There's no explanation for why the TV hardware needs to have apps jammed on it when the apps can be on iDevices.
Maybe the simple fact that streaming apps is pretty idiotic.
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Or how about all the apps that make no sense on a TV screen? Do I really want to mess around with Pages or iPhoto on the TV? Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
For what its worth, i don't want to look at a touch screen remote when my eyes are on the tv. I think we will get the same aluminium remote as we have now, siri for faster searching (instead of keying in text), app store with focus on content providers and gaming. API's for third party game controllers for the more sophisticated gamers. The big opportunity for apple is home gaming. It will end nintendo who will eventually be forced to license their games just like sega and atari.
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
First, that's obviously not the use case I'm describing. Second, the idea of a TV is idiotic, so I'd be talking about the $99 box.
Quote:
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Which is why those are for the Apple TV directly.
Quote:
Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
The rush to "re-imagine" the TV" is sure packin'em in. News out today Intel has it's eyes on that market too, but finding the same problem with existing providers as Apple reportedly has.
"Intel is counting on facial-recognition technology for targeted ads and a team of veteran entertainment dealmakers to win over reluctant media partners for its new virtual television service.
But so far it's proving a challenge to get the service off the ground, thanks to an unwillingness on the part of major media content providers to let Intel unbundle and license specific networks and shows at a discount to what cable and satellite partners pay.
Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, has kept its strategy to launch a slimmed down cable TV service under wraps as the tech giant risks getting into a completely new line of business.
According to five sources who have been negotiating with Intel for months, the company is emphasizing a set-top box employing Intel technology that can distinguish who is watching, potentially allowing Intel to target advertising."
According to five sources who have been negotiating with Intel for months, the company is emphasizing a set-top box employing Intel technology that can distinguish who is watching, potentially allowing Intel to target advertising."
Like that is ever going to get the approval of the TV watching public on privacy issues alone.
Are they on crack? I suppose they will want to listen in to the conversations in the room as well.
First, that's obviously not the use case I'm describing. Second, the idea of a TV is idiotic, so I'd be talking about the $99 box.
Which is why those are for the Apple TV directly.
That's not box-out-of-thinking, you know.
What's the use you're describing then? If not games and streaming media, which I agree with him, are pointless, then what? I've AirPlayed stuff to the ATV and it is pointless. Unless while streaming a game, unless a full-sized game controller appears on the remote screen or something. Or is that not out-of-box enough still?
So if you think the ATV needs some dedicated apps, why not some by 3rd party dev's? Wait there already are some. Vimeo, MLB to name a couple. Surely there are some apps on your iPhone that you DON'T use on your iPad or your MB? Some apps have specific purposes for specific devices and specific situations.
First, a "motion detection" interface? How freakin' annoying would that be? For most people, pressing a remote button and trying to connect the IR to its source Is already enough movement for watching TV. .....
I'm guessing that Apple would be using something more like the upcoming "Leap" rather than a Kinect. The Leap can track the twitching of your fingers -- that means keytyping in midair.
I would also imagine that random motions wouldn't be setting it off all the time -- you'd have one discreet 'get attention' motion, and then the rest would be guided.
>> Personally, I'd love to get rid of the remote as tracking down the three remotes the average TV watcher has makes going back to onscreen buttons seem attractive.
I'm guessing that Apple would be using something more like the upcoming "Leap" rather than a Kinect. The Leap can track the twitching of your fingers -- that means keytyping in midair.
I would also imagine that random motions wouldn't be setting it off all the time -- you'd have one discreet 'get attention' motion, and then the rest would be guided.
>> Personally, I'd love to get rid of the remote as tracking down the three remotes the average TV watcher has makes going back to onscreen buttons seem attractive.
Yeah it looks cool in "Minority Report" but the keys were Holographicly projected in mid air, and that's Hollywood. Just not plausible to keystroke or any kind of virtual button pushing without some visual reference. Personally, that kind of tech is at least a decade off if not more and it doesn't seem like it could work in practice. Maybe on paper or the "silver screen" it looks fantastic.
I dare you to try and type a coherent sentence on your iDevice with our eyes closed. And in the same speed as normal.
Maybe multi-touch gestures on a touch pad...there has to be a better reason for the Magic Trackpad other than an accessory pointing device for your Mac.
Maybe the simple fact that streaming apps is pretty idiotic.
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Or how about all the apps that make no sense on a TV screen? Do I really want to mess around with Pages or iPhoto on the TV? Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
Apps live in the box attached to the TV. Attached via internal wires (built in), external wires (HDMI) or Airplay makes no real difference.
Where it matters is when the box becomes obsolete. There's the iMac model where you pitch the whole thing and buy a new one. And there's the current aTV one where you throw out the little box.
Replacing a computer every two-three years seems to make sense. The primary cost is the computer itself...even in the case of the iMac if you factor out the cost of the equivalent Mini.
For a TV? The replacement cycle equation seems all wrong to me.
So I can see a Home Theater in a Box Apple Television that connects via Airplay to an Apple branded TV or a regular HDTV with a $99 aTV box.
