No one has been saying Apple should get into the TV content or content delivery business except you. I doubt very much that Apple is going to remotely bother with the business of taking a cut of either cable subscriptions or X% off the top of TV content subscriptions.
Content is the tall pole. Without it nothing else matters.
So either Apple has to deliver the content via iTunes OR it has to deal with all the various content input mechanisms that TiVO does.
There's nothing too horrific about the TiVO UI itself and they do the best they can on the integration side but it's one huge PITA that impossible when dealing with cable companies disinclined to be all that cooperative.
I doubt you can make the latter not suck enough to "crack" the problem. I guess the third alternative is a newstand like system where content provider have apps. So strictly speaking they aren't in the content delivery business. Eh.
No one has been saying Apple should get into the TV content or content delivery business except you.
1) Not true. Most posters have been about cutting out the current content distribution methods, which is why I have such a problem with that myopic viewpoint. Do you not recall Ireland's repeated posts of an Apple HDTV with no inputs? How can you read that not see that he's wanting to get rid of all attached appliances if there are no inputs for attached appliances.
2) Apple is already in the content distribution business with iTS. It's not their greatest accomplishment and they've been struggling with it since 2006 when their unusual demo of then unnamed AppleTV was done to garner favour with the content owners. It took years before they signed on. Then NBC pulled out for awhile when they focused more on Hulu.
I'm sorry but YouTube has a name that is tarnished, it's one I associate with idiots making fools of themselves and posting videos. I don't think of quality programming when I think of YouTube.
Wow. Really? I wonder how Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, etc survive being in the TV business!
1) Clarify: TV set or TV as a medium?
2) If you mean set, all their TVs connect to other equipment in the HEC and out to services that supply content. Having no inputs for a self contained Apple HDTV that only gets iTS content will not be successful.
The more I read about this topic the less I understand. What exactly has Steve cracked? Nobody is going to pay 2 grand for a telly you control by voice instead of remote control. It's just not a deal breaker compared to screen quality, price, etc.
Unless you have a very fast braodband connection with unlimted data there is no way you can push that many channels through the internet at a picture quality comparabe to cable/sat. How many people have such an internet connection? As such this would be a niche product like AppleTV rather than a mass market seller.
I'd love an Apple television but unless I've misssed something I don't see how they are going to do it without the cable/sat operators.
I like the idea of celebrity TV channels... I would rather watch the Sandra Bullock channel or Jason Statham channel than the "Action" channel or "Movies" channel.
1) Not true. Most posters have been about cutting out the current content distribution methods, which is why I have such a problem with that myopic viewpoint. Do you not recall Ireland's repeated posts of an Apple HDTV with no inputs? How can you read that not see that he's wanting to get rid of all attached appliances if there are no inputs for attached appliances.
Ireland's posts to do not Apple's strategy make.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
Try iPod. iPod without iTunes (aka content and distribution) is an aTV level of success. Which it pretty much was prior to the launch of iTunes and the subsequent store.
iPad had content distribution mechanism in place when it launched (AppStore).
iPhone did not but rectified that fairly quickly and clearly it is the content that is a huge enabler of the platform (apps) which would be impossible without Apple figuring out content distribution mechanisms.
You can't get a viable TV without viable content. You can't have an elegant TV dealing with the mess that the current content providers present. Which is why largely TVs are still dumb or stovepiped into specific apps like Netflix and YouTube.
Given you've been a sarcastic little twit I'll treat you the same. Which part of Apple typically controls the total ecosystem in order to provide top tier user experience is too hard for you to understand? Connecting an Apple TV to Comcast cable service is about as far from top tier user experience as you're likely to ever achieve.
Ignoring content (distribution, management and presentation of) is handwaving the critical component for the success of Apple TV (STB, TV, iOS, iCloud service or whatever).
you don't need a Google TV or Apple HDTV. just get today's $100 Apple TV 2 (or wait for the upcoming more powerful ATV 3 if you have the patience) to use via AirPlay/Mirroring with your iPhone or iPad.
while everyone else is BS'ing about the future of TV, it's already been happening quietly in the App Store. new apps keep appearing that take advantage of Air Play, and now wireless Mirroring, to show the action stuff on your big screen HDTV while you handle the UI and get supplemental info on your iDevice in your hands sitting on the sofa.
the new Bloomberg TV app is a perfect example. Bloomberg is a standard CATV channel, arguably the best for business news. the app will play via AirPlay stuff that CATV channel is showing live - or recorded segments you select - while at the same time give you many more options to pull up other info on your iPad.
that is obviously superior immediately to the regular CATV channel. and it's free!
all the news networks are going in the same direction with their apps. while the sports monopolies have come up with subscription apps like MLB - too limited so far, but that will evolve - and hen you won't need CATV for sports either.
this trend to re-work CATV channels into much more powerful tablet/smartphone apps, free or paid or combined, is unstoppable and will accelerate now thanks to iOS 5 and its AirPlay connection to HDTV's. the revolution is here, today.
you on iPad: "Siri: what new kids movies are available on netflix?"
Siri: "I found the these listed by newest first..."
you on iPad: "play toy story 4 on the TV"
Siri: begins playing Toy Story 4 on HDTV
...
