I am not going to elaborate again on the fact that its impossible to stream live TV over the internet for large amount of customers.
But I will mention that the most important "feature" of a new Apple TV, way way more important than any "expected gadgets", is built in IPTV support and Cable or AT&T partnership.
The future of television is IPTV. If Apple want to enter this market and revamp it, they need to be the first to produce a TV with it. IPTV is the set-top box killer. AT&T U-Verse and Bell FIBE TV are still young and just starting up.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
Just give me an A6 Apple TV, Apple. You don't even need to change the terrible interface, just let me play stuff from hard drives connected directly to my AirPort Extreme without a computer ON and iTunes OPEN and I'll be happy.
I play everything off my Time Capsule (unformatted for iTunes) using my Apple TV and ATV Black. Works a charm. Avi, whatever. Between that and iTunes Match I don't keep my computer on in the evenings any more.
Content is a separate issue altogether and isnt affected by the AppleTV being interior or exterior to the TV or whether it's licensed by vendors. The same situation still happens where it's less desirable to only have 3 panel sizes with no other TV options for the many places owners want to place them, and you still have the issue with content. I'm not going to give up cable TV simply because Apple put the AppleTV in a TV so my question still stands.
Solip- what I'm saying is that an ATV box does not allow for an all inclusive easy to use user interface. I still have to go to my tv, change the input to my apple tv box, then do the same tedious junk when Im switching back to Uverse (or cable).
Its not getting rid of your cable box. Your cable box is integrated and there is no longer a need to switch inputs, or use the cable menu guide. Its all done through ONE interface that apple controls. The interface would control your cable, apple tv, DVR and Blu Ray. That can only happen on an integrated TV. That would be the advantage for an integrated TV over a box.
Now again- if content was revolutionized (which isn't going to happen), then a box would be all you need. But I think IPTV will be the future of the integrated Apple TV. The set top box will still remain a hobby and novelty (although when used in conjunction with the Integrated Apple TV, it can mirror the functionality of the full set)
Read herbapou's post- he hits the nail on the head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
I am not going to elaborate again on the fact that its impossible to stream live TV over the internet for large amount of customers.
But I will mention that the most important "feature" of a new Apple TV, way way more important than any "expected gadgets", is built in IPTV support and Cable or AT&T partnership.
The future of television is IPTV. If Apple want to enter this market and revamp it, they need to be the first to produce a TV with it. IPTV is the set-top box killer. AT&T U-Verse and Bell FIBE TV are still young and just starting up.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
I agree 100%. And the fact is when you say that it is impossible to stream live TV over the internet for a large customer base- you're dead on. Thats why what you said below is the most feasible option. It isn't revolutionary- its just simplistic interface- and that will have a niche market that doesn't mind paying a premium. Enough for Apple to make great money, but not enough to throttle the internet and take it to its knees.
I agree 100%. And the fact is when you say that it is impossible to stream live TV over the internet for a large customer base- you're dead on. Thats why what you said below is the most feasible option. It isn't revolutionary- its just simplistic interface- and that will have a niche market that doesn't mind paying a premium. Enough for Apple to make great money, but not enough to throttle the internet and take it to its knees.
The problem with live TV is more at the ISP level than on the internet backbone. Once you enter the ISP network, a large amount of stream coming from the net will bring down the network. ISP will have to get in and reduce those stream bit per second the same way they do it with peer to peer transfert. But with live TV that means the live stream will be unwatchable.
An IPTV network is a complex system that is implemented inside the ISP network. The live feeds are broadcast to nodes close to homes using fiber optics. The streaming occurs between those nodes and the houses. This is why its crucial for Apple to strike deals with Cable and AT&T.
The way I see it, Apple will be providing the smart-TV ecosystem, TV's and set-top box. Cable wont have to invest money trying to build an ecosystem. The real negociation will be over Video on Demand. Apple need to strike deals that split the profits between the ISP and Apple. Apple will provide the VOD ecosystem and manage it. The ISP will distribute it inside there network for reliable streaming without consuming internet bandwith. An ISP could also strike deals with google or Amazon at the same time, different ecosystem and VOD sources, they get there cut on all sides and the consumer gets more choices.
I cannot stress enough that trying to fight the ISP over live TV would be a major mistake.
Just give me an A6 Apple TV, Apple. You don't even need to change the terrible interface, just let me play stuff from hard drives connected directly to my AirPort Extreme without a computer ON and iTunes OPEN and I'll be happy.