Or I can see a iOS based Home Server that also serves the role as the local hub for content currently filled by many Minis.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There's no explanation for why the TV hardware needs to have apps jammed on it when the apps can be on iDevices.
Maybe the simple fact that streaming apps is pretty idiotic.
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Or how about all the apps that make no sense on a TV screen? Do I really want to mess around with Pages or iPhoto on the TV? Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
First, that's obviously not the use case I'm describing. Second, the idea of a TV is idiotic, so I'd be talking about the $99 box.
Quote:
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Which is why those are for the Apple TV directly.
Quote:
Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
That's not box-out-of-thinking, you know.
The rush to "re-imagine" the TV" is sure packin'em in. News out today Intel has it's eyes on that market too, but finding the same problem with existing providers as Apple reportedly has.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/08/us-intel-tv-idUSBRE85706Q20120608
"Intel is counting on facial-recognition technology for targeted ads and a team of veteran entertainment dealmakers to win over reluctant media partners for its new virtual television service.
But so far it's proving a challenge to get the service off the ground, thanks to an unwillingness on the part of major media content providers to let Intel unbundle and license specific networks and shows at a discount to what cable and satellite partners pay.
Intel, the world's largest chipmaker, has kept its strategy to launch a slimmed down cable TV service under wraps as the tech giant risks getting into a completely new line of business.
According to five sources who have been negotiating with Intel for months, the company is emphasizing a set-top box employing Intel technology that can distinguish who is watching, potentially allowing Intel to target advertising."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
According to five sources who have been negotiating with Intel for months, the company is emphasizing a set-top box employing Intel technology that can distinguish who is watching, potentially allowing Intel to target advertising."
Like that is ever going to get the approval of the TV watching public on privacy issues alone.
Are they on crack? I suppose they will want to listen in to the conversations in the room as well.
What's the use you're describing then? If not games and streaming media, which I agree with him, are pointless, then what? I've AirPlayed stuff to the ATV and it is pointless. Unless while streaming a game, unless a full-sized game controller appears on the remote screen or something. Or is that not out-of-box enough still?
So if you think the ATV needs some dedicated apps, why not some by 3rd party dev's? Wait there already are some. Vimeo, MLB to name a couple. Surely there are some apps on your iPhone that you DON'T use on your iPad or your MB? Some apps have specific purposes for specific devices and specific situations.
Which goes back to my post #41
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Forgive me when I say, bull-shite!
I truly hope I eat my words...but really?!?!?
First, a "motion detection" interface? How freakin' annoying would that be? For most people, pressing a remote button and trying to connect the IR to its source Is already enough movement for watching TV. .....
I'm guessing that Apple would be using something more like the upcoming "Leap" rather than a Kinect. The Leap can track the twitching of your fingers -- that means keytyping in midair.
I would also imagine that random motions wouldn't be setting it off all the time -- you'd have one discreet 'get attention' motion, and then the rest would be guided.
>> Personally, I'd love to get rid of the remote as tracking down the three remotes the average TV watcher has makes going back to onscreen buttons seem attractive.
Yeah it looks cool in "Minority Report" but the keys were Holographicly projected in mid air, and that's Hollywood. Just not plausible to keystroke or any kind of virtual button pushing without some visual reference. Personally, that kind of tech is at least a decade off if not more and it doesn't seem like it could work in practice. Maybe on paper or the "silver screen" it looks fantastic.
I dare you to try and type a coherent sentence on your iDevice with our eyes closed. And in the same speed as normal.
Maybe multi-touch gestures on a touch pad...there has to be a better reason for the Magic Trackpad other than an accessory pointing device for your Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Maybe the simple fact that streaming apps is pretty idiotic.
Imagine the scenario: I want to check tomorrow's weather on my beautiful new Apple TV. I reach over, grab my iPhone and fire up the Weather App. Hey look, it says it's going to rain tomorrow. I move to push the button to Airplay it over to the Apple TV. Then it occurs to me, why would I bother when I already know they're calling for rain? Now why did I buy this overpriced TV again?
Video apps are even more idiotic. Stream the video to your iOS device. Hit Airplay and now double stream it, first from the web to the device and now from the device to the TV. Yes, that makes sense.
Or how about all the apps that make no sense on a TV screen? Do I really want to mess around with Pages or iPhoto on the TV? Or playing touch based games. Yay, it's up on the big screen, but I'm still staring at the small screen to have any hope of playing!
Apps live in the box attached to the TV. Attached via internal wires (built in), external wires (HDMI) or Airplay makes no real difference.
Where it matters is when the box becomes obsolete. There's the iMac model where you pitch the whole thing and buy a new one. And there's the current aTV one where you throw out the little box.
Replacing a computer every two-three years seems to make sense. The primary cost is the computer itself...even in the case of the iMac if you factor out the cost of the equivalent Mini.
For a TV? The replacement cycle equation seems all wrong to me.
So I can see a Home Theater in a Box Apple Television that connects via Airplay to an Apple branded TV or a regular HDTV with a $99 aTV box.
Or I can see a iOS based Home Server that also serves the role as the local hub for content currently filled by many Minis.
These make more sense than a "smart" TV.