Thing is, the problem has never been the device itself but the content delivered to it. A good example is how the studios ran away from Google TV as fast as possible. If the TV studios don't like what you're doing, you never going to get your project off the ground. Just look at what happened to TV rentals on the Apple TV. It was heralded as a great innovation in TV but it only lasted a year. It certainly would've been more popular if they had offered more content for rental but they want to steer people towards buying more stuff.
Googles inexperience shone brightly in their Google TV fiasco. They didn't have the relationships built with the content industry. They thought they could just hijack a TV and come to the table and they failed. Apple has the contacts and content to make this happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neo42
Is it not obvious that all it would be is an AppleTV built into a display? Pretty sure not much else would need to happen. Surely Apple will refuse to integrate a cable card or other such tuner, as they would provide their own video services.
Any TV is going to require an ATSC tuner but hopefully there will be a unique way of managing content that isn't encumbered by today's janky infrastructure.
Given Jobs and Apple's preference for secrecy, I am surprised he let this one be included in the book, if they are still planning something. Yes, Jobs agreed to give Isaacson full access, but it would have been expected that he would have qualified it with "full access to me and everything about me and Apple, except new products".
Yes, this is very surprising. Perhaps during 40+ interviews he let one slip. But as you say, I would think he would have an agreement to exclude future product references in the event Steve did let one slip.
Thing is, the problem has never been the device itself but the content delivered to it. A good example is how the studios ran away from Google TV as fast as possible. If the TV studios don't like what you're doing, you never going to get your project off the ground. Just look at what happened to TV rentals on the Apple TV. It was heralded as a great innovation in TV but it only lasted a year. It certainly would've been more popular if they had offered more content for rental but they want to steer people towards buying more stuff.
Actually, as long as the proposed tv doesn't have some type of built in dvr, there is not much that content producers could do short of pulling its content from iTunes which would be absurd. In the end, it is still a television. Google got in trouble because it was trying to leverage free web based content (Hulu, network sites, etc.) without permission.
Yes, it truly is. I can see how Apple could cook up a MUCH better interface than I get with my TiVo, which is the best interface I can get at this point. My only question is whether Apple really needs to build the TV itself. Why not build the functionality into an Apple TV box, and contract with a TV maker (like, err, Samsung) to built sets that contain whatever compatible hardware that might be necessary? (Assuming something DOES have to be installed inside the set that a manufacturer would not ordinarily build in. Thunderbolt, maybe? Flash storage? An instruction-set chip made by Apple?)
Or, maybe the product would just have to be up to Apple's design standards. It seems to me that any number of companies would sign on for almost anything at this point that would allow them to ride the Apple Express.
Hey, don't dismiss Samsung as a partner. It's pretty evident that they have a severe case of Apple-envy. I bet they'd sign on in a second.
It seems to me that this way, you'd have two companies sharing the risk and working together (more or less) to get this product out there.
Obviously this is pure speculation, but with all the rumors of Apple's interest in a 7-inch screen, despite their declaration they wouldn't go smaller than 10-inches for a tablet:
Maybe the 7-inch screens are for the "remote" or whatever user-interface these TVs would have?? Presumably Jobs didn't envision us standing at the TV, and it seems silly to go backwards to a hard-button, non-touch interface. Assuming that owners would have an iPad limits the audience, so include a usable, but smaller screen as a dedicated controller.
Introducing yet another device that is, again, a remote? That doesn't sound right for two reasons: (1) that's clunky, and (2) Steve mentioned the simplest interface imaginable. Well, the answer to number two is more likely voice control, rather than more touch interfaces or devices.
Yes, it truly is. I can see how Apple could cook up a MUCH better interface than I get with my TiVo, which is the best interface I can get at this point. My only question is whether Apple really needs to build the TV itself. Why not build the functionality into an Apple TV box, and contract with a TV maker (like, err, Samsung) to built sets that contain whatever compatible hardware that might be necessary? (Assuming something DOES have to be installed inside the set that a manufacturer would not ordinarily build in. Thunderbolt, maybe? Flash storage? An instruction-set chip made by Apple?)
Or, maybe the product would just have to be up to Apple's design standards. It seems to me that any number of companies would sign on for almost anything at this point that would allow them to ride the Apple Express.
It seems to me that this way, you'd have two companies sharing the risk and working together (more or less) to get this product out there.
Apple is a "whole widget" company so that is a no go. Last time it did something like that was with Motorola and the ROKR phone which didn't set the world on fire (although it probably gave Apple an idea on how NOT to make a phone).
Given Jobs and Apple's preference for secrecy, I am surprised he let this one be included in the book, if they are still planning something. Yes, Jobs agreed to give Isaacson full access, but it would have been expected that he would have qualified it with "full access to me and everything about me and Apple, except new products".
