I agree with Jean-Louis on several points and I agree with one of the user comments there.
I think this will be (at first) a massive update to the current aTV. I can easily see it combining the aTV (with App Store), the Airport Extreme and the Time Capsule all in one box. This makes a lot of sence, now they may ditch the hard drive in the TimeCapsule for some kind of Cloud service, or maybe not.
Now Channels as Apps...there's nothing new about that concept. We see it already implemented in the current aTV. but I think that is definitely where its all going. I think the current aTV is about 25% "there" with Jobs' idea to reinvent TV. The next step would be to get the major networks on board and completely sever all ties with the local Cable providers.
I think many will agree that having a 50" flat panel, all-in-one device is kind of silly based on what Jean-Louis states about providing support and the notion of the screen out-lasting the CPU.
Current STB have built-in power between the TV and the STB, so you only hit the power button on the STB remote. I can see this rumored device working quite similarly to that. The current aTV has a feature that will learn your remote. I have my set to learn my Surround Sound remote, since I have my aTV ported through the HDMI plug in the receiver.
unrelated to the articles, I really don't see Siri as being a contributing factor to TV watching. And I don't see the internet becoming a contributing factor either. Those are things that are too personal of an experience to be on a big screen in front of the whole family. Plus, to read email on a screen that's on average 10'-12' away from your eyes is just a bit too ambitious. I can see Siri being used as a feature in the remote control, but still i think Siri is meant for a more one-on-one experience, not as a group experience.
I would love to see Facetime integrated into the next aTV though. I'm not sure how that would be accomplished with a STB, but they used to sell the iSight Camera, so why not dust that off?
So in a nutshell, I think he's right-on. However, whatever Apple does eventually introduce may be totally different, but my bets/hopes are on this.
He's a smart guy, who could have been petty about the whole NeXT over BeOS thing, but instead has a lot of respect and admiration from Jobs. I don't see how anyone could harbour any negative feelings toward Gassée.
Yes. Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
In other news, I wish someone would do something about the exorbitant prices colleges charge for education. Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
And gosh, could someone do something about the exorbitant prices teachers charge? Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
That's my policy. I just haven't figured out how to make it happen. One day I will "crack this."
It shouldn't be free if you're the one collecting, preparing and selling it. There is no such thing as a free lunch... but you can occasionally get a "buy one, get one free" coupon.
yeah, you and about 100 other people on these forums have all said the same thing. I said it too.
There are about 100 other reasons (also mention by many on these forums) why this rumored Apple HDTV will have to fight a pretty big uphill battle to release something affordable and accessible to the general public of comportment driven entertainment systems. This isn't an iPhone/ipod that most people replace every other generation or so. It will have to sustain at least a 10 year period of use before being replaced. And that will have to be in the form of iOS.
It's been said 1001 times that most people don't replace their TV (and/or entertainment system) more than once every 10 or so years. I bought my current HDTV in 2005 and that replaced a 15 year old 31" tube.
I sure hope there is a Set-top version of this rumored new device. I love my Apple TV and all it's features. And I also love my BD player and Plasma TV and Surround Sound receiver and speaker set I purchased just 2 years ago. However, I hate my 5 remotes. But that's not enough to prematurely replace all my components for one device anytime in the near future. And many people like being able to pick and choose their components. My point is I hope they offer both a set and a STB as to adopt the highest margin of consumers.
The only way this will be successful is the price. The feature set will get a lot of early adopters, but to be as successful as the iphone or ipad they will have to be very aggressive with pricing. And it will have to be compatible with at least a set of after-market speakers and have a built-in HD Surround receiver. I can see them giving the middle-finger to the BD player, which would be a non-starter for me, but i can see that.
I wouldn't want to guess on pricing, but $1500 would sound just enough to get early adopters to ditch their current set-up and too much for the price conscious.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
My my, Ireland, it looks like you nailed it. Here comes 20 people telling you never said this. In fact, the area of remotes was my number 1 concern/reason I've had for why Apple needs to build an all-in-one TV, and has been for years. That's the whole reason for no HDMI ports on the back; to force simplicity on the situation. Not just for simplicity of set up, but for one remote, one remote, one remote.
