Really? I'd use Siri all the time. Right now trying to search for and find a show I want to watch is excrutiatingly slow with a remote. Being able to say something simple like "Show me upcoming episodes of Law & Order" is going to be far easier and quicker than existing methods (using your remote).
Same thing with recordings. I record a lot of stuff (along with the rest of my family) and can easily have over 100 shows on my PVR. Why scroll through a huge list of recorded shows when I can simply say "Show me recordings of Law & Order" or better yet "Show me recordings of Law & Order I haven't watched yet" or "Resume the last Law & Order episode" if I stopped halfway through.
How about something like "Show me Dad's recordings" so I can see my stuff without having to look through the countless Oprah episodes my wife recorded or the umpteen kids shows my children record?
I have yet to see someone suggest a method other than Siri that would let me find what I want and do it faster or easier than Siri potentially could. If you know of something easier, then I'd love to hear it.
For simple commands like channel or volume up or down it's use becomes pointless for most, but for complex commands that take users minutes to execute and require a lot of hunting it could be very useful. Like when you use Siri to set up a location-based reminder.
Telling Siri to record season x episode y of a show the next time it airs or list all episodes of a show in order as they air would be very handy.
I still can;t believe the small TV sizes the rumors are about. That is what it makes me pause.
Pause... Me too. I just can't believe Apple would go 37" when nobody who can afford Apple prices would buy less than 40"+ for their living room. 55" would be my liking for the living room.
I think if they go IPTV only and go with under 40", they will fail no matter how great it works.
An IPTV without a compatible built-in cable tuner equals fail for many who are capped. I have Time Warner Cable TV and Internet. It's unlimited now but if Apple does IPTV only they will cap it or slow it down so IPTVs run like sh*t. TWC is not going to allow losing their pay per-view or cable TV to IPTV. Apple is going to have to partner with the ISPs to make it work.
unless you only watch blu-ray on those huge screens the quality of the picture drops a lot after 47" or so. HD content looks OK depending on the channel. SD looks like crap.
All things are relative they say. I avoid SD like the plague other than older home made vids of the wife but 1080p looks great on my 60" and the 80" I was watching looked stunning. Of course the day will come when 1080p will be considered SD and we will be enjoying HD as 4.5K with 1920p.
I still think AppleTv will have to have coax for over the air... I'm not wasting bandwith on local channels that I can get for free....
As a technical matter, Apple would not be able to call it a TV if it does not include a terrestrial OTA tuner. This was the result of a battle that was waged about a decade ago over how these big screen devices could be labeled. Without a tuner it had to be called a monitor.
[WiFi in the screen device and a HDHomeRun device would allow local stations to be viewed with coax cable connected to the HDHomeRun device rather than the screen but the screen would still be a monitor rather than a TV. Details not addressed.]
. . .As far as size, my largest screen is 46", and I wish it was a 40" or 42". I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people saying this, but those giant screens are tacky.
I agree with you, but maybe it's also because I (and Apple?) think that manufactured programming of any kind, that is, television, is tacky.
What Steve Jobs "cracked," the go-to-market strategy he was looking for, is maybe an end run around the canned entertainment model that's been with us since Amos 'n' Andy on the radio in the 1920s. Maybe what he saw was that YouTube and Facebook are harbingers of a potentially more compelling video diet based on crowdsourced communication between individuals, rather than the masses feeding at the troughs of the traditional Content Providers.
The small screen sizes hint at the other part of the equation. These are personal, not group screens. What would make them compelling to watch?
I am risking my already shaky reputation on the answer: 3D. Autostereoscopic screens -- that's why they're so small, relatively. Good enough for one or two people to get the 3D without glasses. Add two-lensed iPhones or iPod touches for stereo movie-making and FaceTime -- genlocked by the way -- and you have a typical Apple breakthrough-product ecosystem. Pixar and other 3D studios can fill the gaps until people get stereo competent.
So you're okay if they cut off/cap your data, but not okay if they give you an option to buy more? I'm okay with reasonable caps and additional charges, it's throttling I don't want.
I think I didn't make myself clear. I have no problem with them putting an upper limit on what is included in my monthly charge, then charging me incrementally if I go beyond that (I subscribe to the idea that those who use more should pay more).
What I object to are the prices they are talking about for going over the limit. As I mentioned, it costs ISP's about 1c/Gb, so I object to them trying to charges tens of dollars for an extra 50Gb.
THis will be interesting for sure. I just worry they will make them large enough. Many like me with 50 -60 inch screens are not going down in size for the main living room, in fact I'd love to go up in size. I have not recovered since seeing the Sharp 80 inch in Sam's Club just before Christmas
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
Naw. Lots and lots of people will buy anything and everything Apple.
Especially if it promises simplicity and ease of use and elimination of the bulky surround sound system and cable box and VCR and DVD and BluRay and all those damned ugly wires.