Considering that the USB port on the current ATV is useless ("For service and support"), this would make me happy. I don't understand how Apple can't tell that people have more content in their libraries than is available on iTunes. At least with music, they openly acknowledge that people want a way to get media from other sources.
From the iTunes page:
Quote:
Goodbye, CDs. Hello, digital.
Import your CD collection to iTunes, and listen to your music in new and better ways. Just pop a CD into your computer. If you?re online, iTunes automatically finds the album, artist, and song names. You can even choose to download cover art. And just like that, iTunes converts your music to a digital format. So long, CD clutter. Welcome to the digital world.
I don't care if this kills things like Handbrake, but it's unacceptable that in 2012, DVD ripping is still considered taboo. This is especially true when you realize that because ATV 2 is streaming only, you need a consistently fast network connection to do anything. It reminds me of the 1st-Gen MacBook Air (Wireless only and only a 10/100 USB Ethernet dongle), which was hamstrung for this very reason. Why in the world is the Ethernet port not Gigabit?? Again, there's no good excuse for this.
Apple TV Take 2 was fine in terms of hardware but the software wasn't really done. With version 2, it's the opposite problem. It's just depressing to see a company like Apple not be able to figure out how to put the pieces together.
Steve even said as much during ATV 2's introduction:
Quote:
People don't want a computer, they have computers.
Considering that the USB port on the current ATV is useless ("For service and support"),
It's not supposed to be 'used', so it's not useless. It serves the purpose for which it was designed.
Quote:
I don't understand how Apple can't tell that people have more content in their libraries than is available on iTunes.
And even if you were to buy everything in iTunes, you'd still need a place to store it. I'm talking not random AVI and MKV files that you've pirated and thrown onto a hard drive, I'm talking about giving access to properly formatted iTunes libraries full of iTunes-supported content that are stored on hard drives connected to your network directly, not inside a computer and NOT with said computer on and iTunes open.
No way would they ever give you a way to look inside randomly placed folder trees. That's nonsense. Just iTunes Libraries over the network, Apple. I'll rip my DVDs, encode them in HandBrake, pop them in iTunes, and add metadata to them myself.
Quote:
I don't care if this kills things like Handbrake, but it's unacceptable that in 2012, DVD ripping is still considered taboo.
Well, it's illegal, so.
Quote:
Why in the world is the Ethernet port not Gigabit?? Again, there's no good excuse for this.
To get people to use wireless over wired. That's the reason.
Quote:
Apple TV Take 2 was fine in terms of hardware but the software wasn't really done.
Yeah, LowTide isn't the best. I sent Tim the diagrams I made up of my take on HighTide, but obviously he can't respond to that.
Quote:
"People don't want computers connected to or inside their televisions. People already HAVE their computers, and they want them separate from their TVs."
There won't be a DVD slot or an HDMI port. There will be audio ports, that's all
It won't talk to these boxes, once again you think America is the world. It will circumvent these boxes completely by Apple doing content deals - this is the actual challenge.
I sure hope you're not working on the Apple TV projet...
The problem with live TV is more at the ISP level than on the internet backbone. Once you enter the ISP network, a large amount of stream coming from the net will bring down the network. ISP will have to get in and reduce those stream bit per second the same way they do it with peer to peer transfert. But with live TV that means the live stream will be unwatchable.
An IPTV network is a complex system that is implemented inside the ISP network. The live feeds are broadcast to nodes close to homes using fiber optics. The streaming occurs between those nodes and the houses. This is why its crucial for Apple to strike deals with Cable and AT&T.
The way I see it, Apple will be providing the smart-TV ecosystem, TV's and set-top box. Cable wont have to invest money trying to build an ecosystem. The real negociation will be over Video on Demand. Apple need to strike deals that split the profits between the ISP and Apple. Apple will provide the VOD ecosystem and manage it. The ISP will distribute it inside there network for reliable streaming without consuming internet bandwith. An ISP could also strike deals with google or Amazon at the same time, different ecosystem and VOD sources, they get there cut on all sides and the consumer gets more choices.
I cannot stress enough that trying to fight the ISP over live TV would be a major mistake.
I really appreciate your posts on this topic. Very well informed and thought out. I wish more people would read what you write instead of jumping to unfounded or blind conclusions.
