Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit

1567810

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 203
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    It's hard for things to be successful unless you can explain them in a few words.

    e.g. The Playstation 3 - "It let's you play games on your TV."



    But what about the Apple TV?

    "It lets you watch TV shows off the Internet,"

    "But I can already watch TV shows on my TV,"

    "But it's better, because X, Y, Z..."



    But you have already lost by that point, as soon as a conversation is required to explain what a thing does, it's all over but the shrug of the shoulders. I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's a good rule of thumb I think.
  • Reply 182 of 203
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sportytoes View Post


    If it runs iOS, then it is designed for a touchscreen interface which it lacks. ...



    But how would you plug this iOS device into iTunes to back it up or upgrade it or manage the apps you buy for it. Hmm. Interested to find out what is in mind.



    ... how useful is a set top gaming box without a controller? The game center update due soon would presumably bolted the itv as a gaming device as well. ...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sportytoes View Post


    IOS has no pointer. If the remote acted as a trackpad for example, how would you know whAt on the screen you would be manipulating. Just a guess here... As usual Apple would likely surprise us with an entirely new and innovative idea.



    Given that there haven't been that many iOS devices so far -- just 2 really, iPhone/iPod Touch and iPad -- it may be premature to say its defining feature is support for a touchscreen. If instead, iOS is defined as an ARM version of OS X, and the UI (and input system) is merely viewed as a layer on top of that, its use on AppleTV makes more sense.



    Just as developers had to redesign their apps for the iPad, they will probably need to tweak them for AppleTV, and certain "events" won't exist as input, while others can be mapped to new events or apps tweaked a bit to support a new set of input events roughly analogous to a basic set of touch events. But, I don't think the CocoaTouch libraries need a complete overhaul (from the client perspective) as many of the interface elements would, I think, work fairly well for a 10-foot UI (think giant iPad). Maybe just some minor mods and they call it CocoaTV.



    So, no touchscreen, tweaked apps, on-screen pointer, no need to plug into another computer (that is definitely not a defining characteristic of iOS), although WiFi/Ethernet iTunes syncing/sharing is certainly a possibility, and perhaps a Wii-like remote with an iPod-like click-wheel and/or a few buttons, with bluetooth support if you want to hook up a keyboard and/or mouse/trackpad (but these would be entirely optional). And, since it'll all be in a little box like the current AppleTV/Mac Mini, there's no reason it can't have ports, and support, for connecting game controllers.



    For apps like Netflix, it would be trivial to tweak them to run on AppleTV. Games would mostly require new graphics, and maybe adjustment for new input methods, although there's also the fact that some games may not work as well on the new form factor, while some may work better, and developers will likely jump on creating new ones. Other existing apps might not make much sense on a TV, while others may just need a few UI tweaks.
  • Reply 183 of 203
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Not to be evil or anything, but you are overlooking youtube, which can now do both 1080p, and even 4k (about 4 times the 1080p resolution) While not technically movies, just wanted to put it out there that it is possible.





    But YouTube is owned by Google, so I don't watch it because they spy on you.
  • Reply 184 of 203
    sendmesendme Posts: 567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    It's hard for things to be successful unless you can explain them in a few words.

    e.g. The Playstation 3 - "It let's you play games on your TV."



    But what about the Apple TV?

    "It lets you watch TV shows off the Internet,"

    "But I can already watch TV shows on my TV,"

    "But it's better, because X, Y, Z..."





    How about:



    It lets you watch anything you want on your TV anytime, anywhere, with no wasted money. Jut pay for what you watch, and not a penny more.
  • Reply 185 of 203
    jsiosjsios Posts: 1member
    I use to frequent here eons ago, and have returned. This is a great site - hats off to the authors and people behind the scenes.



    now onward! I can't remember the blog where someone touched on this type of idea, maybe daring fireball?? sorry... or maybe uhm sorry name escapes me now.



    But I think this person was saying, "what if tv networks developed apps?"

    so you could download the ShowTime app ( hey you can! ) and watch their shows.. like Dexter and they would let you pick what you want to watch - maybe subscribe through that?

    The money would go directly to them in that case - and Apple would get their slice via developer % and iAds maybe.



    imagine having a folder on your iOS device, which has all the 'tv' apps. voila' now you have a set of channels in that folder. your virtual tv. Just pick the channel , I mean app!



    And now the people who don't want to pay premium cable tv have another option, to

    watch their show. So more choices, not necessarily shutting out one thing or the other. Although Cable companies might complain... i dunno.



