I cannot figure out why Jobs would have allowed the mention of TV in his book. He was so appropriately secretive with projects like this. To read that Sony is now "racing" is the obvious conclusion now that the cat's out of the bag. Did Jobs do it to light a fire under the studios' asses? Perhaps we'll understand in the next few years. But I sure wish iTV was launching today.
Racing is the wrong strategy. Apple didn't win in the MP3 player market by beating everyone to the market. They built their market share from 0% against competitors who were already there. If Sony is trying to get there before Apple, all that will happen is they can sell some new TVs before Apple sucks all of the air out of the room and changes the game.
The newly revised Google TV has been canned by Logitech. Logitech says Google rushed the product to market. And they are so right. Google's biggest mistake was thinking that all the network providers were just going to let Google use there media without licensing it. Once the networks shutdown access, Google TV was a box with no content and at $300 for the base model and up to $600 for all the accessories it was way to expensive to compete. The only thing they could say was it did flash, now flash is dead too.
Sony really needs to think outside the box if Steve Jobs has figured out the TV. Apple doesn't need to be first out to release a product. They have shown time and time again that it's not about being first, it's about being the best. Steve Jobs only wanted the best, something most companies don't get and probably never will. Apple did it with the MP3 player, the iPhone, and the iPad. Next up is the iTV or whatever they call it. Maybe not the first one to market, but it will surely be the best one.
Apple strategy for TV is so obvious that it puzzles me nobody sees it. The problem is the interface and the way to manipulate content on the interface. The TV screen is not a computer screen, using a remote or a mouse to navigate menus on TV is, at best, an awkward experience. The TV screen is not in our immediate reach and using hands to manipulate content on screen is like having a giant, clumsy, mechanical hand. On the contrary, replicating the screen on the iPad and manipulating content on the iPad is very natural. So, the iPad will be the perfect remote. With all it implies (iTunes, an AppleTV inside the TV set etc)
you're getting carried away. we're still a nation of couch potatoes - those over 30 anyway. big screen HDTV's have been a big, big hit. and as they keep getting cheaper there'll be even more.
but what iOS is showing us is that their UI will indeed shift to hand-held - mobile - devices. no more stupid IR remotes. that's the actual "covergence" of our digital lives people talk about ("three screens" etc). so you're on the right track there.
i don' t know how many commenting here actually have an iPad and Apple TV and so have been able to try out AirPlay Screen Mirroring with a really sophisticated app, like Bloomberg TV. once you do, it is instantly obvious this is the future of "smart television." no TV set alone can match what it does, period. because the app is using the two screens - the iPad and the TV - to show related but different content on each simultaneously. mostly video and graphics on the big screen TV of course, and mainly text with all kinds of HTML links and the overall app UI controls on the iPad. i'm sure that within a year every iOS news app and sports app will be doing the same kind of thing. it's incredibly powerful. and then of course games ... and beyond. (it's also much easier to talk to Siri on something you're holding than to shout across the room at your TV.)
no doubt Google/Android will copy this as quickly as they can. right now they still need a HDMI cable to mirror an Android screen, which ruins the whole experience, and there is no single integrated equivalent to AirPlay. i don' t know if their current chips can match Apple's A5 graphics either, which makes the two screen apps possible. so probably about a year before they can copy Apple (the next Frutti Tutti OS or whatever). and then Sony and the other OEM's can build the STB part of it - like Apple TV - into its TVs. the 2013 models maybe.
what Apple needs to do most of all is complete Apple TV 3 now, without delay. it needs ... .
A friend of mine bought a Sony LCD TV and hated it. From what I understand and experienced Sony likes to make their products unique and harder to adapt to any change in its environment. Such as resolution adaptation with their friggen TV's. That same friend has a Vizio LCD TV and it out performs the Sony every time. So my friend uses the Sony as a DVD player TV in his bedroom. Pretty sad. The only good thing that I see Sony producing is the PS3. Blue Ray is a mute point for me. Just as steve hobs felt it was a night mare.
I don't own a Sony TV, please explain what you mean about "Sony likes to make their products unique and harder to adapt to any change in its environment", and "resolution adaptation"
Also, please provide a link to this quite regarding "steve hobs felt it was a night mare."
I certainly hope Sony DOES beat Apple to the next generation of connected TV set. That way they can't quickly copy what Steve & Co. have done to revolutionize yet another industry.
well said.
I suspect they will have "delays" until they see what Apple is up to.
Umm... Apple doesn't do the R&D and then everyone else copies. Quite the opposite. Others do the R&D, Apple makes it much better, than everyone says "oh crap- ours should be like that too!". Then the "copying" happens. Apple takes someone else's idea and makes it better/improves it, and then others copy Apple because it is so successful. Let's not pretend that doesn't happen either.
I think a bunch of factors come into play.
I think Apple products, far more often than being a source of something to copy, simply highlight that what a compeditor has isn't good enough.
Take for example voice control in phones.
Google and Microsoft already have voice control in their phones, they have for quite a while.