And that's the rub, Content owners are generally petrified of Apple. And what's even scarier for them is that this isn't the same Apple that came at the the music studios in 2002 wanting to do a music store. 2012 Apple is a worldwide goliath that's bigger than any of them. And then there's Netflix. Netflix showed that the streaming model works. The problem is that studios think they can get more money than what Netflix is willing to charge. They think their content is worth more than it probably is. So now while they are trying to kill Netflix without raising the ire of the Justice Department, here comes Apple wanting to do their own content box. Studios see Apple $100b war chest and lick their chops at getting some of it, but Tim Cook is no fool and will not do a deal that doesn't make Apple a pile of money somewhere.
I wish the content companies would realize that getting a few pennies from a lot of people is better than no pennies from no people.
On-demand streaming is the future. People want to watch anything and everything at any moment.
The reason the content companies don't make much from Netflix streaming is because the content isn't that great.
But if they put a brand new release on Netflix streaming... millions and millions of people would watch it that night. That would make them quite a bit of money almost instantly.
Sure, it's not as much money as if you went out and bought the DVD on the night of release... but I don't know anyone who does that anymore. Behaviors have changed.
Renting is the next logical choice... and you see the content companies' attitude on that. They delay the rental release... hoping you'll buy the DVD instead.
I don't. I wait until it's in Redbox or Netflix. My behavior has changed.
I think the content companies and movie studios need to realize that getting even a little bit of money from streaming is better than getting no money because people simply don't wanna drive to the video store anymore.
It's not supposed to be 'used', so it's not useless. It serves the purpose for which it was designed.
My issue with it is that (likely due to studio pressure) it was designed with Apple in mind and not consumers/users. It's as if Apple said the following:
"Here we have what appears to be a USB port, but you (the customer) can't really use it and its entire existence is known only to us."
If this is the case, why have it accessible to the user at all?
Quote:
I'm talking about giving access to properly formatted iTunes libraries full of iTunes-supported content that are stored on hard drives connected to your network directly, not inside a computer and NOT with said computer on and iTunes open.
As I said before, this is one alternative I would take, but it seems like Apple doesn't really understand how people watch TV or want to use ATV to do so.
Quote:
No way would they ever give you a way to look inside randomly placed folder trees. That's nonsense. Just iTunes Libraries over the network, Apple. I'll rip my DVDs, encode them in HandBrake, pop them in iTunes, and add metadata to them myself.
This is exactly what I think a lot of people would like to see and the company certainly has the money available to make this part of any deal they sign with content providers. Even if they have to spend $1 billion+ per provider, that's not a huge deal.
Quote:
To get people to use wireless over wired. That's the reason.
If they can get someone to make an 802.11ac chip that can do Gigabit speeds, this could work.
Quote:
"People don't want computers connected to or inside their televisions. People already HAVE their computers, and they want them separate from their TVs."
I don't think that adding some form of local storage back in moves it from appliance to computer territory, but my issue is that they flip-flopped on this and made things more complicated.
Apple TV 1 (Take Two) explicitly did not require a computer and had local storage. Apple TV 2 is a simpler device, but assumes that people have a computer turned on in order to access anything on their TV. In it's current form, it's not a standalone device.
I really appreciate your posts on this topic. Very well informed and thought out. I wish more people would read what you write instead of jumping to unfounded or blind conclusions.
Thanks. I work in IT so it kind of give me an hedge over that tech stuff. I have also worked for BCE in Canada. I am currently working for a major Canadian bank on the central clients database systems and on the ATM systems, all on the IBM mainframe.
My issue with it is that (likely due to studio pressure) it was designed with Apple in mind and not consumers/users. It's as if Apple said the following:
"Here we have what appears to be a USB port, but you (the customer) can't really use it and its entire existence is known only to us."
If this is the case, why have it accessible to the user at all?
For RESTORES. Its ONLY purpose is for restores. And the user can do that. You have access to it for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I don't get what's confusing about that.
Quote:
Apple TV 1 (Take Two) explicitly did not require a computer and had local storage.
I know. I LOVED THAT (never actually had a first-gen, but loved that feature of it). That's the ONLY thing I would have changed about the current model. The first one used 100 watts IDLE. This one uses 6 watts MAX. Apple should make the new one exactly the same size as the old, give it an A6 chip, and have the option of either a 128 or 256GB stick like in the MacBook Air. Since I realize they'd never do that for whatever silly reason, I ask only for a middle ground between the first and second models: access to network storage without a computer being on.
For RESTORES. Its ONLY purpose is for restores. And the user can do that. You have access to it for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I don't get what's confusing about that.