Don't forget the book originally wasn't supposed to come out till sometime in early 2012.
Which leads me to believe that he thought the TV would be launched by then.
I guess the only thing that stops Apple from releasing these new TVs are the movies in the cloud deals that we are hearing about. Once these deals are closed the new Apple TV will be revealed.
It's odd though, because given Apple's (Steve's) legendary secretiveness you'd almost have to think that speaking on record about such a thing was a sign they had decided not to go forward.
That, or Steve's illness and sense of looming mortality made him more inclined to talk candidly about projects he knew he would never get to introduce himself.
Don't forget that the book originally wasn't scheduled to come out till sometime in early 2012.
This leads me to believe that Steve thought the TV would be out by then.
It's odd though, because given Apple's (Steve's) legendary secretiveness you'd almost have to think that speaking on record about such a thing was a sign they had decided not to go forward.
That, or Steve's illness and sense of looming mortality made him more inclined to talk candidly about projects he knew he would never get to introduce himself.
Even he said Apple was a ship that leaks from the top.
I guess the only thing that stops Apple from releasing these new TVs are the movies in the cloud deals that we are hearing about. Once these deals are closed the new Apple TV will be revealed.
It's always on so it can always listen and take commands without physical interaction. It's Big Brother and we're going to love it. What else could we need?
Microsoft are integrating voice commands into the X360 very soon. The demos look impressive and it all plugs in to the usual online video streaming services.
Count me in the group that thinks it's uninevitable? evitable? Anyway, I could see Apple licensing "iCloud Connected" HDTVs and other HEC appliances to vendors but I don't see them lining their small stores with big ass TVs.
I'm not sure that I see Apple getting into the TV business either, but every time I use my f*&^%O&*ing Philips, I wish they did. Slow to turn on, terrible OSD, slow channel changing, etc. What an annoying POS. It's certainly something Apple would never have allowed out the door. Which is a great example of why Apple is Apple and the other companies just don't get it.
Comments
AirPlay mirroring on iPhone 4S and iPad 2 is the unsung killer feature that Apple really needs to start advertising to kickstart ATV sales!
I do think, however, that Apple should have created an ATV AppStore already...
You need a hard drive for that.
Thing is, the problem has never been the device itself but the content delivered to it. A good example is how the studios ran away from Google TV as fast as possible. If the TV studios don't like what you're doing, you never going to get your project off the ground. Just look at what happened to TV rentals on the Apple TV. It was heralded as a great innovation in TV but it only lasted a year. It certainly would've been more popular if they had offered more content for rental but they want to steer people towards buying more stuff.
Googles inexperience shone brightly in their Google TV fiasco. They didn't have the relationships built with the content industry. They thought they could just hijack a TV and come to the table and they failed. Apple has the contacts and content to make this happen.
Is it not obvious that all it would be is an AppleTV built into a display? Pretty sure not much else would need to happen. Surely Apple will refuse to integrate a cable card or other such tuner, as they would provide their own video services.
Any TV is going to require an ATSC tuner but hopefully there will be a unique way of managing content that isn't encumbered by today's janky infrastructure.
I will buy at least one of the 22" models. Apple will have a user interface that is consistent an user friendly. Great news.
22" lol
Given Jobs and Apple's preference for secrecy, I am surprised he let this one be included in the book, if they are still planning something. Yes, Jobs agreed to give Isaacson full access, but it would have been expected that he would have qualified it with "full access to me and everything about me and Apple, except new products".
Yes, this is very surprising. Perhaps during 40+ interviews he let one slip. But as you say, I would think he would have an agreement to exclude future product references in the event Steve did let one slip.
Thing is, the problem has never been the device itself but the content delivered to it. A good example is how the studios ran away from Google TV as fast as possible. If the TV studios don't like what you're doing, you never going to get your project off the ground. Just look at what happened to TV rentals on the Apple TV. It was heralded as a great innovation in TV but it only lasted a year. It certainly would've been more popular if they had offered more content for rental but they want to steer people towards buying more stuff.
Actually, as long as the proposed tv doesn't have some type of built in dvr, there is not much that content producers could do short of pulling its content from iTunes which would be absurd. In the end, it is still a television. Google got in trouble because it was trying to leverage free web based content (Hulu, network sites, etc.) without permission.
Expect Samsung's entire line-up of HDTVs to copy the Apple TV within a year or so of its launch.
Expect the Samsung shills here to claim that Apple is copying THEM if (they won't) Apple releases an HDTV.
television is ripe for disruption.
Yes, it truly is. I can see how Apple could cook up a MUCH better interface than I get with my TiVo, which is the best interface I can get at this point. My only question is whether Apple really needs to build the TV itself. Why not build the functionality into an Apple TV box, and contract with a TV maker (like, err, Samsung) to built sets that contain whatever compatible hardware that might be necessary? (Assuming something DOES have to be installed inside the set that a manufacturer would not ordinarily build in. Thunderbolt, maybe? Flash storage? An instruction-set chip made by Apple?)
