But people can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. It doesn't matter how big the TV is, and even larger qualities are useless, so that can't be it.
Or so I'm told.
I'm saying nowhere that a revamped UI will be the big draw. It's important, more so than what you've said, but less than the real reason to bother with reinventing the concept of television.
I'm talking about the switch from SD to HD.
You are comparing HD to HD.
720P is regarded as "HD". 1080 is "full HD". Does that mean 720 is "half HD"?
Picture quality is THE most important reason people changed to HD instead of SD television. No one could care less about UI. It's a consumption device. You sit and wait and let the content feed your brain. There is hardly any interaction. Of course TV makers think otherwise in order for them to jack up prices so they can puff up their profit margins. Making all sorts of marketing jargons and scenarios where you NEED to purchase a "smart TV". I'd say its total BS.
You can already buy voice and motion controlled smart TVs today from some very well respected TV manufacturers. It will be interesting to see how Apple differentiates their Apple TV offering. It's not like the iPhone or iPad were there wasn't any real competition because Apple was ahead of the curve, unless of course they come up with something totally ground breaking.
It's easy to say in hindsight that the iPhone didnt have any competition. The iPad I'd agree was pretty obvious.
The anology for the Apple smart TV hopefully is exactly the one you provide .... the iPhone. When it was released the market thought there already was a smart phone category, after iPhone that junk was relegated to joke status. Assuming there is such a thing coming, Apple's smart TV will be as differentiated from so called current smart TVs as an iPhone was from a Moto flip phone, of that I am certain.
As many others have mentioned, why make the whole screen when the main component of differentiation is the software which fits in a small black box. The only way Apple is going to improve the user experience in television is to partner with the cable companies just like they are doing with the textbook publishers and iBooks Author. They need to redesign the cable box and make an attractive offer to the cable providers to opt in. Otherwise they will be blocked because the cable/telco companies own the fiber in the street.
I always thought the reason Google paid so much for Motorola was because they would get a foot in the door with the set top box industry. Again the hardware is easy, it is the software and the partnerships that take a lot of work.
The way I see it is that Apple realizes the big cable providers will not be able to hold on forever... just like the music companies when MP3 started getting popular. No matter how hard the providers want to fight it, a BIG change is coming! I would say in the next 5 years things are going to be very different. So if Apple can get in on the ground floor, or build it, they will in a heartbeat.
The major problem isn't necessarily the "Smart TV" interfaces or the apps on them (even though they are terrible), it is the standard cable box and it's ancient interface. If Apple figures out how to integrate the cable box with the guide into the TV in an elegant way and also bring the App Store on board, they would instantly have something that no major player has been able to do yet. If that happens, I will drop my 5 year old Bravia in a heartbeat.
In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.
What does the consumer want? They want to ala carte a bunch of movies and TV series into 'MyPersonalMediaChannels' (MyTV is tmed by someone). What is that... Sort of like the new PodCast plus Genius ("You like 'BreakingBad and Kill Bill Pt3? you may like....")
It's less about the TV, and more about the content bundling. an iOS device (or a new Mac App to replace iTunes) to manage it, the cloud to capture and deliver it, and the appleID account to pay for it. at $1.99-$3.99 per hour. (with Movies being 8-10/hour...and cable running $80/month ($1/hour?), this is a pretty good in the ball park pricing.
The kicker is 'Live TV' People want to watch it at moment of delivery and/or DVR it.... How does Apple do that? (an antenna connection to an AppleTV box with Channel management DVR capabilities?)
Bottom line... It's all about the content. If Apple can get Disney (best friend in the business) to swing a deal, then the others may follow... But in the end, it's all about cutting out either Cable providers and/or networks. If Apple can do to video media what they did to music, the whole world will be set on it's ear.
How would it get delivered? Most OTA frequencies are taken. The old frequencies are now being used to transmit LTE.
You can't name a manufacturer in your quote. As I stated earlier... I don't think the TV will be the differentiator. It will be how you get media to the TV.