So when Siri was released it is certain Google and Microsoft didn't think "we have to copy that", because they already have voice control, but I can almost gurantee they looked at what they do have and thought "this isn't good enough".
Umm... Apple doesn't do the R&D and then everyone else copies. Quite the opposite. Others do the R&D, Apple makes it much better, than everyone says "oh crap- ours should be like that too!". Then the "copying" happens. Apple takes someone else's idea and makes it better/improves it, and then others copy Apple because it is so successful. Let's not pretend that doesn't happen either.
Did Apple create the MP3 Player? Nope. Just a way better one. Did Apple create the smartphone? Or the touchscreen phone? Or the internet, email, etc on their phone? Nope... but they made a way better one. How about the tablet. Theirs was the first, right? Nope... just the best.
Just like if/when they make a TV service or a TV- it won't be the first, but it will be better than the rest, then the copiers of their SUCCESS will follow suit.
Apple is the guy that watches what comes out, and then says "if it looked like this, and did this better, it would sell like hotcakes". Then they do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475
I think a bunch of factors come into play.
I think Apple products, far more often than being a source of something to copy, simply highlight that what a compeditor has isn't good enough.
Take for example voice control in phones.
Google and Microsoft already have voice control in their phones, they have for quite a while.
So when Siri was released it is certain Google and Microsoft didn't think "we have to copy that", because they already have voice control, but I can almost gurantee they looked at what they do have and thought "this isn't good enough".
I don't think people think very hard about what they mean by "invent" and "copy."
Name something invented in the last 150 years, and I can point out something of at least roughly similar utility that preceded it.
Did Bell Labs invent the transistor? Of course not, they just took the vacuum tube and made it "better"! Television? Just extending on the idea of radio. Telephony? Just a better telegraph, which was just a better smoke signal.
It really doesn't make any sense to appeal to broad categories as representing prior art when it comes to tech, because tech always builds on previous work, and if you want to play that game you can run everything back at least to the dawn of the industrial revolution, if not prior.
And especially now, when the true definition of a product includes network effects and ecosystems, it's just silly to pretend that something like the iPhone reduces to "just a better phone", because "better" includes such a vast array of technologies, materials design, software, marketing, support systems and media. Apple didn't polish up a somewhat dowdy predecessor, they completely rethought the entire experience of smartphone ownership from A to Z.
For my money that counts as innovation and invention, as do a number of other Apple products. Seriously, can someone tell me what they regard as an actual invention, at this point?
Comments
I cannot figure out why Jobs would have allowed the mention of TV in his book. He was so appropriately secretive with projects like this. To read that Sony is now "racing" is the obvious conclusion now that the cat's out of the bag. Did Jobs do it to light a fire under the studios' asses? Perhaps we'll understand in the next few years. But I sure wish iTV was launching today.
Racing is the wrong strategy. Apple didn't win in the MP3 player market by beating everyone to the market. They built their market share from 0% against competitors who were already there. If Sony is trying to get there before Apple, all that will happen is they can sell some new TVs before Apple sucks all of the air out of the room and changes the game.
Sony really needs to think outside the box if Steve Jobs has figured out the TV. Apple doesn't need to be first out to release a product. They have shown time and time again that it's not about being first, it's about being the best. Steve Jobs only wanted the best, something most companies don't get and probably never will. Apple did it with the MP3 player, the iPhone, and the iPad. Next up is the iTV or whatever they call it. Maybe not the first one to market, but it will surely be the best one.
btw, somewhat related, check out the devastating comments the Logitech CEO made about Google TV yesterday:
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/10/2...acement-coming
Wow, those comments were refreshingly brutal.
Apple strategy for TV is so obvious that it puzzles me nobody sees it. The problem is the interface and the way to manipulate content on the interface. The TV screen is not a computer screen, using a remote or a mouse to navigate menus on TV is, at best, an awkward experience. The TV screen is not in our immediate reach and using hands to manipulate content on screen is like having a giant, clumsy, mechanical hand. On the contrary, replicating the screen on the iPad and manipulating content on the iPad is very natural. So, the iPad will be the perfect remote. With all it implies (iTunes, an AppleTV inside the TV set etc)
Bingo. I can see it.
The future is mobile. Mobile everything.
you're getting carried away. we're still a nation of couch potatoes - those over 30 anyway. big screen HDTV's have been a big, big hit. and as they keep getting cheaper there'll be even more.
but what iOS is showing us is that their UI will indeed shift to hand-held - mobile - devices. no more stupid IR remotes. that's the actual "covergence" of our digital lives people talk about ("three screens" etc). so you're on the right track there.
i don' t know how many commenting here actually have an iPad and Apple TV and so have been able to try out AirPlay Screen Mirroring with a really sophisticated app, like Bloomberg TV. once you do, it is instantly obvious this is the future of "smart television." no TV set alone can match what it does, period. because the app is using the two screens - the iPad and the TV - to show related but different content on each simultaneously. mostly video and graphics on the big screen TV of course, and mainly text with all kinds of HTML links and the overall app UI controls on the iPad. i'm sure that within a year every iOS news app and sports app will be doing the same kind of thing. it's incredibly powerful. and then of course games ... and beyond. (it's also much easier to talk to Siri on something you're holding than to shout across the room at your TV.)