Or, maybe the product would just have to be up to Apple's design standards. It seems to me that any number of companies would sign on for almost anything at this point that would allow them to ride the Apple Express.
Hey, don't dismiss Samsung as a partner. It's pretty evident that they have a severe case of Apple-envy. I bet they'd sign on in a second.
It seems to me that this way, you'd have two companies sharing the risk and working together (more or less) to get this product out there.
Obviously this is pure speculation, but with all the rumors of Apple's interest in a 7-inch screen, despite their declaration they wouldn't go smaller than 10-inches for a tablet:
Maybe the 7-inch screens are for the "remote" or whatever user-interface these TVs would have?? Presumably Jobs didn't envision us standing at the TV, and it seems silly to go backwards to a hard-button, non-touch interface. Assuming that owners would have an iPad limits the audience, so include a usable, but smaller screen as a dedicated controller.
Introducing yet another device that is, again, a remote? That doesn't sound right for two reasons: (1) that's clunky, and (2) Steve mentioned the simplest interface imaginable. Well, the answer to number two is more likely voice control, rather than more touch interfaces or devices.
Thompson
Yes, it truly is. I can see how Apple could cook up a MUCH better interface than I get with my TiVo, which is the best interface I can get at this point. My only question is whether Apple really needs to build the TV itself. Why not build the functionality into an Apple TV box, and contract with a TV maker (like, err, Samsung) to built sets that contain whatever compatible hardware that might be necessary? (Assuming something DOES have to be installed inside the set that a manufacturer would not ordinarily build in. Thunderbolt, maybe? Flash storage? An instruction-set chip made by Apple?)
Or, maybe the product would just have to be up to Apple's design standards. It seems to me that any number of companies would sign on for almost anything at this point that would allow them to ride the Apple Express.
It seems to me that this way, you'd have two companies sharing the risk and working together (more or less) to get this product out there.
Apple is a "whole widget" company so that is a no go. Last time it did something like that was with Motorola and the ROKR phone which didn't set the world on fire (although it probably gave Apple an idea on how NOT to make a phone).
Given Jobs and Apple's preference for secrecy, I am surprised he let this one be included in the book, if they are still planning something. Yes, Jobs agreed to give Isaacson full access, but it would have been expected that he would have qualified it with "full access to me and everything about me and Apple, except new products".
Don't forget the book originally wasn't supposed to come out till sometime in early 2012.
Which leads me to believe that he thought the TV would be launched by then.
Just my 2 cents.
It's odd though, because given Apple's (Steve's) legendary secretiveness you'd almost have to think that speaking on record about such a thing was a sign they had decided not to go forward.
That, or Steve's illness and sense of looming mortality made him more inclined to talk candidly about projects he knew he would never get to introduce himself.
Don't forget that the book originally wasn't scheduled to come out till sometime in early 2012.
This leads me to believe that Steve thought the TV would be out by then.
Count me in the group that thinks an Apple branded HDTV is inevitable within the next 5 years.
hear, hear.
It's odd though, because given Apple's (Steve's) legendary secretiveness you'd almost have to think that speaking on record about such a thing was a sign they had decided not to go forward.
That, or Steve's illness and sense of looming mortality made him more inclined to talk candidly about projects he knew he would never get to introduce himself.
Even he said Apple was a ship that leaks from the top.
Count me in the group that thinks an Apple branded HDTV is inevitable within the next 5 years.
or 5 months?
Don't forget the book originally wasn't supposed to come out till sometime in early 2012.
Which leads me to believe that he thought the TV would be launched by then.
True. That quote from Steve might be several years old.
I guess the only thing that stops Apple from releasing these new TVs are the movies in the cloud deals that we are hearing about. Once these deals are closed the new Apple TV will be revealed.
Just my 2 cents.
makes sense, cents.
HDTV body + Apple TV brain + iCloud + Siri
It's always on so it can always listen and take commands without physical interaction. It's Big Brother and we're going to love it. What else could we need?
Microsoft are integrating voice commands into the X360 very soon. The demos look impressive and it all plugs in to the usual online video streaming services.
Count me in the group that thinks it's uninevitable? evitable? Anyway, I could see Apple licensing "iCloud Connected" HDTVs and other HEC appliances to vendors but I don't see them lining their small stores with big ass TVs.
I'm not sure that I see Apple getting into the TV business either, but every time I use my f*&^%O&*ing Philips, I wish they did. Slow to turn on, terrible OSD, slow channel changing, etc. What an annoying POS. It's certainly something Apple would never have allowed out the door. Which is a great example of why Apple is Apple and the other companies just don't get it.