At the time of the iPod they said that it was 'lame' (/. CmdrTaco), in that the market had 'better' solutions available.
At the time of iTMS, people said no one would buy music that was DRMed.
At the time of the iPhone, there was Nokia, Microsoft, Palm, and RIM all stating that Apple couldn't sell a smart phone.
At the time of the iPad, HP, Microsoft, RIM were were stating that Apple couldn't sell a 'tablet' (and they didn't).
Almost every time... it wasn't so much 'groundbreaking' as it was a 'compelling experience for the common person.' My 80yo mother can use a Mac, her iPod, and her iPad. She learned all of this after the age of 65. Before then, she was scared of PCs, using an electric typewriter. I don't support her anymore... my 12yo nephew is her tech support for her iPad and Mac.
My parents don't have cable... why... too many channels. But they watch their news on their iPad. I see the 'touch with finger and get' interface of the iPad making their TV life much easier. It's balancing Boxee/NetFlix/Roku/SlingBox/ITMS together with the ability to DVR 'local/live' stuff. Seems like a no brainer for a TV with a couple of processors and a Antenna, knowledge of your connection (Cable plan, and OTA channels), a bit of intelligence to find when shows 'start', and a couple of GB of local storage for local live, and cloud storage for 'national-live' and agreements for content for the rest.
Samsung ain't gonna do that. Nor is LG, or Sony. Because they don't _care_ about end to end experience.
You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.
720P is regarded as "HD". 1080 is "full HD". Does that mean 720 is "half HD"?
Picture quality is THE most important reason people changed to HD instead of SD television. No one could care less about UI. It's a consumption device. You sit and wait and let the content feed your brain. There is hardly any interaction. Of course TV makers think otherwise in order for them to jack up prices so they can puff up their profit margins. Making all sorts of marketing jargons and scenarios where you NEED to purchase a "smart TV". I'd say its total BS.
I suspect when you see Apple's concept, it will be easier to see what the fuss is about. Until then everyone is using metaphors and analogies that simply won't apply. For example you are assuming it is primarily for watching TV Shows. That will obviously be one thing but there will be far more uses, hence a simple, intuitive control system will be essential.
If you want a stab at trying to demonstrate this, the new Nest thermostat does many absolutely amazing things yet has minimal controls. Two years ago all so called intelligent thermostats we removed from the Energy Star system because they used more energy ... Why? Because the vast majority of people simply could fathom out how to program them and incorrectly programmed they are worse than an old fashioned manual knob. Adding tons of features with old historically accepted control paradigms makes things unusable. Apple I hope will do to the big screen what Nest did to thermostats.
Right, because after the advent of the interactive menu system on newer TV's, people jumped into the HDTV realm.
I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this one.
People switched in mass to HDTV due to PICTURE QUALITY improvement.
That was and is there biggest reason (followed by picture size) in changing their television.
The only people willing to make the switch will be those who are four legged, white furs used for textiles industry and make the sound "meeh" over and over again.
Regarding, AI's misleading title, the only major television manufacturer who formed this "alliance" was LG.
The title should read, LG forms TV alliance, not "TV makers" with a plural.
LG and Philips. Takes 2 to form an alliance. TP/Phillips is real player.
I really think AppleTV boxes ($99) will be the driver. An TV with a built in AppleTV unit (bluetooth/WifI/infrared), would be less than $100 delta to construct. The issue would be would Apple build one at 40" that could be sold for <$600US? Dunno. But if you know you're getting .30 on the dollar for the next 8 years for say $10/week. (12/month...1000 over 8 years), then you can build it on the same financial rationalle as the Kindle.
I don't think any TV alliance can compete with that.
In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.
Do you seriously think Apple is going to bring you daytime tv drama, talk shows, local news, real time sports, emergency alert messages, stock market data, etc. etc.
Smart TV = Watching what you want, when you want, where you want on what you want to watch it on. No arcane and outdated restrictions and rules keeping you from doing that. When that day comes then everyone who has Internet will have Smart TV. Apple does not need to reinvent any hardware.