I will admit, I did doubt your speculation on the matter, seems you were onto something.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
Maybe decade is too long but you can't easily argue that a TV monitor needs to be updated as frequently as computer components. Can you imagine a PS3 TV? And game consoles actually have a pretty long shelf life that aren't too far from a TV, but other HEC appliances are changed out more frequently than a TV.
Still, this issue of cracking the nut isn't some unthought of concept to just put everything into one box. You have to figure out how to resolve the network/distribution lock-in if you expect to make any headway.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
I think you POV is partly true from one perspective. The average family is not going to go out and buy a new tv every 3 years like a computer (heck I push for 5-8 for my PC's). Maybe a techie will do that or the wealthy. But not the average household.
Yes, global TV replacement is accelerating rapidly, but many those people are replacing huge clunky CRT's for the latest thin tech. Some are repeat buyer's but they represent the early adopters that had still unproven equipment at the time.
Yes, globally TV replacement has approached the 6-8 year replacement cycle, but I think that's because of the annual improvements and the rate of acceleration improvements in the tech industry. NOT because of consumer expectations. We the consumers are just the unfortunate ones who get spoon fed these minor improvements every year and are willfully suckered into replacing our tech every other year.
personally, i think TVs should go back to being dumb monitors and the STBs should be where the advancements happen. Sure HDTV changed the way we see things, but look, first it was 480p (digital TV), then 720p/1080i HDTV, now it's Full HD 1080p, and I've heard it might go higher again, not to mention the ever-so-pointless 3D TV. That all happened in a 5-8 year span. That is F***ing ridiculous! That had nothing to do with consumer expectations. It had everything to do with big business trying to milk the consumers for everything we had in the quickest period of time possible.
Who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of money on an Apple Television just so they can have one remote control? Just buy a multi remote which controls all your devices for £20.
"To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions."
You and everyone else have always wanted things to work better and be easier to use, but most realize that it's more than just saying you want something is required to make something happen. You won't be able to devise a solution until you step out of Narnia and understand the problem.
I agree with Jean-Louis on several points and I agree with one of the user comments there.
I think this will be (at first) a massive update to the current aTV. I can easily see it combining the aTV (with App Store), the Airport Extreme and the Time Capsule all in one box. This makes a lot of sence, now they may ditch the hard drive in the TimeCapsule for some kind of Cloud service, or maybe not.
They could have integrated aTV with AE or TC before now but haven't. I'm not sure they are going to bother now especially given that many folks have multiple TVs but don't have a need for multiple AE or TCs.
Quote:
Now Channels as Apps...there's nothing new about that concept. We see it already implemented in the current aTV. but I think that is definitely where its all going. I think the current aTV is about 25% "there" with Jobs' idea to reinvent TV. The next step would be to get the major networks on board and completely sever all ties with the local Cable providers.
Given that cable is paying billions to content providers for bundling this is the tall pole.
Quote:
unrelated to the articles, I really don't see Siri as being a contributing factor to TV watching.
I think that the solution to the TV problem is AirPlay. In which case, at least for iPhones, Siri could easily be the solution.
"Siri, play latest South Park episode."
"Siri, find me a good cop show"
etc.
The easiest way to solve the remote problem is to license AirPlay to Samsung, LG, etc. and include as part of that licensing agreement an Airplay button that puts the TV in the right mode and ready to go. Then you pick the app (aka channel) you want to play on your iDevice.
That Apple might offer one or two HDTV models might or might not happen but AirPlay is a nice dodge around Comcast. Comcast has huge leverage over content producers. They don't have huge leverage over Samsung.
What they can do is throttle your bandwidth so none of these video services work anymore...but at that point they risk Apple and Google burying the hatchet in their head and fostering the deployment nation wide 1GB FTTH service in the major metro areas that are their bread and butter. Google and Apple can probably get AT&T and Verizon on board...if nothing else than to avoid getting run over.