The problem is that assumes everyone has an iPad. Most households do not have a tablet and even if you do have an iPad what happens if someone else is currently using it? Enhancing the experience by using an iPad is fine but you don't want to restrict it to only working with an iPad.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
So what are you saying? Solo and others are asking WHY, why does it HAVE TO BE ONLY a stand alone tv set? What is the inherent advantage? It doesn't have to be, it could be, but there's no inherent benefit over the present stand alone form factor except its internal.
As Solo and others and I have said- stand alone box, built in power for external speakers etc, perhaps built in dvd(ghast!), multiple hdmi inputs, one out to the monitor and your done. It's a 90% solution that Apple tends to do. Just an integrated version..., yes they could do that too, but would be very limiting to possible buyers.
So other than just being a TV with an Apple logo on it WTF do you suppose it'd going to do without either seamless integration of various content sources or act as a portal to Apple content distribution mechanisms?
The more I read about this topic the less I understand. What exactly has Steve cracked? Nobody is going to pay 2 grand for a telly you control by voice instead of remote control. It's just not a deal breaker compared to screen quality, price,
Sorry but Steve is no longer here to answer or discuss that. For all we know it could have been his meds speaking.
Interesting recollection. I recall something different...you were ridiculed for vehemently predicting an actual Apple television every single frigging time we had any Apple event. Loudly and often. To the point of spamming every damn thread. Back when we had many huge threads predicting what the next mac would be. Which is amusing (and somewhat sad) given that the recent stealth speed bump nary generated much interest.
I recall you also got ridiculed for insisting it must be a plasma TV. Something else you eventually dropped.
When you stopped being an ass about it and predicting an Apple television SOMEDAY most folks said maybe but the situation would have to be different from today.
And they were right...the right time for an actual television from Apple depends largely on the ability for Apple to get the content part of the equation right. That Apple can make an excellent TV was never in doubt. They could 5 years ago and they certainly can today. What was in question then and now was whether it could get access to the content it needed, what the hell folks would do with their existing expensive HDTV sets and how many freaking sizes they needed.
The latter two issues are solvable. The content part was always the tall pole.
Ireland seems to be very much into himself. HE acts like he is an all knowing and seeing being into all our understandings. What he doesn't realize is he is imperfect and flawed like the rest of us.
Comments
No one has been saying Apple should get into the TV content or content delivery business except you. I doubt very much that Apple is going to remotely bother with the business of taking a cut of either cable subscriptions or X% off the top of TV content subscriptions.
Content is the tall pole. Without it nothing else matters.
So either Apple has to deliver the content via iTunes OR it has to deal with all the various content input mechanisms that TiVO does.
There's nothing too horrific about the TiVO UI itself and they do the best they can on the integration side but it's one huge PITA that impossible when dealing with cable companies disinclined to be all that cooperative.
I doubt you can make the latter not suck enough to "crack" the problem. I guess the third alternative is a newstand like system where content provider have apps. So strictly speaking they aren't in the content delivery business. Eh.
Content is the tall pole. Without it nothing else matters.
Wow. Really? I wonder how Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, etc survive being in the TV business!
No one has been saying Apple should get into the TV content or content delivery business except you.
1) Not true. Most posters have been about cutting out the current content distribution methods, which is why I have such a problem with that myopic viewpoint. Do you not recall Ireland's repeated posts of an Apple HDTV with no inputs? How can you read that not see that he's wanting to get rid of all attached appliances if there are no inputs for attached appliances.
2) Apple is already in the content distribution business with iTS. It's not their greatest accomplishment and they've been struggling with it since 2006 when their unusual demo of then unnamed AppleTV was done to garner favour with the content owners. It took years before they signed on. Then NBC pulled out for awhile when they focused more on Hulu.
Wow. Really? I wonder how Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, etc survive being in the TV business!
1) Clarify: TV set or TV as a medium?
2) If you mean set, all their TVs connect to other equipment in the HEC and out to services that supply content. Having no inputs for a self contained Apple HDTV that only gets iTS content will not be successful.
Unless you have a very fast braodband connection with unlimted data there is no way you can push that many channels through the internet at a picture quality comparabe to cable/sat. How many people have such an internet connection? As such this would be a niche product like AppleTV rather than a mass market seller.
I'd love an Apple television but unless I've misssed something I don't see how they are going to do it without the cable/sat operators.
1) Clarify: TV set or TV as a medium?
Ugh. I am deeply disappointed, solipsism. I've made abundantly clear what I mean (see, e.g., post #41), and see no reason to repeat myself.
1) Not true. Most posters have been about cutting out the current content distribution methods, which is why I have such a problem with that myopic viewpoint. Do you not recall Ireland's repeated posts of an Apple HDTV with no inputs? How can you read that not see that he's wanting to get rid of all attached appliances if there are no inputs for attached appliances.
Ireland's posts to do not Apple's strategy make.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
Wow. Really? I wonder how Sony, Sharp, Samsung, Panasonic, etc survive being in the TV business!
By not doing the level of integration as envisioned for an Apple television.
