YouTube? Google should rename it "TheirTube". What ever happened to the so-called new media democratization of content? If I wanted sponsors to tell me what kind of toothpaste to buy, I'll stick to watching cable. Looks like it was a ruse to get people to subscribe to GoogleTV. YouTube is done, finished. It's commercialized, monetized, and sterilized.
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.
I suspect that many of those who can afford a $2,000-$4,000 HDTV can afford an iPad... though it could work using an iPhone or an iPod Touch. Many people already spend $200-$300 for a dedicated, 3rd-party programmable remote,
I think a bigger (but resolvable) problem is that everybody will have an iDevice that can be used as described in my post -- fighting for supremacy (called "All Skate" * in another post).
* In public roller skating and ice skating rinks access to the floor is limited to periods of:
-- singles
-- couples
-- figure skating
-- some speed skating
-- trick skating
followed by a period where anything goes... "All Skate"
YouTube? Google should rename it "TheirTube". What ever happened to the so-called new media democratization of content? If I wanted sponsors to tell me what kind of toothpaste to buy, I'll stick to watching cable. Looks like it was a ruse to get people to subscribe to GoogleTV. YouTube is done, finished. It's commercialized, monetized, and sterilized.
AdBlock + Click2Flash (set to show HTML5 and MP4 sources over FLV) removes all ads on YouTube.
I had no idea there WERE ads on YouTube because I've had those extensions for so long.
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).
I guess we have a very different view of what is sufficient for it to work. We'll have to wait and see, won't we.
(Fwiw, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in the least. I did not at all intend for it to come through that way).
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.
That's harsh. He's just very passionate about his vision. I tend not to agree with his the limited scope of his visions for the future but I so appreciate his ardent dedication to them. My issue with Ireland that he won't look at the big picture to see how his vision could or would be viable.
It's like so many mockups that come out every year after a rumour gets started. They are made by people much more talented than me in graphic design but most mockups can't be taken seriously as potential products because the usually defy basic physics and usability. With the TV issue you have to include a solution that deals with the status quo or you have no solution at all.
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?
See post #41 above about what it will "integrate" -- no point in my repeating it. It won't be what you and solipsism want it to be; it will be more (much more) than what is out there that is "...just being a TV with an Apple logo on it." And, I believe it will be massively successful. As I just said, we'll have to wait and see, won't we.
And, no need to get your panties in a bunch. Chill.
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.
Yes, but acknowledge Gruber's floating this idea the other day, based on his pal Kottke's email. Unless, of course, you connected these dots independently yourself.
AdBlock + Click2Flash (set to show HTML5 and MP4 sources over FLV) removes all ads on YouTube.
I had no idea there WERE ads on YouTube because I've had those extensions for so long.
Well, they put ads inside of some videos and play them before the video starts), so you can't avoid them. However, these ads don't appear on every video, just certain ones. I am not sure how they make that determination.
I was more echoing a sentiment by the video blogging community, which had long used YouTube for its original intention: multimedia blogging. As commercial content (TV shows and movies) crowd for space on YouTube, some bloggers became alarmed at the changes, and some feel the service's days as a self-publishing platform are numbered as commercial interests take priority.
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.
Regarding:
1) that is true and something I don't understand. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would make a television without inputs much less one that doesn't have regular cable. IMO, it's not an all or nothing deal. What would distinguish Apple's possible TV would be how it interfaces with the input. If eyetv can do it on computers, why can't Apple do it with a TV?
2) very true which is why "allowing" regular cable on the television would be not only necessary, but a Trojan horse of sorts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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).
iTunes definitely helped the iPod BUT it was actually the ability to rip your cd's and load your own digital music that helped the device to take off. If people who buy the possible Apple television can consume their content as normal but in an easier way and then are able to discover new ways to get content, then this thing could really take off.
Yes, but acknowleged Gruber's floating this idea the other day, based on his pal Kottke's email. Unless, of course, you connected these dots independently yourself.
it's hardly a new idea. it has been suggested often over the last year or two in one form or another by many. Various cablecos, OEM's, and web video sites have tried to do something like it, but with little or limited success. what we are seeing now is just the first really well-realized versions, thanks to AirPlay/Mirroring. the wireless iDevice in your hand was always the missing piece - a true solution to the UI/remote-sucks problem. Gruber and the technocrati are johnny-come-lately's to this discussion. but of course they will take credit anyway.