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
Maybe the small size is a calculated strategy to put the first models in bedrooms, dorm rooms, apartments or replace the last remaining tube sets. Apple probably realizes that people who already have an investment in a large screen TV in the living room are not likely to replace them just because Apple launches a new TV. What would you do with your existing 50" TV if you bought a new Apple giant screen? It is too big to put in the bedroom.
I already have a smaller full 1080 HD in my kitchen but I might replace it and move the old one to the guest bedroom. As methodical as Apple is you know they are considering all the angles. Everyone has some sort of TV. It just comes down to the logistics of introducing another TV into the home.
This is an oversimplification, but I wonder if Apple is all that interested in the monster tv market. Apple's primary fan base is urban hipsters, and they tend not to live in McMansions. They tend to live in in places where small tvs make sense.
I think the thing you are not thinking of here is that the definition of a "small TV" changes all the time.
So in fact you are right, but a "small" TV nowadays is anything less than 50" or so. It will probably mean anything less than 60" a year from now. Also most "flat-screen" TV's are now just a couple of inches thick at most. Last year's state of the art 42" flat-screen is this years "kinda thick" cheap midrange TV.
There is no law, US or otherwise, that says you have to have a cable tuner in a TV.
I thought the FCC said Televisions after a certain date of a certain size and up have to have an ATSC in preparation for Analog to Digital cut. I suppose Apple could choose not to classify it as a Television when seeking whatever government blessings are necessary to get it to market.
I like the idea of a monitor only since I haven't used an internal tuner in a decade or so. I could see Apple doing this, add the AppleTV3 guts and HT passthrough for external appliances.
All that said, I'm not replacing a 65" until Apple offers something close to as good with their interface/subscription.
Comments
Really? I'd use Siri all the time. Right now trying to search for and find a show I want to watch is excrutiatingly slow with a remote. Being able to say something simple like "Show me upcoming episodes of Law & Order" is going to be far easier and quicker than existing methods (using your remote).
Same thing with recordings. I record a lot of stuff (along with the rest of my family) and can easily have over 100 shows on my PVR. Why scroll through a huge list of recorded shows when I can simply say "Show me recordings of Law & Order" or better yet "Show me recordings of Law & Order I haven't watched yet" or "Resume the last Law & Order episode" if I stopped halfway through.
How about something like "Show me Dad's recordings" so I can see my stuff without having to look through the countless Oprah episodes my wife recorded or the umpteen kids shows my children record?
I have yet to see someone suggest a method other than Siri that would let me find what I want and do it faster or easier than Siri potentially could. If you know of something easier, then I'd love to hear it.
For simple commands like channel or volume up or down it's use becomes pointless for most, but for complex commands that take users minutes to execute and require a lot of hunting it could be very useful. Like when you use Siri to set up a location-based reminder.
Telling Siri to record season x episode y of a show the next time it airs or list all episodes of a show in order as they air would be very handy.
Siri or good voice control for the TV?
I still can;t believe the small TV sizes the rumors are about. That is what it makes me pause.
Pause... Me too. I just can't believe Apple would go 37" when nobody who can afford Apple prices would buy less than 40"+ for their living room. 55" would be my liking for the living room.
I think if they go IPTV only and go with under 40", they will fail no matter how great it works.
An IPTV without a compatible built-in cable tuner equals fail for many who are capped. I have Time Warner Cable TV and Internet. It's unlimited now but if Apple does IPTV only they will cap it or slow it down so IPTVs run like sh*t. TWC is not going to allow losing their pay per-view or cable TV to IPTV. Apple is going to have to partner with the ISPs to make it work.
unless you only watch blu-ray on those huge screens the quality of the picture drops a lot after 47" or so. HD content looks OK depending on the channel. SD looks like crap.
All things are relative they say. I avoid SD like the plague other than older home made vids of the wife but 1080p looks great on my 60" and the 80" I was watching looked stunning. Of course the day will come when 1080p will be considered SD and we will be enjoying HD as 4.5K with 1920p.
I still think AppleTv will have to have coax for over the air... I'm not wasting bandwith on local channels that I can get for free....
As a technical matter, Apple would not be able to call it a TV if it does not include a terrestrial OTA tuner. This was the result of a battle that was waged about a decade ago over how these big screen devices could be labeled. Without a tuner it had to be called a monitor.
[WiFi in the screen device and a HDHomeRun device would allow local stations to be viewed with coax cable connected to the HDHomeRun device rather than the screen but the screen would still be a monitor rather than a TV. Details not addressed.]
. . .As far as size, my largest screen is 46", and I wish it was a 40" or 42". I know I'm going to piss off a lot of people saying this, but those giant screens are tacky.