    People would finally get the 'ala carte' option to watch only the channels you want to watch.



    and those licensing issues would probably go away, because the networks who licensed the content or own it would still be in control of whos' viewing the content, it's just being viewed on a different device - but still in their app.. which subscribers can only use.





    J
  • Reply 186 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SendMe View Post


    But YouTube is owned by Google, so I don't watch it because they spy on you.



    I realize that you're banned now, but in the off chance you're still reading this thread:



    http://jamiedubs.com/googlealarm/

    And then the "Block Google" Safari Extension blocks it entirely.



    Now take off your freaking tin foil hat.
  • Reply 187 of 203
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jm6032 View Post


    I really like the sound of this one. I'm sure I echo the feelings of everyone here when I say that the user interface on my setop box is one of the most obtuse and unintuitive interfaces I've ever seen. I keep wishing someone like Apple could do SOMETHING. (It's even worse than that monstrosity Microsoft Sync in my car. Don't get me started...)



    Logitech has been doing something about that - its called the Harmony Remote series of remote controls - true it doesn't change the actual interface of the devices - but allows a very highly customizable remote to control all of the functions on all of your devices. (various models support different number of devices, some including RF devices not just IR including IR to RF repeater options for control of hidden devices).
  • Reply 188 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post


    Even at 99 cents, renting individual episodes isn't going to fly. People fundamentally do not want to pay individually to watch TV episodes. This is the exact opposite situation as we have with music, where subscription models don't work because people want to own their music and they want to have as many songs as they like, and only the ones they want (Hence why picking and choosing tracks from an album is such a big deal and one which Apple defends).



    People don't care about owning TV Shows and movies, because unlike music they're more likely to be happy seeing a show or movie once or twice, rather than lots of times. That makes people less willing to bill it to their credit card every time they want to watch something. With TV, the opposite argument as we have with music comes into effect. Most people would rather pay a flat fee to watch whatever they like, because they're liable only to watch it once anyway. A per-unit cost, to most people, makes more sense in a buy-to-own environment like music.



    You'd think the broadcasting Industry, the inventors of "Free-to-Consume" and the modernisers of the "all you can eat" flat fee model would get this, but they don't. Like the music industry, for some reason, the broadcasters want to copy the other industry's model - but only in digital download. It makes no sense.



    I disagree. You do realize that many people purchase their tv and movies instead of rent? You do know that BILLIONS of $ in video film and television are purchased each year? Don't underestimate the buyers of media both physical and the newer digital download. Have you ever heard of the new Ultraviolet format that will be coming later this year early next year? There is room for both rental and purchase of digital media.
  • Reply 189 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Towergrove View Post


    Have you ever heard of the new Ultraviolet format that will be coming later this year early next year? There is room for both rental and purchase of digital media.



    Hooray, more DRM. I'll go ahead and never buy anything using this nonsense ever, thank you.
  • Reply 190 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    It?s easy to have a successful product when you sell it at a loss.



    Sell at a loss? Has Apple ever sold anything at a loss? Ever?
  • Reply 191 of 203
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mercury7 View Post


    Dude.... Cable and satellite don't offer any channels for free



    True. You pay a monthly service rate but it also allows you to watch many show ie Big Brother (last time I looked there were like 8 ready to watch) or CSI MIAMI,NEW YORK, LAS VEGAS. Right there are at least 38 shows that would cost $38.00 on iTunes and that's if they can even get them for .99 cents. Plus anything else you watch in that month. You coud watch most of those shows in one weekend if you a hard core fan of the show or V or some of the bigger shows coming out this season. NBC looks like they may have a hit with a show called The Event and Big Brother offers the latest episode about an hour after it airs on the pacific ONLINE as do most big shows and all for free. Of course not even counting torrents.

    iTV could cost more in the long run.
  • Reply 192 of 203
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkhm View Post


    I wouldn't call over six million units sold a failure.



    Most shows you can now watch online. Some even the same day. With torrents you can watch anything. If apple added a DVR with program guide so you can record stuff later in the week, it would do so much better. And as I said in my last post, paying for shows that are free, even at .99 cents could, in theory, cost more than cable or dish. Maybe offer lots of free shows that are hits, .99 cents to watch it before it airs. I just don't see a device that wants u to pay for what is free with no dvr can be a huge hit plus now most shows are online. They could make a full blown hit, maybe subscription but not .99cents.