Google as usual is trying to make its web world into the replacement for CATV. but it would still be the middleman, the master of ceremonies. whereas apps deliver the channel owners' content/services direct to the consumer, free or pay, with no middleman at all, and the ability to take advantage of all the API's built into a consumer's OS/hardware too.
I bet they've made money on the AppleTV from the start.
Well, I'd say Apple makes money from it. Just not directly.
You still have people that rent shows and movies. Apple TV is just a way to use the service you're paying for. It makes sense for them to sell it at that cost. It's still a good business model for Apple.
It is however quite different than the Google TV platform. Although I don't have one of those either, it's something I'm now considering. Sony makes a 32" LED backlit Google TV. It has a built in 8gb DVR, the qwerty remote, and built in wifi. Things nobody else offers at that size range. And they're finally overhauling the interface.
The more content deals they can get, the better. Having those youtube channels should be pretty awesome, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. I love the new interface though.
Being able to pick a Google TV or the external hub for Google TV is nice too. The more choices available the better.
However, notice how the App Store, which was practically non-existent or primitive in the business, changed everything. Just as no one imagined an App Store then, none of us are able to imagine the corollaries that Apple has in mind).
Actually, there have been app stores for mobile devices for over a decade. People with PDAs have used them since last century.
The innovation with Apple's approach was to prevent users from buying apps from anybody but Apple. It used to be that you could buy your apps from, say, either Palm or Handango. Apple saw that they could profit by selling apps, which is great, but their real invention was the prevention of any competition in selling iOS apps, by the use of DRM.
There are certain advantages and certain disadvantages to consumers in using this approach, but the advantages to Apple have been obvious. While they have fallen behind the Android App store in sales, they nevertheless sell billion$ of apps, and they are able to censor apps which they dislike or which might interfere with future revenue streams.
But it is not correct to say that no one imagined an app store at the time Apple started theirs. It was a well-established category long before Apple started one of their own for iOS.
Comments
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.
I suspect that many of those who can afford a $2,000-$4,000 HDTV can afford an iPad... though it could work using an iPhone or an iPod Touch. Many people already spend $200-$300 for a dedicated, 3rd-party programmable remote,
I think a bigger (but resolvable) problem is that everybody will have an iDevice that can be used as described in my post -- fighting for supremacy (called "All Skate" * in another post).
* In public roller skating and ice skating rinks access to the floor is limited to periods of:
-- singles
-- couples
-- figure skating
-- some speed skating
-- trick skating
followed by a period where anything goes... "All Skate"
YouTube? Google should rename it "TheirTube". What ever happened to the so-called new media democratization of content? If I wanted sponsors to tell me what kind of toothpaste to buy, I'll stick to watching cable. Looks like it was a ruse to get people to subscribe to GoogleTV. YouTube is done, finished. It's commercialized, monetized, and sterilized.
AdBlock + Click2Flash (set to show HTML5 and MP4 sources over FLV) removes all ads on YouTube.
I had no idea there WERE ads on YouTube because I've had those extensions for so long.
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).
I guess we have a very different view of what is sufficient for it to work. We'll have to wait and see, won't we.
(Fwiw, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in the least. I did not at all intend for it to come through that way).
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.
That's harsh. He's just very passionate about his vision. I tend not to agree with his the limited scope of his visions for the future but I so appreciate his ardent dedication to them. My issue with Ireland that he won't look at the big picture to see how his vision could or would be viable.
It's like so many mockups that come out every year after a rumour gets started. They are made by people much more talented than me in graphic design but most mockups can't be taken seriously as potential products because the usually defy basic physics and usability. With the TV issue you have to include a solution that deals with the status quo or you have no solution at all.
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?
See post #41 above about what it will "integrate" -- no point in my repeating it. It won't be what you and solipsism want it to be; it will be more (much more) than what is out there that is "...just being a TV with an Apple logo on it." And, I believe it will be massively successful. As I just said, we'll have to wait and see, won't we.
And, no need to get your panties in a bunch. Chill.
Content is King.
Maybe. But that's not how Apple makes its money.
Google doesn't understand what YouTube is.
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.
Yes, but acknowledge Gruber's floating this idea the other day, based on his pal Kottke's email. Unless, of course, you connected these dots independently yourself.
AdBlock + Click2Flash (set to show HTML5 and MP4 sources over FLV) removes all ads on YouTube.
I had no idea there WERE ads on YouTube because I've had those extensions for so long.
Well, they put ads inside of some videos and play them before the video starts), so you can't avoid them. However, these ads don't appear on every video, just certain ones. I am not sure how they make that determination.