I know. I LOVED THAT (never actually had a first-gen, but loved that feature of it). That's the ONLY thing I would have changed about the current model. The first one used 100 watts IDLE. This one uses 6 watts MAX. Apple should make the new one exactly the same size as the old, give it an A6 chip, and have the option of either a 128 or 256GB stick like in the MacBook Air. Since I realize they'd never do that for whatever silly reason, I ask only for a middle ground between the first and second models: access to network storage without a computer being on.
If it is only to restore it and Apple has shown they want to eliminate wires, why not just extend this to accomplish the same thing? It's slower I know, but it would solve most issues. A real port may still be needed to verify that the device itself is still OK, but some form of Internet based restore would give people fewer reasons to mess around with the port that's there.
If it is only to restore it and Apple has shown they want to eliminate wires, why not just extend this to accomplish the same thing?
The port exists for when your wireless doesn't work on the device or you're not near Wi-Fi? how's that going to help? It's a final solution for when all other forms of restore have failed. That is its only purpose.
Solip- what I'm saying is that an ATV box does not allow for an all inclusive easy to use user interface. I still have to go to my tv, change the input to my apple tv box, then do the same tedious junk when Im switching back to Uverse (or cable).
Its not getting rid of your cable box. Your cable box is integrated and there is no longer a need to switch inputs, or use the cable menu guide. Its all done through ONE interface that apple controls. The interface would control your cable, apple tv, DVR and Blu Ray. That can only happen on an integrated TV. That would be the advantage for an integrated TV over a box.
Now again- if content was revolutionized (which isn't going to happen), then a box would be all you need. But I think IPTV will be the future of the integrated Apple TV. The set top box will still remain a hobby and novelty (although when used in conjunction with the Integrated Apple TV, it can mirror the functionality of the full set)
Read herbapou's post- he hits the nail on the head.
Each of my suggestions addresses this without forcing the consumer to either throw away their current TVs, but from multiple vendors with any combination a consumer may want, update the AppleTV HW ahead of the TV monitor, and allow Apple to make a higher profit for a lower cost item that appeals to more consumers.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
That was the old wish for Apple with winning the HEC but Jobs backed in an interview with Mossberg(?) the issue of broadband TV having no consistent network throughout the US. I don't think Jobs addressed the issue of the global market but that is also a major concern that needs to be planned to allow for eventual growth. As great as it would be to have an Apple cable box it always seemed complex.
Why AT&T first? Because of their previous relationship? How many regions does AT&T's U-Verse operate? How many US customers does that cover?
It can see a scenario for Apple to do that and then get customers to essentially force providers to offer Apple's boxes but I'd think deals with larger providers might be advantageous here.
Each of my suggestions addresses this without forcing the consumer to either throw away their current TVs, but from multiple vendors with any combination a consumer may want, update the AppleTV HW ahead of the TV monitor, and allow Apple to make a higher profit for a lower cost item that appeals to more consumers.
Let me break it down by each of your two suggestions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
a standalone box that allows you to connect any dummy TV.
This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen. That'd be no different than how the ATV2 works currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Apple licensing with TV vendors to allow the many different sizes and types to appeal to a vast range of consumers.
This could happen- sure. But I don't recall Apple being prone to supplying the software and letting someone else sell the hardware. I remember it on one phone, which failed royally, and Apple regretted. Apple will sell the hardware and software combined. So this is more likely than Apple working the content deal, but still very unlikely. I'd love to have a $199 Dell netbook be able to license OSX, but it won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
There are enough rumors that make me think this is happening but I still haven't heard a single reasonable reason why this is better
Just my opinion- so take that with a grain of salt- but Apple does not want to send their software off to let a hardware manufacturer(s) handle it. They want to be in control. I also believe there is no chance they work out a content deal (a la carte, etc.) because- single handedly- of sports (amongst other reasons). I don't think either of your suggestions are reasonable.
So my one single reasonable reason why this is better is.... Connected User Interface. I don't believe Apple TV working within a different hardware TV is reasonable. I also believe without a cable or IPTV deal worked out, that there won't be a good user interface either (meaning- I still have to use my stupid cable/uverse/dish TV guide).
Bottom line- I'm tired of changing inputs between devices. It's annoying. An integrated TV fixes that (and makes it easier to record, search channels, play music, etc.)
Comments
But I will mention that the most important "feature" of a new Apple TV, way way more important than any "expected gadgets", is built in IPTV support and Cable or AT&T partnership.
