New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4

179111213

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 257
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,659member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    ... And by the way if he was taking Apple's plans and ideas back to Google and getting his minions to work on them, that would just be unethical. It would be illegal and I am fairly sure Apple would have sent out its full legal team after him.



    Like I said, it's naive to think he wasn't, proving it in court would be another thing.
  • Reply 162 of 257
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Like I said, it's naive to think he wasn't, proving it in court would be another thing.



    And I think it's quite a leap to say that his entire tenure was an effort at IP thievery. I see it very simply. Google and Apple got together when they had convergent interests: Google apps helping make the iPhone more capable. They fell apart when they realized that they had diverging interests: Google realized that Apple's goal wasn't getting an internet portal into every single hand possible, but to make money selling those internet portals (which naturally meant they weren't going to make the technology as acccessible as it could be).



    Regardless, when it comes to the topic at hand, again, what did Google copy that wasn't blatantly obvious to them? It's not like slapping a basic OS and browser and a search widget on to a cable box, is some absolutely off-the-wall concept....especially for a company that specializes in internet search. Haven't you ever flicked through your cable box menu and thought, "I wish I could easily search for that show?" I know I have. Those cable box UIs are so out of date and unfriendly. So Google's implementation of search on a cable box (and really that's what Google TV boils down to) would seem pretty obvious to me. Anybody who's spent more than five minutes searching through a cable box menu would have the same idea. I am willing to bet that the whole thing could well have been one of those 10% ideas from one of their employees.
  • Reply 163 of 257
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,517member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Looks like Eric Schmidt made off with yet another Apple idea during his tenure on the board. Not surprising given Google's approach to all IP but its own.



    Wonder what Google is gonna do when all the products that were discussed at the Apple Board after he left start hitting the market. Guess they'll still copy them, but they'll come to market years rather than months after.
  • Reply 164 of 257
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Apple already lost the first big battle with the living room against the content holders. just look at the unusual TV history. A lot has changed on every front since Autumn 2006. They have a lot more than the Disney umbrella in the iTS. I don't think Apple would be releasing another TV unless they have sufficiently made the proper deals.



    I don't think the big battle is for anyone to win or lose. In the old days, you wanted to buy a movie it was DVD. Now there is DVD, Blu-ray, iTunes, YouTube, Netflix and a bunch of others. We are all just going to have to live with a huge array of options for the living room.
  • Reply 165 of 257
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post


    Really? And you find your router to be fast enough to keep the stream at high quality? Do you think it would keep up to 1080p, while someone else in the house is using the internet, etc.? Hmm... I certainly wouldn't mind being proven wrong here.



    I have streamed 1080p video from my home server to other computers on the network whilst simultaneously copying around large amounts of data with no problems whatsoever. I will mention I'm not using wifi (for devices that don't move ethernet is a better choice) but this is still merely fast ethernet not giga-ethernet.



    Once you get the content onto your home network streaming it between your devices shouldn't be a problem. Having a HDD in the AppleTV seems a waste to me.
  • Reply 166 of 257
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    As long as you can also stream movies from a local computer running iTunes like the current AppleTV can then this sounds exactly the product Apple needs to release.



    But I don't like this model. I don't want to have to have two machines running to do the job of one.



    Maury
  • Reply 167 of 257
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    But I don't like this model. I don't want to have to have two machines running to do the job of one.



    Don't think of it as separate PC, think of it as an accessory device to extend your PC and the internet to your TV at minimal cost and effort.



    If this is what Apple does (which seems reasonable on all counts) and it doesn't vibe with your particular needs then you don't have to buy it, can run a cable from your PC to your TV so you only have the one "machine" or choose a different service.
  • Reply 168 of 257
    graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member
    Not interested. Apple just wants to sell us movies. It doesn't actually want to help make our media lives make sense. Something like the Boxee Box is actually much close to what I'm looking for:



    Streams movies on any server in your house.

    Views photos live from any server in your house.

    Plays music from any server in your house including iTunes libraries.

    Plays all internet content.

    Plays Netflix streaming movies.



    Now THAT's a media integration platform worth getting excited about. A new piece of hardware to sell me overpriced movies from the iTunes store? Notsomuch.
  • Reply 169 of 257
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Nubus QuickTime Accelerator ... ha!

    I have a Nubus JPEG Compression card Take that!

    Plus the original set of Microsoft Office disks ... and I mean for Mac! 1985 ... Word, Multiplan, File and one I can't remember lol, will have to climb in the attic.



    To digitalclips and the original poster: PLEASE take some photos of your old gear like this and upload it to the Wiki Commons. We need to save these little bits and pieces for posterity.