I was more echoing a sentiment by the video blogging community, which had long used YouTube for its original intention: multimedia blogging. As commercial content (TV shows and movies) crowd for space on YouTube, some bloggers became alarmed at the changes, and some feel the service's days as a self-publishing platform are numbered as commercial interests take priority.
Well, they put ads inside of some videos and play them before the video starts), so you can't avoid them.
Nope. Not a single ad on YouTube loads for me, nor has since installing those extensions.
Nothing before the movies, nothing during the movies.
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.
Regarding:
1) that is true and something I don't understand. I find it highly unlikely that Apple would make a television without inputs much less one that doesn't have regular cable. IMO, it's not an all or nothing deal. What would distinguish Apple's possible TV would be how it interfaces with the input. If eyetv can do it on computers, why can't Apple do it with a TV?
2) very true which is why "allowing" regular cable on the television would be not only necessary, but a Trojan horse of sorts
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).
iTunes definitely helped the iPod BUT it was actually the ability to rip your cd's and load your own digital music that helped the device to take off. If people who buy the possible Apple television can consume their content as normal but in an easier way and then are able to discover new ways to get content, then this thing could really take off.
Maybe. But that's not how Apple makes its money.
And that's exactly why the current APPLE TV does not make money and is considered merely a hobby .
Yes, but acknowleged Gruber's floating this idea the other day, based on his pal Kottke's email. Unless, of course, you connected these dots independently yourself.
it's hardly a new idea. it has been suggested often over the last year or two in one form or another by many. Various cablecos, OEM's, and web video sites have tried to do something like it, but with little or limited success. what we are seeing now is just the first really well-realized versions, thanks to AirPlay/Mirroring. the wireless iDevice in your hand was always the missing piece - a true solution to the UI/remote-sucks problem. Gruber and the technocrati are johnny-come-lately's to this discussion. but of course they will take credit anyway.
Google as usual is trying to make its web world into the replacement for CATV. but it would still be the middleman, the master of ceremonies. whereas apps deliver the channel owners' content/services direct to the consumer, free or pay, with no middleman at all, and the ability to take advantage of all the API's built into a consumer's OS/hardware too.
just watch.
And that's exactly why the current APPLE TV does not make money and is considered merely a hobby .
I bet they've made money on the AppleTV from the start.
I bet they've made money on the AppleTV from the start.
Well, I'd say Apple makes money from it. Just not directly.
You still have people that rent shows and movies. Apple TV is just a way to use the service you're paying for. It makes sense for them to sell it at that cost. It's still a good business model for Apple.
It is however quite different than the Google TV platform. Although I don't have one of those either, it's something I'm now considering. Sony makes a 32" LED backlit Google TV. It has a built in 8gb DVR, the qwerty remote, and built in wifi. Things nobody else offers at that size range. And they're finally overhauling the interface.
The more content deals they can get, the better. Having those youtube channels should be pretty awesome, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. I love the new interface though.
Being able to pick a Google TV or the external hub for Google TV is nice too. The more choices available the better.
AdBlock + Click2Flash (set to show HTML5 and MP4 sources over FLV) removes all ads on YouTube.
I also use these:
GoogleSearchCleanup
http://sites.google.com/site/mfrelink/
FacebookBlocker
http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/
Cheers,
PhilBoogie
However, notice how the App Store, which was practically non-existent or primitive in the business, changed everything. Just as no one imagined an App Store then, none of us are able to imagine the corollaries that Apple has in mind).
Actually, there have been app stores for mobile devices for over a decade. People with PDAs have used them since last century.
The innovation with Apple's approach was to prevent users from buying apps from anybody but Apple. It used to be that you could buy your apps from, say, either Palm or Handango. Apple saw that they could profit by selling apps, which is great, but their real invention was the prevention of any competition in selling iOS apps, by the use of DRM.
There are certain advantages and certain disadvantages to consumers in using this approach, but the advantages to Apple have been obvious. While they have fallen behind the Android App store in sales, they nevertheless sell billion$ of apps, and they are able to censor apps which they dislike or which might interfere with future revenue streams.
But it is not correct to say that no one imagined an app store at the time Apple started theirs. It was a well-established category long before Apple started one of their own for iOS.
I also use these:
Cheers,
PhilBoogie
Neat ideas. I like the sidebar on Google search (options, you see) though, and I use "Defacer" and "Get Off My Lawn" to block ALL social networking.