"To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions."
You and everyone else have always wanted things to work better and be easier to use, but most realize that it's more than just saying you want something is required to make something happen. You won't be able to devise a solution until you step out of Narnia and understand the problem.
Solving the TV remote still leaves other remotes to deal with. Many folks have to turn on an AV receiver too. Hard to get surround sound with just a TV. Even with an ultra fancy sound bar.
Folks with a 50" HDTV and not at a minimum a cheap HTiB rig are missing half of the home theater experience. I suppose Apple could come out with a HTiB integrated solution...but then it's no longer just a TV.
I don't really trust Isaacson to appreciate the significance of Jobs's remark, since he has proven himself to be technically incompetent, so it could be that Jobs had merely "nailed" the UI aspect of a television but hadn't yet worked out how to deal with the cable companies, content companies, bandwidth issue, etc. Who knows what the context is here?
I always shake my head when I hear people say that a mobile phone has a good camera. I'm a bit surprised that Steve thought the iPhone has a good camera. Basic physics tells you it's impossible to make a good camera in such a small device.
I don't really trust Isaacson to appreciate the significance of Jobs's remark, since he has proven himself to be technically incompetent, so it could be that Jobs had merely "nailed" the UI aspect of a television but hadn't yet worked out how to deal with the cable companies, content companies, bandwidth issue, etc. Who knows what the context is here?
So eager are you to rag on Isaacson's very good biography, you miss the big point here. We are not getting either details or context because Isaacson is deliberately suppressing them out of concern for Apple's trade "secrets," though that may not be exactly the right word.
Yes, Siracusa could list a dozen or more instances of Isaacson's non-mastery of the technical background, but it is naive to trash the book on that basis. It should have been the publisher's job to shepherd the project through some expert readers knowing that the author was weak on the tech. Maybe there wasn't time.
Siracusa rashly accuses the author of being lazy and uninterested rather than taking a more charitable and mature view that would have included the possibility of time constraints or editorial failures. To say that Jobs hired the wrong guy is arrogance. Gruber wisely backtracked a bit on the last 5by5, saying that it may have been strategic decision not to have a tech reporter nosing around Apple's business details.
The book is well worth reading for its insights into Jobs's penetrating native intelligence, and for the background it gives for his unique countercultural approach to the art of technical design. I know that's a vague statement, but it would take a while to flesh it out. Reading the book is a really good way to find out why it is Apple alone that has raised user experience to the level it has.
Update: Siracusa's second show on 5by5 about the book reveals that he just isn't seeing Isaacson's character study. He says the opportunity was squandered, we don't arrive at an awareness of Jobs's whole persona, and that's more important than the technical errors. Gruber is essentially in the same position; see his post today, where he shows how Malcolm Gladwell doesn't get Jobs either. So that's three who are blind to what I think Isaacson details very well. It seems to be a generational and (counter)cultural blindness on their part. Details available, if anyone's interested.
Update 2: At least Siracusa does say that everybody should read the book, but that's after doing his best to make everyone not want to. (This is an age of complainers who don't understand the effects of their complaints.) I would say it's the best biography we have of the most influential person of our time, and it's a great read. Don't miss it.
Comments
Jean Louis-Gassée had a couple articles about the elusive iTV concept that are worth reading.
they were worth reading...thanks!
I agree with Jean-Louis on several points and I agree with one of the user comments there.
I think this will be (at first) a massive update to the current aTV. I can easily see it combining the aTV (with App Store), the Airport Extreme and the Time Capsule all in one box. This makes a lot of sence, now they may ditch the hard drive in the TimeCapsule for some kind of Cloud service, or maybe not.
Now Channels as Apps...there's nothing new about that concept. We see it already implemented in the current aTV. but I think that is definitely where its all going. I think the current aTV is about 25% "there" with Jobs' idea to reinvent TV. The next step would be to get the major networks on board and completely sever all ties with the local Cable providers.
I think many will agree that having a 50" flat panel, all-in-one device is kind of silly based on what Jean-Louis states about providing support and the notion of the screen out-lasting the CPU.
