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.
The voice control will just be the input method. The software that is controlled via voice control is the make-or-break factor in such a scheme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
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.
One channel at a time. That is how broadband cable works now. The box requests a channel, and the head end then sends it. That is what accounts for the delays in changing channels using digital STBs. In the old days, all the analog channels would be in the wire at all times. Now, it is more akin to your browser requesting that a particular web page get served.
The use of the ISPs infrastructure without payment is the reason behind the ISPs wanting to impose data speed limits on certain content providers. They piggyback on the ISPs infrastructure to sell the ISPs customers high-bandwidth high-usage services with no payment to the ISP.
IMO, the customer should be free to request any data stream of their choosing, using their rented bandwidth, but the stuff Apple may do is of great concern to the cable providers.
I AM NOT GOING TO SCREAM AT MY TELEVISION TO GET IT TO DO CRAP.
Well, yeah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
When this random speculation about Siri TVs began I immediately wondered how rapidly it would be changing channels in response to all the screaming in the room that often occurs during SuperBowl.
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.
Aha, a failure to keep up on my part, and too much concern for poor, beleaguered Gruber (kidding). Apologies, and thanks for straightening that out.
So this is the crack?
This stuff is beyond my imagination, having given up on all TV several years ago. I should stay out of it.
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.
To be honest, I do not think it will be limited to just iOS customers, however I think iOS 5 customers will benefit much more than a customer from another OS or ecosystem.
Comments
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.
The voice control will just be the input method. The software that is controlled via voice control is the make-or-break factor in such a scheme.
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.
One channel at a time. That is how broadband cable works now. The box requests a channel, and the head end then sends it. That is what accounts for the delays in changing channels using digital STBs. In the old days, all the analog channels would be in the wire at all times. Now, it is more akin to your browser requesting that a particular web page get served.
The use of the ISPs infrastructure without payment is the reason behind the ISPs wanting to impose data speed limits on certain content providers. They piggyback on the ISPs infrastructure to sell the ISPs customers high-bandwidth high-usage services with no payment to the ISP.
IMO, the customer should be free to request any data stream of their choosing, using their rented bandwidth, but the stuff Apple may do is of great concern to the cable providers.
Geez, people, get it through your skulls:
I AM NOT GOING TO SCREAM AT MY TELEVISION TO GET IT TO DO CRAP.
Well, yeah.
When this random speculation about Siri TVs began I immediately wondered how rapidly it would be changing channels in response to all the screaming in the room that often occurs during SuperBowl.
Shown on 30 Rock before Siri was part of iOS 5 - a few glitches in a voice controlled TV system: http://video.aol.com/video/a-new-inv...lay/3666431115. Pretty damn funny......
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.
Aha, a failure to keep up on my part, and too much concern for poor, beleaguered Gruber (kidding). Apologies, and thanks for straightening that out.
So this is the crack?
This stuff is beyond my imagination, having given up on all TV several years ago. I should stay out of it.
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.
To be honest, I do not think it will be limited to just iOS customers, however I think iOS 5 customers will benefit much more than a customer from another OS or ecosystem.