    Maury
  • Reply 170 of 257
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Don't think of it as separate PC, think of it as an accessory device to extend your PC and the internet to your TV at minimal cost and effort.



    Yeah, but I can hear my PC when it's on. Kinda kills the mood in the quiet parts.



    Maury
  • Reply 171 of 257
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    And I think it's quite a leap to say that his entire tenure was an effort at IP thievery. I see it very simply. Google and Apple got together when they had convergent interests: Google apps helping make the iPhone more capable. They fell apart when they realized that they had diverging interests: Google realized that Apple's goal wasn't getting an internet portal into every single hand possible, but to make money selling those internet portals (which naturally meant they weren't going to make the technology as acccessible as it could be).



    Regardless, when it comes to the topic at hand, again, what did Google copy that wasn't blatantly obvious to them? It's not like slapping a basic OS and browser and a search widget on to a cable box, is some absolutely off-the-wall concept....especially for a company that specializes in internet search. Haven't you ever flicked through your cable box menu and thought, "I wish I could easily search for that show?" I know I have. Those cable box UIs are so out of date and unfriendly. So Google's implementation of search on a cable box (and really that's what Google TV boils down to) would seem pretty obvious to me. Anybody who's spent more than five minutes searching through a cable box menu would have the same idea. I am willing to bet that the whole thing could well have been one of those 10% ideas from one of their employees.



    I just hope Apple learned more about what Eric Schmidt and Google thinks than he learned about what Apple thinks.



    On a different track, I wonder what Steve Jobs is learning about content and TV over on Disney's board, and how that is playing into AppleTV. There was news this week that Disney is looking to sell ABC TV, which Disney officially denied.
  • Reply 172 of 257
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Wonder what Google is gonna do when all the products that were discussed at the Apple Board after he left start hitting the market. Guess they'll still copy them, but they'll come to market years rather than months after.



    Maybe they will do what Apple did, copy cable TV's video-on-demand service. List of movies, plays when user selects the movie.
  • Reply 173 of 257
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Much good discussion going on in this thread. And I think str1f3 (and maybe others in this thread) may have hit on a key point - advertising.



    We know Apple is rethinking the AppleTV concept as it hasn’t been as successful as they thought it could be. So what might they be thinking? They're definitely thinking it needs to be cheaper, so what can be removed to make the AppleTV cheaper? And/or how can the AppleTV be monetized in other ways so that content providers get paid and it's priced at a level consumers are willing to pay?



    So just some speculating off the top of my head, just tossing it out there to see where it leads:



    1. Replace the AppleTV hard drive with a much smaller and cheaper flash drive.

    Most people don't watch the same things over and over so they wind up having to constantly manage their local video storage. If the broadband WAN is fast enough for 720p downloads, it's easier to let the content be stored in the cloud ("one" copy at iTunes pointed at by your purchase receipt), or if one wants to pay extra for local storage to gain quicker playback startup time, somewhere in the LAN. (BTW, 1080p streams will cause people to exceed monthly caps on their broadband plans.)



    2. Replace the Intel chip with the cheaper in-house A4 chip.

    TVs are mostly used to watch TV/movies and to play games. Using the A4 chip and iPhone OS will allow iPhone Apps to be used on the TV. The main purpose is to allow for multi-player gaming using all of Apple's mobile devices. And provide additional monetization through apps and iAds in apps. Of course, all Apps will be available, but given the lackluster reception to widgets (even for Facebook and Twitter) provided by Verizon FIOS/Comcast/etc, I'm not sure the other Apps will matter all that much.



    3. Add content subscription plans, partially or wholly subsidized with interactive advertising via iAds.

    Content providers can't get enough revenue via sales of downloaded content so that they are willing to upset the cable providers or hurt the DVD revenue stream. That's why they aren't eager to make their content available on a timely basis. Yet subscriptions also don't provide enough revenue or have to be priced beyond what consumers are willing to pay. The solution is to add more parties to the transaction: advertisers. People seem willing to trade off watching ads for paying less. So, AppleTV will provide on-demand streamed content with targeted interactive ads (iAd). (Remember the Apple patent requiring one to watch the ad before you can continue... )



    Could this be where Apple is headed? Any other ideas?
  • Reply 174 of 257
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    To digitalclips and the original poster: PLEASE take some photos of your old gear like this and upload it to the Wiki Commons. We need to save these little bits and pieces for posterity.



    Seconded





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post


    Yeah, but I can hear my PC when it's on. Kinda kills the mood in the quiet parts.



    Get a new PC?