Current STB have built-in power between the TV and the STB, so you only hit the power button on the STB remote. I can see this rumored device working quite similarly to that. The current aTV has a feature that will learn your remote. I have my set to learn my Surround Sound remote, since I have my aTV ported through the HDMI plug in the receiver.
unrelated to the articles, I really don't see Siri as being a contributing factor to TV watching. And I don't see the internet becoming a contributing factor either. Those are things that are too personal of an experience to be on a big screen in front of the whole family. Plus, to read email on a screen that's on average 10'-12' away from your eyes is just a bit too ambitious. I can see Siri being used as a feature in the remote control, but still i think Siri is meant for a more one-on-one experience, not as a group experience.
I would love to see Facetime integrated into the next aTV though. I'm not sure how that would be accomplished with a STB, but they used to sell the iSight Camera, so why not dust that off?
So in a nutshell, I think he's right-on. However, whatever Apple does eventually introduce may be totally different, but my bets/hopes are on this.
Wasn't it Woz that was working on a remote control?
I thought his "Wheels Of Zeus" was all about low-cost GPS that could be used for anything.
Who? Jean-Louis Notworthyofcomparisontostevejobs?
He's a smart guy, who could have been petty about the whole NeXT over BeOS thing, but instead has a lot of respect and admiration from Jobs. I don't see how anyone could harbour any negative feelings toward Gassée.
Yes. Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
In other news, I wish someone would do something about the exorbitant prices colleges charge for education. Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
And gosh, could someone do something about the exorbitant prices teachers charge? Information should be free or inexpensive to all.
That's my policy. I just haven't figured out how to make it happen. One day I will "crack this."
It shouldn't be free if you're the one collecting, preparing and selling it. There is no such thing as a free lunch... but you can occasionally get a "buy one, get one free" coupon.
yeah, you and about 100 other people on these forums have all said the same thing. I said it too.
There are about 100 other reasons (also mention by many on these forums) why this rumored Apple HDTV will have to fight a pretty big uphill battle to release something affordable and accessible to the general public of comportment driven entertainment systems. This isn't an iPhone/ipod that most people replace every other generation or so. It will have to sustain at least a 10 year period of use before being replaced. And that will have to be in the form of iOS.
It's been said 1001 times that most people don't replace their TV (and/or entertainment system) more than once every 10 or so years. I bought my current HDTV in 2005 and that replaced a 15 year old 31" tube.
I sure hope there is a Set-top version of this rumored new device. I love my Apple TV and all it's features. And I also love my BD player and Plasma TV and Surround Sound receiver and speaker set I purchased just 2 years ago. However, I hate my 5 remotes. But that's not enough to prematurely replace all my components for one device anytime in the near future. And many people like being able to pick and choose their components. My point is I hope they offer both a set and a STB as to adopt the highest margin of consumers.
The only way this will be successful is the price. The feature set will get a lot of early adopters, but to be as successful as the iphone or ipad they will have to be very aggressive with pricing. And it will have to be compatible with at least a set of after-market speakers and have a built-in HD Surround receiver. I can see them giving the middle-finger to the BD player, which would be a non-starter for me, but i can see that.
I wouldn't want to guess on pricing, but $1500 would sound just enough to get early adopters to ditch their current set-up and too much for the price conscious.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
My my, Ireland, it looks like you nailed it. Here comes 20 people telling you never said this. In fact, the area of remotes was my number 1 concern/reason I've had for why Apple needs to build an all-in-one TV, and has been for years. That's the whole reason for no HDMI ports on the back; to force simplicity on the situation. Not just for simplicity of set up, but for one remote, one remote, one remote.
I will admit, I did doubt your speculation on the matter, seems you were onto something.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
Maybe decade is too long but you can't easily argue that a TV monitor needs to be updated as frequently as computer components. Can you imagine a PS3 TV? And game consoles actually have a pretty long shelf life that aren't too far from a TV, but other HEC appliances are changed out more frequently than a TV.