The future of television is IPTV. If Apple want to enter this market and revamp it, they need to be the first to produce a TV with it. IPTV is the set-top box killer. AT&T U-Verse and Bell FIBE TV are still young and just starting up.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
Just give me an A6 Apple TV, Apple. You don't even need to change the terrible interface, just let me play stuff from hard drives connected directly to my AirPort Extreme without a computer ON and iTunes OPEN and I'll be happy.
I play everything off my Time Capsule (unformatted for iTunes) using my Apple TV and ATV Black. Works a charm. Avi, whatever. Between that and iTunes Match I don't keep my computer on in the evenings any more.
Content is a separate issue altogether and isnt affected by the AppleTV being interior or exterior to the TV or whether it's licensed by vendors. The same situation still happens where it's less desirable to only have 3 panel sizes with no other TV options for the many places owners want to place them, and you still have the issue with content. I'm not going to give up cable TV simply because Apple put the AppleTV in a TV so my question still stands.
Solip- what I'm saying is that an ATV box does not allow for an all inclusive easy to use user interface. I still have to go to my tv, change the input to my apple tv box, then do the same tedious junk when Im switching back to Uverse (or cable).
Its not getting rid of your cable box. Your cable box is integrated and there is no longer a need to switch inputs, or use the cable menu guide. Its all done through ONE interface that apple controls. The interface would control your cable, apple tv, DVR and Blu Ray. That can only happen on an integrated TV. That would be the advantage for an integrated TV over a box.
Now again- if content was revolutionized (which isn't going to happen), then a box would be all you need. But I think IPTV will be the future of the integrated Apple TV. The set top box will still remain a hobby and novelty (although when used in conjunction with the Integrated Apple TV, it can mirror the functionality of the full set)
Read herbapou's post- he hits the nail on the head.
I am not going to elaborate again on the fact that its impossible to stream live TV over the internet for large amount of customers.
But I will mention that the most important "feature" of a new Apple TV, way way more important than any "expected gadgets", is built in IPTV support and Cable or AT&T partnership.
The future of television is IPTV. If Apple want to enter this market and revamp it, they need to be the first to produce a TV with it. IPTV is the set-top box killer. AT&T U-Verse and Bell FIBE TV are still young and just starting up.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
I agree 100%. And the fact is when you say that it is impossible to stream live TV over the internet for a large customer base- you're dead on. Thats why what you said below is the most feasible option. It isn't revolutionary- its just simplistic interface- and that will have a niche market that doesn't mind paying a premium. Enough for Apple to make great money, but not enough to throttle the internet and take it to its knees.
I agree 100%. And the fact is when you say that it is impossible to stream live TV over the internet for a large customer base- you're dead on. Thats why what you said below is the most feasible option. It isn't revolutionary- its just simplistic interface- and that will have a niche market that doesn't mind paying a premium. Enough for Apple to make great money, but not enough to throttle the internet and take it to its knees.
The problem with live TV is more at the ISP level than on the internet backbone. Once you enter the ISP network, a large amount of stream coming from the net will bring down the network. ISP will have to get in and reduce those stream bit per second the same way they do it with peer to peer transfert. But with live TV that means the live stream will be unwatchable.
An IPTV network is a complex system that is implemented inside the ISP network. The live feeds are broadcast to nodes close to homes using fiber optics. The streaming occurs between those nodes and the houses. This is why its crucial for Apple to strike deals with Cable and AT&T.
The way I see it, Apple will be providing the smart-TV ecosystem, TV's and set-top box. Cable wont have to invest money trying to build an ecosystem. The real negociation will be over Video on Demand. Apple need to strike deals that split the profits between the ISP and Apple. Apple will provide the VOD ecosystem and manage it. The ISP will distribute it inside there network for reliable streaming without consuming internet bandwith. An ISP could also strike deals with google or Amazon at the same time, different ecosystem and VOD sources, they get there cut on all sides and the consumer gets more choices.
I cannot stress enough that trying to fight the ISP over live TV would be a major mistake.
apple sues samsung for using its rectangle tv.
...
Just give me an A6 Apple TV, Apple. You don't even need to change the terrible interface, just let me play stuff from hard drives connected directly to my AirPort Extreme without a computer ON and iTunes OPEN and I'll be happy.
Considering that the USB port on the current ATV is useless ("For service and support"), this would make me happy. I don't understand how Apple can't tell that people have more content in their libraries than is available on iTunes. At least with music, they openly acknowledge that people want a way to get media from other sources.
From the iTunes page:
Goodbye, CDs. Hello, digital.
