve said at Macworld about the iPod...? "It's nice to be better than 5% marketshare in something..." or something like that.

iLife let's anyone create. .Mac / Rendezvous, is intended to let anyone share. It is only natural for Apple to be looking for new ways to close the product loop and produce new means to consume.

My amazing, innovative, expensive and crazy integration theory:
1. Your computer is the organizer. Computers are great as organizers.
2. Your TV is the player. With the large screen, TVs are natural for viewing movies and photos.
3. The big, fat speaker setup your speaker setup has is great for playing music, and when playing music your TV let's you choose which song and playlist to play, and do other basic options (i.e. pause.) Next Track, Fast Forward, Rewind, Previous Track, and Pause are also offered on the audio system itself. Your computer plays the CDs if you want CDs.

Everything is streamed or sent over Ethernet using Rendezvous. The TV and the audio system have to be "smart," of course. An intelligent iPod dock for your music and photos (it would be a color iPod) also might factor in.

Existing apps are used for organizing photos and tunes, and a new app for organizing recorded TV shows and DVDs. You cannot organize your media on the TV, only play and choose what to play. The DVD playing app that now streams data to your TV is the same ol' DVD Player, now with an option to play on the TV. Once again, bookmarks and such are set on the computer; your TV only plays the DVD.

If you have a VHS player, you may record videotapes to the Mac, which are stored in the same app used to store DVDs and TV shows.

Hmmm.

I like the idea that the iPod might be a trojan horse to control media streamed onto tv from Mac.

Steve Jobs seems to hint that a Mac might be the hub and the content might be streamed over something like Airport Extreme.

Lemon Bon Bon

Gee, that's why I said it would support wireless as well. And you'd still have that settop box, except that it would be smaller and cheaper. Many homes these days have more than 1 TV so you want more than one of these boxes. As time goes on, however, more and more homes are built with some form of networking so hardwired will be an attractive option for many.