The key is not about displays or technology, it's about making TV simple again.
Gawd. Is there an Occupy TV movement? All I thought of when I read this is it'll be made for the 99% who couldn't set the VCR clock. Maybe that's why DVD players stopped coming with them¿ If that's the goal, count me 99% + 1% out.
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.
The public perception of what constitutes a small tv may change over time, but the physical space available for tv in many urban homes does not. An 80" tv has a diagonal of about two metres, which is larger than the available wall space in some homes. This is not a problem for suburbanites who live in McMansions, but it may be a problem for creative hipster barista types who live in studio apartments and basement suites, and they are more of Apple's target market than middle aged dads are. And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
The public perception of what constitutes a small tv may change over time, but the physical space available for tv in many urban homes does not. An 80" tv has a diagonal of about two metres, which is larger than the available wall space in some homes. This is not a problem for suburbanites who live in McMansions, but it may be a problem for creative hipster barista types who live in studio apartments and basement suites, and they are more of Apple's target market than middle aged dads are. And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
In terms of what one might put in a room, it's still smaller than a three seat sofa. It doesn't take a McMansion to have space for an 80" screen, that's worthless hyperbole.
And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
2 years ago I bought a 40" but thought it was too big. Sold it last year and got a 37" which, for my taste, is the right size. Then again, I don't live in the States and hardly ever watch TV. Perhaps one a week, and only the news or a movie. No series. For many people in Europe a 60" is just overkill, even if they watch daily.
Gawd. Is there an Occupy TV movement? All I thought of when I read this is it'll be made for the 99% who couldn't set the VCR clock. Maybe that's why DVD players stopped coming with them? If that's the goal, count me 99% + 1% out.
Edit: Is there such a thing as a needful insult?
In itself, a DVD player doesn't need a clock for anything it does. VCRs had clocks so the user could program a timed recording. DVD decks didn't need recording capability so much, early decks only played, and by the time the technology was ready, hard drive PVRs took on the job and can set their own clocks.
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.
Hmmm very interesting post. Just like Apple to go the completely unexpected direction. Maybe later they might get bigger screens, but for now everything you say makes some sense. Yes, Personal TV.
I loathe TV yet want TV. I WISH there was some good video content to watch. Just got an Apple TV even though we already have a Mini hooked up, the Apple TV makes it easier to get to the alternative crowd sourced stuff you mention. There are 'channels' and podcasts that are almost watchable.
If I could tell those indie creators only one thing it would be 'check the audio and use a better microphone' ! (Even the big studios don't get the importance of clear audio. Drives me nuts, 20 wardrobe assistants in the credits yet only one boom pole microphone operator for a 40M film!)
I am bored with lots of content out there, including Netflix, except for some of their Sundance films or documentaries.
One day all the junk we watch now will be only minor flavors in a giant soup of New Talent. Real Writers can write real stories, Digital houses will put together something besides safe sequels. Some kid we've never heard of will be a video genius and wont be stopped by the big producers. The day cannot come fast enough. Heh. Apple.
Comments
The key is not about displays or technology, it's about making TV simple again.
Gawd. Is there an Occupy TV movement? All I thought of when I read this is it'll be made for the 99% who couldn't set the VCR clock. Maybe that's why DVD players stopped coming with them¿ If that's the goal, count me 99% + 1% out.
Edit: Is there such a thing as a needful insult?
US cable tuner is QAM tuner.
This reminds me of those Verizon FioS ads that have the dude in the truck saying to the kid, "It's true QAM." Made it sound so this century...
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.
The public perception of what constitutes a small tv may change over time, but the physical space available for tv in many urban homes does not. An 80" tv has a diagonal of about two metres, which is larger than the available wall space in some homes. This is not a problem for suburbanites who live in McMansions, but it may be a problem for creative hipster barista types who live in studio apartments and basement suites, and they are more of Apple's target market than middle aged dads are. And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
The public perception of what constitutes a small tv may change over time, but the physical space available for tv in many urban homes does not. An 80" tv has a diagonal of about two metres, which is larger than the available wall space in some homes. This is not a problem for suburbanites who live in McMansions, but it may be a problem for creative hipster barista types who live in studio apartments and basement suites, and they are more of Apple's target market than middle aged dads are. And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
In terms of what one might put in a room, it's still smaller than a three seat sofa. It doesn't take a McMansion to have space for an 80" screen, that's worthless hyperbole.
And let's not forget that many younger people are used to watching tv on laptops and ipads, so a 37" tv is a big step up for them.
2 years ago I bought a 40" but thought it was too big. Sold it last year and got a 37" which, for my taste, is the right size. Then again, I don't live in the States and hardly ever watch TV. Perhaps one a week, and only the news or a movie. No series. For many people in Europe a 60" is just overkill, even if they watch daily.
Gawd. Is there an Occupy TV movement? All I thought of when I read this is it'll be made for the 99% who couldn't set the VCR clock. Maybe that's why DVD players stopped coming with them? If that's the goal, count me 99% + 1% out.
Edit: Is there such a thing as a needful insult?
In itself, a DVD player doesn't need a clock for anything it does. VCRs had clocks so the user could program a timed recording. DVD decks didn't need recording capability so much, early decks only played, and by the time the technology was ready, hard drive PVRs took on the job and can set their own clocks.
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.
Hmmm very interesting post. Just like Apple to go the completely unexpected direction. Maybe later they might get bigger screens, but for now everything you say makes some sense. Yes, Personal TV.
I loathe TV yet want TV. I WISH there was some good video content to watch. Just got an Apple TV even though we already have a Mini hooked up, the Apple TV makes it easier to get to the alternative crowd sourced stuff you mention. There are 'channels' and podcasts that are almost watchable.
If I could tell those indie creators only one thing it would be 'check the audio and use a better microphone' ! (Even the big studios don't get the importance of clear audio. Drives me nuts, 20 wardrobe assistants in the credits yet only one boom pole microphone operator for a 40M film!)
I am bored with lots of content out there, including Netflix, except for some of their Sundance films or documentaries.
One day all the junk we watch now will be only minor flavors in a giant soup of New Talent. Real Writers can write real stories, Digital houses will put together something besides safe sequels. Some kid we've never heard of will be a video genius and wont be stopped by the big producers. The day cannot come fast enough. Heh. Apple.