Import your CD collection to iTunes, and listen to your music in new and better ways. Just pop a CD into your computer. If you?re online, iTunes automatically finds the album, artist, and song names. You can even choose to download cover art. And just like that, iTunes converts your music to a digital format. So long, CD clutter. Welcome to the digital world.
I don't care if this kills things like Handbrake, but it's unacceptable that in 2012, DVD ripping is still considered taboo. This is especially true when you realize that because ATV 2 is streaming only, you need a consistently fast network connection to do anything. It reminds me of the 1st-Gen MacBook Air (Wireless only and only a 10/100 USB Ethernet dongle), which was hamstrung for this very reason. Why in the world is the Ethernet port not Gigabit?? Again, there's no good excuse for this.
Apple TV Take 2 was fine in terms of hardware but the software wasn't really done. With version 2, it's the opposite problem. It's just depressing to see a company like Apple not be able to figure out how to put the pieces together.
Steve even said as much during ATV 2's introduction:
People don't want a computer, they have computers.
Considering that the USB port on the current ATV is useless ("For service and support"),
It's not supposed to be 'used', so it's not useless. It serves the purpose for which it was designed.
I don't understand how Apple can't tell that people have more content in their libraries than is available on iTunes.
And even if you were to buy everything in iTunes, you'd still need a place to store it. I'm talking not random AVI and MKV files that you've pirated and thrown onto a hard drive, I'm talking about giving access to properly formatted iTunes libraries full of iTunes-supported content that are stored on hard drives connected to your network directly, not inside a computer and NOT with said computer on and iTunes open.
No way would they ever give you a way to look inside randomly placed folder trees. That's nonsense. Just iTunes Libraries over the network, Apple. I'll rip my DVDs, encode them in HandBrake, pop them in iTunes, and add metadata to them myself.
I don't care if this kills things like Handbrake, but it's unacceptable that in 2012, DVD ripping is still considered taboo.
Well, it's illegal, so.
Why in the world is the Ethernet port not Gigabit?? Again, there's no good excuse for this.
To get people to use wireless over wired. That's the reason.
Apple TV Take 2 was fine in terms of hardware but the software wasn't really done.
Yeah, LowTide isn't the best. I sent Tim the diagrams I made up of my take on HighTide, but obviously he can't respond to that.
"People don't want computers connected to or inside their televisions. People already HAVE their computers, and they want them separate from their TVs."
I don't see Siri getting added to their TV.
There won't be a DVD slot or an HDMI port. There will be audio ports, that's all
It won't talk to these boxes, once again you think America is the world. It will circumvent these boxes completely by Apple doing content deals - this is the actual challenge.
I sure hope you're not working on the Apple TV projet...
The problem with live TV is more at the ISP level than on the internet backbone. Once you enter the ISP network, a large amount of stream coming from the net will bring down the network. ISP will have to get in and reduce those stream bit per second the same way they do it with peer to peer transfert. But with live TV that means the live stream will be unwatchable.
An IPTV network is a complex system that is implemented inside the ISP network. The live feeds are broadcast to nodes close to homes using fiber optics. The streaming occurs between those nodes and the houses. This is why its crucial for Apple to strike deals with Cable and AT&T.
The way I see it, Apple will be providing the smart-TV ecosystem, TV's and set-top box. Cable wont have to invest money trying to build an ecosystem. The real negociation will be over Video on Demand. Apple need to strike deals that split the profits between the ISP and Apple. Apple will provide the VOD ecosystem and manage it. The ISP will distribute it inside there network for reliable streaming without consuming internet bandwith. An ISP could also strike deals with google or Amazon at the same time, different ecosystem and VOD sources, they get there cut on all sides and the consumer gets more choices.
I cannot stress enough that trying to fight the ISP over live TV would be a major mistake.
I really appreciate your posts on this topic. Very well informed and thought out. I wish more people would read what you write instead of jumping to unfounded or blind conclusions.
And that's the rub, Content owners are generally petrified of Apple. And what's even scarier for them is that this isn't the same Apple that came at the the music studios in 2002 wanting to do a music store. 2012 Apple is a worldwide goliath that's bigger than any of them. And then there's Netflix. Netflix showed that the streaming model works. The problem is that studios think they can get more money than what Netflix is willing to charge. They think their content is worth more than it probably is. So now while they are trying to kill Netflix without raising the ire of the Justice Department, here comes Apple wanting to do their own content box. Studios see Apple $100b war chest and lick their chops at getting some of it, but Tim Cook is no fool and will not do a deal that doesn't make Apple a pile of money somewhere.