I agree with you, but maybe it's also because I (and Apple?) think that manufactured programming of any kind, that is, television, is tacky.
What Steve Jobs "cracked," the go-to-market strategy he was looking for, is maybe an end run around the canned entertainment model that's been with us since Amos 'n' Andy on the radio in the 1920s. Maybe what he saw was that YouTube and Facebook are harbingers of a potentially more compelling video diet based on crowdsourced communication between individuals, rather than the masses feeding at the troughs of the traditional Content Providers.
The small screen sizes hint at the other part of the equation. These are personal, not group screens. What would make them compelling to watch?
I am risking my already shaky reputation on the answer: 3D. Autostereoscopic screens -- that's why they're so small, relatively. Good enough for one or two people to get the 3D without glasses. Add two-lensed iPhones or iPod touches for stereo movie-making and FaceTime -- genlocked by the way -- and you have a typical Apple breakthrough-product ecosystem. Pixar and other 3D studios can fill the gaps until people get stereo competent.
"Cracked" indeed. Or I am.
So you're okay if they cut off/cap your data, but not okay if they give you an option to buy more? I'm okay with reasonable caps and additional charges, it's throttling I don't want.
I think I didn't make myself clear. I have no problem with them putting an upper limit on what is included in my monthly charge, then charging me incrementally if I go beyond that (I subscribe to the idea that those who use more should pay more).
What I object to are the prices they are talking about for going over the limit. As I mentioned, it costs ISP's about 1c/Gb, so I object to them trying to charges tens of dollars for an extra 50Gb.
An Apple TV will never work. It's just a big iPad.
With an ATSC tuner because it is required by US law.
THis will be interesting for sure. I just worry they will make them large enough. Many like me with 50 -60 inch screens are not going down in size for the main living room, in fact I'd love to go up in size. I have not recovered since seeing the Sharp 80 inch in Sam's Club just before Christmas
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
Naw. Lots and lots of people will buy anything and everything Apple.
Especially if it promises simplicity and ease of use and elimination of the bulky surround sound system and cable box and VCR and DVD and BluRay and all those damned ugly wires.
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
I recall smart phone owners at the time saying the same about the rumors of a phone coming from Apple.
For those that already own a TV, I don't think they will buy an Apple TV regardless of size.
Maybe the small size is a calculated strategy to put the first models in bedrooms, dorm rooms, apartments or replace the last remaining tube sets. Apple probably realizes that people who already have an investment in a large screen TV in the living room are not likely to replace them just because Apple launches a new TV. What would you do with your existing 50" TV if you bought a new Apple giant screen? It is too big to put in the bedroom.
I already have a smaller full 1080 HD in my kitchen but I might replace it and move the old one to the guest bedroom. As methodical as Apple is you know they are considering all the angles. Everyone has some sort of TV. It just comes down to the logistics of introducing another TV into the home.
Maybe small is the new big!
This is an oversimplification, but I wonder if Apple is all that interested in the monster tv market. Apple's primary fan base is urban hipsters, and they tend not to live in McMansions. They tend to live in in places where small tvs make sense.
I think the thing you are not thinking of here is that the definition of a "small TV" changes all the time.
So in fact you are right, but a "small" TV nowadays is anything less than 50" or so. It will probably mean anything less than 60" a year from now. Also most "flat-screen" TV's are now just a couple of inches thick at most. Last year's state of the art 42" flat-screen is this years "kinda thick" cheap midrange TV.
With an ATSC tuner because it is required by US law.
There is no law, US or otherwise, that says you have to have a cable tuner in a TV.
There is no law, US or otherwise, that says you have to have a cable tuner in a TV.
I thought the FCC said Televisions after a certain date of a certain size and up have to have an ATSC in preparation for Analog to Digital cut. I suppose Apple could choose not to classify it as a Television when seeking whatever government blessings are necessary to get it to market.
I like the idea of a monitor only since I haven't used an internal tuner in a decade or so. I could see Apple doing this, add the AppleTV3 guts and HT passthrough for external appliances.
All that said, I'm not replacing a 65" until Apple offers something close to as good with their interface/subscription.
There is no law, US or otherwise, that says you have to have a cable tuner in a TV.
Sounds like there are very specific laws from the FCC that govern turners in TVs.
- http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2010...for-broadband/
I'm not sure what a cable tuner is. I assume you just mean tuner.There is no law, US or otherwise, that says you have to have a cable tuner in a TV.
No cable tuner is required. However, in the US any TV manufactured after 2007 requires an ATSC tuner.
I'm not sure what a cable tuner is. I assume you just mean tuner.
US cable tuner is QAM tuner.
US cable tuner is QAM tuner.
Cool. That's what I needed for my query.
I recall smart phone owners at the time saying the same about the rumors of a phone coming from Apple.
Sure, just make it a subsidized $200 like a smartphone and count me in.