no doubt Google/Android will copy this as quickly as they can. right now they still need a HDMI cable to mirror an Android screen, which ruins the whole experience, and there is no single integrated equivalent to AirPlay. i don' t know if their current chips can match Apple's A5 graphics either, which makes the two screen apps possible. so probably about a year before they can copy Apple (the next Frutti Tutti OS or whatever). and then Sony and the other OEM's can build the STB part of it - like Apple TV - into its TVs. the 2013 models maybe.
what Apple needs to do most of all is complete Apple TV 3 now, without delay. it needs ... .
A friend of mine bought a Sony LCD TV and hated it. From what I understand and experienced Sony likes to make their products unique and harder to adapt to any change in its environment. Such as resolution adaptation with their friggen TV's. That same friend has a Vizio LCD TV and it out performs the Sony every time. So my friend uses the Sony as a DVD player TV in his bedroom. Pretty sad. The only good thing that I see Sony producing is the PS3. Blue Ray is a mute point for me. Just as steve hobs felt it was a night mare.
I don't own a Sony TV, please explain what you mean about "Sony likes to make their products unique and harder to adapt to any change in its environment", and "resolution adaptation"
Also, please provide a link to this quite regarding "steve hobs felt it was a night mare."
I certainly hope Sony DOES beat Apple to the next generation of connected TV set. That way they can't quickly copy what Steve & Co. have done to revolutionize yet another industry.
I suspect they will have "delays" until they see what Apple is up to.
Umm... Apple doesn't do the R&D and then everyone else copies. Quite the opposite. Others do the R&D, Apple makes it much better, than everyone says "oh crap- ours should be like that too!". Then the "copying" happens. Apple takes someone else's idea and makes it better/improves it, and then others copy Apple because it is so successful. Let's not pretend that doesn't happen either.
I think a bunch of factors come into play.
I think Apple products, far more often than being a source of something to copy, simply highlight that what a compeditor has isn't good enough.
Take for example voice control in phones.
Google and Microsoft already have voice control in their phones, they have for quite a while.
So when Siri was released it is certain Google and Microsoft didn't think "we have to copy that", because they already have voice control, but I can almost gurantee they looked at what they do have and thought "this isn't good enough".
Bingo. I can see it.
Right- a $500 remote. What are u smoking?
Sony has great engineers. Sony has products that range from mediocre to great.
But I will never again buy a Sony product, because their customer service is horrible.
Well Steve Jobs must have liked Sony TVs as Apple stores have all their ATVs connected to them in the stores.
Umm... Apple doesn't do the R&D and then everyone else copies. Quite the opposite. Others do the R&D, Apple makes it much better, than everyone says "oh crap- ours should be like that too!". Then the "copying" happens. Apple takes someone else's idea and makes it better/improves it, and then others copy Apple because it is so successful. Let's not pretend that doesn't happen either.
Did Apple create the MP3 Player? Nope. Just a way better one. Did Apple create the smartphone? Or the touchscreen phone? Or the internet, email, etc on their phone? Nope... but they made a way better one. How about the tablet. Theirs was the first, right? Nope... just the best.
Just like if/when they make a TV service or a TV- it won't be the first, but it will be better than the rest, then the copiers of their SUCCESS will follow suit.
Apple is the guy that watches what comes out, and then says "if it looked like this, and did this better, it would sell like hotcakes". Then they do it.
I think a bunch of factors come into play.
I think Apple products, far more often than being a source of something to copy, simply highlight that what a compeditor has isn't good enough.
Take for example voice control in phones.
Google and Microsoft already have voice control in their phones, they have for quite a while.
So when Siri was released it is certain Google and Microsoft didn't think "we have to copy that", because they already have voice control, but I can almost gurantee they looked at what they do have and thought "this isn't good enough".
I don't think people think very hard about what they mean by "invent" and "copy."
Name something invented in the last 150 years, and I can point out something of at least roughly similar utility that preceded it.
Did Bell Labs invent the transistor? Of course not, they just took the vacuum tube and made it "better"! Television? Just extending on the idea of radio. Telephony? Just a better telegraph, which was just a better smoke signal.
It really doesn't make any sense to appeal to broad categories as representing prior art when it comes to tech, because tech always builds on previous work, and if you want to play that game you can run everything back at least to the dawn of the industrial revolution, if not prior.
And especially now, when the true definition of a product includes network effects and ecosystems, it's just silly to pretend that something like the iPhone reduces to "just a better phone", because "better" includes such a vast array of technologies, materials design, software, marketing, support systems and media. Apple didn't polish up a somewhat dowdy predecessor, they completely rethought the entire experience of smartphone ownership from A to Z.
For my money that counts as innovation and invention, as do a number of other Apple products. Seriously, can someone tell me what they regard as an actual invention, at this point?