I wish the content companies would realize that getting a few pennies from a lot of people is better than no pennies from no people.
On-demand streaming is the future. People want to watch anything and everything at any moment.
The reason the content companies don't make much from Netflix streaming is because the content isn't that great.
But if they put a brand new release on Netflix streaming... millions and millions of people would watch it that night. That would make them quite a bit of money almost instantly.
Sure, it's not as much money as if you went out and bought the DVD on the night of release... but I don't know anyone who does that anymore. Behaviors have changed.
Renting is the next logical choice... and you see the content companies' attitude on that. They delay the rental release... hoping you'll buy the DVD instead.
I don't. I wait until it's in Redbox or Netflix. My behavior has changed.
I think the content companies and movie studios need to realize that getting even a little bit of money from streaming is better than getting no money because people simply don't wanna drive to the video store anymore.
It's not supposed to be 'used', so it's not useless. It serves the purpose for which it was designed.
My issue with it is that (likely due to studio pressure) it was designed with Apple in mind and not consumers/users. It's as if Apple said the following:
"Here we have what appears to be a USB port, but you (the customer) can't really use it and its entire existence is known only to us."
If this is the case, why have it accessible to the user at all?
I'm talking about giving access to properly formatted iTunes libraries full of iTunes-supported content that are stored on hard drives connected to your network directly, not inside a computer and NOT with said computer on and iTunes open.
As I said before, this is one alternative I would take, but it seems like Apple doesn't really understand how people watch TV or want to use ATV to do so.
No way would they ever give you a way to look inside randomly placed folder trees. That's nonsense. Just iTunes Libraries over the network, Apple. I'll rip my DVDs, encode them in HandBrake, pop them in iTunes, and add metadata to them myself.
This is exactly what I think a lot of people would like to see and the company certainly has the money available to make this part of any deal they sign with content providers. Even if they have to spend $1 billion+ per provider, that's not a huge deal.
To get people to use wireless over wired. That's the reason.
If they can get someone to make an 802.11ac chip that can do Gigabit speeds, this could work.
"People don't want computers connected to or inside their televisions. People already HAVE their computers, and they want them separate from their TVs."
I don't think that adding some form of local storage back in moves it from appliance to computer territory, but my issue is that they flip-flopped on this and made things more complicated.
Apple TV 1 (Take Two) explicitly did not require a computer and had local storage. Apple TV 2 is a simpler device, but assumes that people have a computer turned on in order to access anything on their TV. In it's current form, it's not a standalone device.
I really appreciate your posts on this topic. Very well informed and thought out. I wish more people would read what you write instead of jumping to unfounded or blind conclusions.
Thanks. I work in IT so it kind of give me an hedge over that tech stuff. I have also worked for BCE in Canada. I am currently working for a major Canadian bank on the central clients database systems and on the ATM systems, all on the IBM mainframe.
My issue with it is that (likely due to studio pressure) it was designed with Apple in mind and not consumers/users. It's as if Apple said the following:
"Here we have what appears to be a USB port, but you (the customer) can't really use it and its entire existence is known only to us."
If this is the case, why have it accessible to the user at all?
For RESTORES. Its ONLY purpose is for restores. And the user can do that. You have access to it for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I don't get what's confusing about that.
Apple TV 1 (Take Two) explicitly did not require a computer and had local storage.
I know. I LOVED THAT (never actually had a first-gen, but loved that feature of it). That's the ONLY thing I would have changed about the current model. The first one used 100 watts IDLE. This one uses 6 watts MAX. Apple should make the new one exactly the same size as the old, give it an A6 chip, and have the option of either a 128 or 256GB stick like in the MacBook Air. Since I realize they'd never do that for whatever silly reason, I ask only for a middle ground between the first and second models: access to network storage without a computer being on.
For RESTORES. Its ONLY purpose is for restores. And the user can do that. You have access to it for that purpose and that purpose alone.
I don't get what's confusing about that.
I know. I LOVED THAT (never actually had a first-gen, but loved that feature of it). That's the ONLY thing I would have changed about the current model. The first one used 100 watts IDLE. This one uses 6 watts MAX. Apple should make the new one exactly the same size as the old, give it an A6 chip, and have the option of either a 128 or 256GB stick like in the MacBook Air. Since I realize they'd never do that for whatever silly reason, I ask only for a middle ground between the first and second models: access to network storage without a computer being on.