Still, this issue of cracking the nut isn't some unthought of concept to just put everything into one box. You have to figure out how to resolve the network/distribution lock-in if you expect to make any headway.
I totally disagree with the notion that people only replace their TV every decade. Back when TV were simply large and heavy glass tubes it was natural to keep them as long as they worked. The industry really didn't change much so there was no impetus to upgrade the TV. The difference between a SmartTV and your classic dumb TV is the expectation. If I expect for my TV to support Web services and become more of an ancillary computing peripheral then I must upgrade when my current SmartTV no longer provides the support for the services I need.
To talk about the past decade like it someone factors into the current and future is folly. 10 years is a half generation. Kids born 10 years ago will look at TV and other products from a different lens. They will likely see TV and other Tech as more disposable than the prior generations.
10 years ago Apple didn't make Phones. Now look at where they are.
10 years ago Craigslist didn't exist
10 years ago broadband internet was for the Geeks.
Today is far different than 2001 and so are the expectations about product lifecycle and features.
I think you POV is partly true from one perspective. The average family is not going to go out and buy a new tv every 3 years like a computer (heck I push for 5-8 for my PC's). Maybe a techie will do that or the wealthy. But not the average household.
Yes, global TV replacement is accelerating rapidly, but many those people are replacing huge clunky CRT's for the latest thin tech. Some are repeat buyer's but they represent the early adopters that had still unproven equipment at the time.
Yes, globally TV replacement has approached the 6-8 year replacement cycle, but I think that's because of the annual improvements and the rate of acceleration improvements in the tech industry. NOT because of consumer expectations. We the consumers are just the unfortunate ones who get spoon fed these minor improvements every year and are willfully suckered into replacing our tech every other year.
personally, i think TVs should go back to being dumb monitors and the STBs should be where the advancements happen. Sure HDTV changed the way we see things, but look, first it was 480p (digital TV), then 720p/1080i HDTV, now it's Full HD 1080p, and I've heard it might go higher again, not to mention the ever-so-pointless 3D TV. That all happened in a 5-8 year span. That is F***ing ridiculous! That had nothing to do with consumer expectations. It had everything to do with big business trying to milk the consumers for everything we had in the quickest period of time possible.
Here's a good link to the latest study on it.
http://blog.ce.org/index.php/2010/12...acement-cycle/
Who in their right mind is going to spend a lot of money on an Apple Television just so they can have one remote control? Just buy a multi remote which controls all your devices for £20.
You don't get it. You never will.
yeah, you and about 100 other people on these forums have all said the same thing. I said it too.
Please, I had been saying it 2 years before you even registered on these forums.
Plenty of folks would simply love a voice-responsive remote that works only with Apple products.
It won't be voice response.
"To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions."
You and everyone else have always wanted things to work better and be easier to use, but most realize that it's more than just saying you want something is required to make something happen. You won't be able to devise a solution until you step out of Narnia and understand the problem.
Ok, Gruber.
I will admit, I did doubt your speculation on the matter, seems you were onto something.
Thank you very much.
I agree with Jean-Louis on several points and I agree with one of the user comments there.
I think this will be (at first) a massive update to the current aTV. I can easily see it combining the aTV (with App Store), the Airport Extreme and the Time Capsule all in one box. This makes a lot of sence, now they may ditch the hard drive in the TimeCapsule for some kind of Cloud service, or maybe not.
They could have integrated aTV with AE or TC before now but haven't. I'm not sure they are going to bother now especially given that many folks have multiple TVs but don't have a need for multiple AE or TCs.
Now Channels as Apps...there's nothing new about that concept. We see it already implemented in the current aTV. but I think that is definitely where its all going. I think the current aTV is about 25% "there" with Jobs' idea to reinvent TV. The next step would be to get the major networks on board and completely sever all ties with the local Cable providers.
Given that cable is paying billions to content providers for bundling this is the tall pole.
unrelated to the articles, I really don't see Siri as being a contributing factor to TV watching.
I think that the solution to the TV problem is AirPlay. In which case, at least for iPhones, Siri could easily be the solution.