    They coud make a killer device including iPhones but it messes up their iTunes store $$$$.
  • Reply 193 of 203
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    http://jamiedubs.com/googlealarm/

    And then the "Block Google" Safari Extension blocks it entirely.




    That's funny .... when I went there it was available for chrome, firefox and safari.
  • Reply 194 of 203
    axualaxual Posts: 244member
    Steve, I am ready to cancel my cable ... just deliver something that will convince me to do so.



    I am tired of giving Comcast my money, paying for more channels than I actually watch, and receiving marginal service and signal (HD channels especially are fraught with tiling issues and loss of audio, etc.



    But I don't want to pay $100 a month for TV ... get me what I want, allow me to choose and pay for what I watch, save a little money and I am game.
  • Reply 195 of 203
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quasimog View Post


    Sell at a loss? Has Apple ever sold anything at a loss? Ever?



    Not that I?m aware of. They always seem to price HW as the main profit center with any auxiliary SW and services as a means to promote their HW, but still at a profit.
  • Reply 196 of 203
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Vimeo posted about the reality of streaming 1080P. Vimeo's encoding technology is exponentially better than that of YouTube. Vimeo described how very few people have computer screens that can display 1080. On top of that there are trade offs with compression, storage space, bandwidth. By the time you deal with all of that it doesn't really look much better than 720P. Which is what most people are capable of viewing in the first place.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sheff View Post


    Not to be evil or anything, but you are overlooking youtube, which can now do both 1080p, and even 4k (about 4 times the 1080p resolution) While not technically movies, just wanted to put it out there that it is possible.



  • Reply 197 of 203
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pegarm View Post


    I think the biggest drawback to the streaming set top model is the delay between the live broadcast and the availability online. Right now, the world is switching from watching "what's on" to "what's available." Typicially the availability of a program is 12-24 hours after its air date. Imagine if you could rent a TV show at the same time it airs for broadcast.



    Now THAT would make people give up their cable!



    Well I have news for you. Big Brother puts their shows up 1 hour after it airs pacific, and it's free. Jobs bows this. He has to convince people to PAY for something thats FREE. Sounds like a huge uphil battle to me and if you watch slot of shows, e en at .99 cents that could costmore than cable orDish etc that Aldo offer on demand and dvr recoding of two show while watching a 3rd.
  • Reply 198 of 203
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Avidfcp View Post


    Well I have news for you. Big Brother puts their shows up 1 hour after it airs pacific, and it's free. Jobs bows this. He has to convince people to PAY for something thats FREE. Sounds like a huge uphil battle to me and if you watch slot of shows, e en at .99 cents that could costmore than cable orDish etc that Aldo offer on demand and dvr recoding of two show while watching a 3rd.



    Big Brother? The government or is this a website that has contracts with the networks and content owners?



    If it?s about convincing people for the same features are you also saying that these shows are downloadable or are you just comparing this to streaming sites like Hulu?
  • Reply 199 of 203
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Vimeo posted about the reality of streaming 1080P. Vimeo's encoding technology is exponentially better than that of YouTube. Vimeo described how very few people have computer screens that can display 1080. On top of that there are trade offs with compression, storage space, bandwidth. By the time you deal with all of that it doesn't really look much better than 720P. Which is what most people are capable of viewing in the first place.



    Too much marketing and not enough facts are going into these industry terms without any concern for the picture quality. I?ve heard that Xbox LIVE?s 1080p has a lower average bit rate than the iTunes Store?s 720p bit rate, but I haven?t tested this myself.
  • Reply 200 of 203
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nkhm View Post


    Yes. No one streams 1080 content and there isn't the available bandwidth from most service providers even if the content existed. This request is ahead of its time. And for most people with tv screens under 50 inches irrelevant.



    Well I've seen 1080i as well as 720p on a 27" desktop display connected to my mabook pro and cable ( the display features sound, USB 2 and hdmi), and I can spot the difference instantly. Perha maybe due to working a/v but the 720p wins hands down. It looked like glass. 1080 interlaced is not as crisp and know one pumps 1080p yet.



    With regard to the other talking aboutu big brother, I m talking about the tv show and how they offer it in decent quality one hour after airing pacific time. So Steve has a hard sell coming. How do you compare free shows to buy this for .99 cents when most shows are free or offer on demand and you can watch 4in a row. Shoot Atv could cost more than cable down the road.
Sign In or Register to comment.