Pay-per-view sports (like UFC) would be great too.
Ireland's posts to do not Apple's strategy make.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
Try iPod. iPod without iTunes (aka content and distribution) is an aTV level of success. Which it pretty much was prior to the launch of iTunes and the subsequent store.
iPad had content distribution mechanism in place when it launched (AppStore).
iPhone did not but rectified that fairly quickly and clearly it is the content that is a huge enabler of the platform (apps) which would be impossible without Apple figuring out content distribution mechanisms.
You can't get a viable TV without viable content. You can't have an elegant TV dealing with the mess that the current content providers present. Which is why largely TVs are still dumb or stovepiped into specific apps like Netflix and YouTube.
Given you've been a sarcastic little twit I'll treat you the same. Which part of Apple typically controls the total ecosystem in order to provide top tier user experience is too hard for you to understand? Connecting an Apple TV to Comcast cable service is about as far from top tier user experience as you're likely to ever achieve.
Ignoring content (distribution, management and presentation of) is handwaving the critical component for the success of Apple TV (STB, TV, iOS, iCloud service or whatever).
while everyone else is BS'ing about the future of TV, it's already been happening quietly in the App Store. new apps keep appearing that take advantage of Air Play, and now wireless Mirroring, to show the action stuff on your big screen HDTV while you handle the UI and get supplemental info on your iDevice in your hands sitting on the sofa.
the new Bloomberg TV app is a perfect example. Bloomberg is a standard CATV channel, arguably the best for business news. the app will play via AirPlay stuff that CATV channel is showing live - or recorded segments you select - while at the same time give you many more options to pull up other info on your iPad.
that is obviously superior immediately to the regular CATV channel. and it's free!
all the news networks are going in the same direction with their apps. while the sports monopolies have come up with subscription apps like MLB - too limited so far, but that will evolve - and hen you won't need CATV for sports either.
this trend to re-work CATV channels into much more powerful tablet/smartphone apps, free or paid or combined, is unstoppable and will accelerate now thanks to iOS 5 and its AirPlay connection to HDTV's. the revolution is here, today.
Your family room ca 2011-2012:
you on iPad: "Siri: what new kids movies are available on netflix?"
Siri: "I found the these listed by newest first..."
you on iPad: "play toy story 4 on the TV"
Siri: begins playing Toy Story 4 on HDTV
...
The problem is that assumes everyone has an iPad. Most households do not have a tablet and even if you do have an iPad what happens if someone else is currently using it? Enhancing the experience by using an iPad is fine but you don't want to restrict it to only working with an iPad.
By not doing the level of integration as envisioned for an Apple television.
Envisioned by whom?
Ireland's posts to do not Apple's strategy make.
Even if most posts are about "cutting out the current content distribution methods" (which I disagree with, but I'll go along for the sake of argument), what does that necessarily have to do with a TV set that Apple might choose to produce and sell? Did Apple have the content distribution methods before it sold Macs, iPads, iPhones,.....?
As I said before, it's a strawman. There will likely be an AppleTV, and it will have nothing to do with (nor waste its time with) content or distribution.
So what are you saying? Solo and others are asking WHY, why does it HAVE TO BE ONLY a stand alone tv set? What is the inherent advantage? It doesn't have to be, it could be, but there's no inherent benefit over the present stand alone form factor except its internal.
As Solo and others and I have said- stand alone box, built in power for external speakers etc, perhaps built in dvd(ghast!), multiple hdmi inputs, one out to the monitor and your done. It's a 90% solution that Apple tends to do. Just an integrated version..., yes they could do that too, but would be very limiting to possible buyers.
Envisioned by whom?
So other than just being a TV with an Apple logo on it WTF do you suppose it'd going to do without either seamless integration of various content sources or act as a portal to Apple content distribution mechanisms?
The more I read about this topic the less I understand. What exactly has Steve cracked? Nobody is going to pay 2 grand for a telly you control by voice instead of remote control. It's just not a deal breaker compared to screen quality, price,
Sorry but Steve is no longer here to answer or discuss that. For all we know it could have been his meds speaking.
Interesting recollection. I recall something different...you were ridiculed for vehemently predicting an actual Apple television every single frigging time we had any Apple event. Loudly and often. To the point of spamming every damn thread. Back when we had many huge threads predicting what the next mac would be. Which is amusing (and somewhat sad) given that the recent stealth speed bump nary generated much interest.
I recall you also got ridiculed for insisting it must be a plasma TV. Something else you eventually dropped.
When you stopped being an ass about it and predicting an Apple television SOMEDAY most folks said maybe but the situation would have to be different from today.
And they were right...the right time for an actual television from Apple depends largely on the ability for Apple to get the content part of the equation right. That Apple can make an excellent TV was never in doubt. They could 5 years ago and they certainly can today. What was in question then and now was whether it could get access to the content it needed, what the hell folks would do with their existing expensive HDTV sets and how many freaking sizes they needed.
The latter two issues are solvable. The content part was always the tall pole.
Ireland seems to be very much into himself. HE acts like he is an all knowing and seeing being into all our understandings. What he doesn't realize is he is imperfect and flawed like the rest of us.