"Siri, play latest South Park episode."
"Siri, find me a good cop show"
etc.
The easiest way to solve the remote problem is to license AirPlay to Samsung, LG, etc. and include as part of that licensing agreement an Airplay button that puts the TV in the right mode and ready to go. Then you pick the app (aka channel) you want to play on your iDevice.
That Apple might offer one or two HDTV models might or might not happen but AirPlay is a nice dodge around Comcast. Comcast has huge leverage over content producers. They don't have huge leverage over Samsung.
What they can do is throttle your bandwidth so none of these video services work anymore...but at that point they risk Apple and Google burying the hatchet in their head and fostering the deployment nation wide 1GB FTTH service in the major metro areas that are their bread and butter. Google and Apple can probably get AT&T and Verizon on board...if nothing else than to avoid getting run over.
"To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions."
You and everyone else have always wanted things to work better and be easier to use, but most realize that it's more than just saying you want something is required to make something happen. You won't be able to devise a solution until you step out of Narnia and understand the problem.
Solving the TV remote still leaves other remotes to deal with. Many folks have to turn on an AV receiver too. Hard to get surround sound with just a TV. Even with an ultra fancy sound bar.
Folks with a 50" HDTV and not at a minimum a cheap HTiB rig are missing half of the home theater experience. I suppose Apple could come out with a HTiB integrated solution...but then it's no longer just a TV.
My my, Ireland, it looks like you nailed it.
Be careful patting yourself on the back so hard. You might hurt yourself.
Oh hey, if the mythical Apple TV ships with a HDMI port are you going to man up and put in you sig that I was right all along?
Personally I doubt it given that you're ethically challenged.
Oh hey, if the mythical Apple TV ships with a HDMI port are you going to man up and put in you sig that I was right all along?
Personally I doubt it given that you're ethically challenged.
He admitted he was wrong about the Apple tablet running a full blown version of Mac OS X.
I don't really trust Isaacson to appreciate the significance of Jobs's remark, since he has proven himself to be technically incompetent, so it could be that Jobs had merely "nailed" the UI aspect of a television but hadn't yet worked out how to deal with the cable companies, content companies, bandwidth issue, etc. Who knows what the context is here?
So eager are you to rag on Isaacson's very good biography, you miss the big point here. We are not getting either details or context because Isaacson is deliberately suppressing them out of concern for Apple's trade "secrets," though that may not be exactly the right word.
Yes, Siracusa could list a dozen or more instances of Isaacson's non-mastery of the technical background, but it is naive to trash the book on that basis. It should have been the publisher's job to shepherd the project through some expert readers knowing that the author was weak on the tech. Maybe there wasn't time.
Siracusa rashly accuses the author of being lazy and uninterested rather than taking a more charitable and mature view that would have included the possibility of time constraints or editorial failures. To say that Jobs hired the wrong guy is arrogance. Gruber wisely backtracked a bit on the last 5by5, saying that it may have been strategic decision not to have a tech reporter nosing around Apple's business details.
The book is well worth reading for its insights into Jobs's penetrating native intelligence, and for the background it gives for his unique countercultural approach to the art of technical design. I know that's a vague statement, but it would take a while to flesh it out. Reading the book is a really good way to find out why it is Apple alone that has raised user experience to the level it has.
Update: Siracusa's second show on 5by5 about the book reveals that he just isn't seeing Isaacson's character study. He says the opportunity was squandered, we don't arrive at an awareness of Jobs's whole persona, and that's more important than the technical errors. Gruber is essentially in the same position; see his post today, where he shows how Malcolm Gladwell doesn't get Jobs either. So that's three who are blind to what I think Isaacson details very well. It seems to be a generational and (counter)cultural blindness on their part. Details available, if anyone's interested.
Update 2: At least Siracusa does say that everybody should read the book, but that's after doing his best to make everyone not want to. (This is an age of complainers who don't understand the effects of their complaints.) I would say it's the best biography we have of the most influential person of our time, and it's a great read. Don't miss it.