    I quite like Popcorn Hour. It has its flaws but you can get it for cheap and put in your own 3.5" HDD.
  • Reply 175 of 257
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,659member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    And I think it's quite a leap to say that his entire tenure was an effort at IP thievery.



    No one but you has written that, but that he might have done other more positive things does not excuse unethical behavior.
  • Reply 176 of 257
    porchlandporchland Posts: 478member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    Google TV is not a box. It's an operating system that will sooner or later be on a vast majority of cable boxes out there. The boxes that people rent from the cable/satellite service provider will have Google TV. The TVs people buy will run on the Google TV "OS". Etc. To compete with that, Apple has to start selling their boxes through non-Apple channels like Best Buy or maybe even the Cable/Satellite Cos. themselves.



    Apple did not build its computer business by licensing its OS to Dell and HP.



    Apple did not build its MP3 player business by licensing its UI to Archos and Sony.



    Apple did not build its mobile phone business by licensing its OS to Motorola and Samsung.



    Why would Apple ditch a successful and replicable business model and start licensing to set-top box manufacturers and cable systems? They wouldn't; they're going to compete with those guys. Apple doesn't want you to use Apple TV to navigate your Comcast service; they want you to DITCH your Comcast service and use theirs instead.
  • Reply 177 of 257
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    As far as the idea of this new ATV being used for a game console, imagine Apple creating official apps for the iphone and ipad for various game controller configs. D pad, 2 sticks and 6 or 8 buttons. One on the iPad might be more like an arcade stick (the size matches the idea too) or maybe they have one that looks like an Arkanoid controller or a ball for Centipede style games. People link their phones, ipods and ipads with the ATV and it auto loads your default controller config.



    No idea if this version of ATV will actually happen or not, but it's an interesting idea and fits with Apple's current direction.
  • Reply 178 of 257
    porchlandporchland Posts: 478member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post


    Content providers can't get enough revenue via sales of downloaded content so that they are willing to upset the cable providers or hurt the DVD revenue stream. That's why they aren't eager to make their content available on a timely basis. Yet subscriptions also don't provide enough revenue or have to be priced beyond what consumers are willing to pay. The solution is to add more parties to the transaction: advertisers. People seem willing to trade off watching ads for paying less. So, AppleTV will provide on-demand streamed content with targeted interactive ads (iAd). (Remember the Apple patent requiring one to watch the ad before you can continue... )



    Could this be where Apple is headed? Any other ideas?



    An Apple TV content subscription model will only work if it's comprehensive. People won't pay $15 a month for Apple TV content that's also available on their cable; but they might pay $75 a month if Apple TV takes the place of their their cable.



    The content companies -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, WB, Viacom, CBS, etc. -- will only play with Apple on a subscription plan if the new revenue looks to meet or exceed the lost revenue, i.e., if they money they get from Apple's subscription makes up for what they lose with cable fees based on fewer subscribers and advertising revenue based on lower ratings.



    A decent share of Apple's subscription plan revenue plus the revenue from individually targeted advertising has the potential to make one viewer significantly more profitable on Apple's subscription plan than on a local cable system.
  • Reply 179 of 257
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post


    As far as the idea of this new ATV being used for a game console, imagine Apple creating official apps for the iphone and ipad for various game controller configs. D pad, 2 sticks and 6 or 8 buttons. One on the iPad might be more like an arcade stick (the size matches the idea too) or maybe they have one that looks like an Arkanoid controller or a ball for Centipede style games. People link their phones, ipods and ipads with the ATV and it auto loads your default controller config.



    Will completely fail because there is no tactile feedback. You do not want to take your eyes of the TV to look at the iPhone to find the Fire or Jump button.
  • Reply 180 of 257
    porchlandporchland Posts: 478member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    People keep saying this but where are you going to get your Internet from without cable? Then they say "I'll just drop the TV part and keep the Internet part." Have you called your cable provider to see how much just the internet is without a package? Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts? So once you drop the TV part, how much are you going to pay? $75 plus the Internet and no live content?



    Cable has got you by the nads. At least with phone service you have options. Not so with broadband because DSL ≠ broadband.



    1. You didn't quote the part of my post where I said I wouldn't dump my cable plan for an Apple TV subscription plan unless it included live content, and I specifically said live sports, news and special events.



    2. Comcast has a monopoly on cable (in some markets) but not on broadband. They're not the only game in town. Plus, cable companies operate under local franchise agreements. If Comcast overreaches on broadband pricing, some markets may decide to go to a municipal utility model for broadband and lease the lines back to cable companies for content only.
Sign In or Register to comment.