If it is only to restore it and Apple has shown they want to eliminate wires, why not just extend this to accomplish the same thing? It's slower I know, but it would solve most issues. A real port may still be needed to verify that the device itself is still OK, but some form of Internet based restore would give people fewer reasons to mess around with the port that's there.
If it is only to restore it and Apple has shown they want to eliminate wires, why not just extend this to accomplish the same thing?
The port exists for when your wireless doesn't work on the device or you're not near Wi-Fi? how's that going to help? It's a final solution for when all other forms of restore have failed. That is its only purpose.
Solip- what I'm saying is that an ATV box does not allow for an all inclusive easy to use user interface. I still have to go to my tv, change the input to my apple tv box, then do the same tedious junk when Im switching back to Uverse (or cable).
Its not getting rid of your cable box. Your cable box is integrated and there is no longer a need to switch inputs, or use the cable menu guide. Its all done through ONE interface that apple controls. The interface would control your cable, apple tv, DVR and Blu Ray. That can only happen on an integrated TV. That would be the advantage for an integrated TV over a box.
Now again- if content was revolutionized (which isn't going to happen), then a box would be all you need. But I think IPTV will be the future of the integrated Apple TV. The set top box will still remain a hobby and novelty (although when used in conjunction with the Integrated Apple TV, it can mirror the functionality of the full set)
Read herbapou's post- he hits the nail on the head.
Each of my suggestions addresses this without forcing the consumer to either throw away their current TVs, but from multiple vendors with any combination a consumer may want, update the AppleTV HW ahead of the TV monitor, and allow Apple to make a higher profit for a lower cost item that appeals to more consumers.
Munster is only second to Shaw Wu on folks you don't trust as informed
I think Shaw Wu and Katy Huberty are tied for first.
Apple need to make a deal with AT&T, kick out the Motorola IPTV box, and start building IPTV TV's and IPTV set-top box (still required to support old Tv sets) with full cable/AT&T partnership.
They dont need to fight the studios at all over live TV, they can just roll with it and instead make a deal with the providers for the video on demand services.
That was the old wish for Apple with winning the HEC but Jobs backed in an interview with Mossberg(?) the issue of broadband TV having no consistent network throughout the US. I don't think Jobs addressed the issue of the global market but that is also a major concern that needs to be planned to allow for eventual growth. As great as it would be to have an Apple cable box it always seemed complex.
Why AT&T first? Because of their previous relationship? How many regions does AT&T's U-Verse operate? How many US customers does that cover?
It can see a scenario for Apple to do that and then get customers to essentially force providers to offer Apple's boxes but I'd think deals with larger providers might be advantageous here.
Each of my suggestions addresses this without forcing the consumer to either throw away their current TVs, but from multiple vendors with any combination a consumer may want, update the AppleTV HW ahead of the TV monitor, and allow Apple to make a higher profit for a lower cost item that appeals to more consumers.
Let me break it down by each of your two suggestions.
a standalone box that allows you to connect any dummy TV.
This does not allow you to have a unified user interface between your cable, tv, apple tv, blu ray player, etc. This solution ONLY works if Apple works out a content deal- which 99.99% won't happen. That'd be no different than how the ATV2 works currently.
Apple licensing with TV vendors to allow the many different sizes and types to appeal to a vast range of consumers.
This could happen- sure. But I don't recall Apple being prone to supplying the software and letting someone else sell the hardware. I remember it on one phone, which failed royally, and Apple regretted. Apple will sell the hardware and software combined. So this is more likely than Apple working the content deal, but still very unlikely. I'd love to have a $199 Dell netbook be able to license OSX, but it won't happen.
There are enough rumors that make me think this is happening but I still haven't heard a single reasonable reason why this is better
Just my opinion- so take that with a grain of salt- but Apple does not want to send their software off to let a hardware manufacturer(s) handle it. They want to be in control. I also believe there is no chance they work out a content deal (a la carte, etc.) because- single handedly- of sports (amongst other reasons). I don't think either of your suggestions are reasonable.
So my one single reasonable reason why this is better is.... Connected User Interface. I don't believe Apple TV working within a different hardware TV is reasonable. I also believe without a cable or IPTV deal worked out, that there won't be a good user interface either (meaning- I still have to use my stupid cable/uverse/dish TV guide).
Bottom line- I'm tired of changing inputs between devices. It's annoying. An integrated TV fixes that (and makes it easier to record, search channels, play music, etc.)