You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
Not really, today I have Apple TV maybe in the future I will have an Apple TV.
a DSLR with a useful range of lenses appealing to the advanced amateur / semi-pro user.
Apple is unlikely to come out with a new product line unless they can target pretty much everybody as a potential buyer. I suspect that there are not enough amateur/semi-pro users to justify that as a new product line. Not only that, but the market is well served now by Nikon and Canon. Apple is only going to enter a new market with something new.
You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.
If you're looking at Hardware and interface... you're looking at the wrong thing.
It all boils down to linking
- Local/Live Content
- ITMS for vid content (to deliver 'network' and 'national/international live' content)
- and a cloud based media collection (nTier DVR).
The TV isn't the issue... the menu isn't the issue. It's the content delivery system coupled with the 'deals' to make it 'one source', and the User experience to set up 'MyTV'
iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod or iTunes... it succeeded because of the content deals.
Samsung and Panasonic and LG and Sony aren't doing that.
Picture quality is THE most important reason people changed to HD instead of SD television. No one could care less about UI. It's a consumption device. You sit and wait and let the content feed your brain. There is hardly any interaction. Of course TV makers think otherwise in order for them to jack up prices so they can puff up their profit margins. Making all sorts of marketing jargons and scenarios where you NEED to purchase a "smart TV". I'd say its total BS.
I disagree. I don't think I'm atypical and I can't really tell the difference between 720 and 1080 HD at the distances I normally view TV (perhaps 9-10 feet for a 55" set). I can tell the difference between BluRay and DVD, but only if I'm specifically looking for it. As soon as the movie starts, it no longer matters - either one is sufficient to not interfere with the movie. When people had B/W TVs, color was such an improvement that they jumped. When people were using VHS, DVD was a big enough improvement to spur a change. HD was a big enough improvement over SD to cause rapid acceptance. Now that we're at 1080HD and BR, any further improvements in picture quality will be pretty marginal.
Yes, a tiny number of people may be interested in something better than BR, but those are the people buying $100 audio cables and $25,000 speaker systems. That's not the market Apple would be interested in. So improving picture quality over BR/1080 isn't likely to be part of the story. If there is an Apple TV, the selling feature will be either usability or content - or both.
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
and you say that because you think AppleTV and an AppleTV will be two totally different things? Personally, I think Apple will merge the two with a new iOS skin. The major difference will be that old AppleTV STBoxes won't have a antenna/cable port, whereas new ones will.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But people can't see the difference between 720 and 1080. It doesn't matter how big the TV is, and even larger qualities are useless, so that can't be it.
Or so I'm told.
I'm saying nowhere that a revamped UI will be the big draw. It's important, more so than what you've said, but less than the real reason to bother with reinventing the concept of television.
I'm talking about the switch from SD to HD.
You are comparing HD to HD.
720P is regarded as "HD". 1080 is "full HD". Does that mean 720 is "half HD"?
Picture quality is THE most important reason people changed to HD instead of SD television. No one could care less about UI. It's a consumption device. You sit and wait and let the content feed your brain. There is hardly any interaction. Of course TV makers think otherwise in order for them to jack up prices so they can puff up their profit margins. Making all sorts of marketing jargons and scenarios where you NEED to purchase a "smart TV". I'd say its total BS.
It's easy to say in hindsight that the iPhone didnt have any competition. The iPad I'd agree was pretty obvious.
The anology for the Apple smart TV hopefully is exactly the one you provide .... the iPhone. When it was released the market thought there already was a smart phone category, after iPhone that junk was relegated to joke status. Assuming there is such a thing coming, Apple's smart TV will be as differentiated from so called current smart TVs as an iPhone was from a Moto flip phone, of that I am certain.
As many others have mentioned, why make the whole screen when the main component of differentiation is the software which fits in a small black box. The only way Apple is going to improve the user experience in television is to partner with the cable companies just like they are doing with the textbook publishers and iBooks Author. They need to redesign the cable box and make an attractive offer to the cable providers to opt in. Otherwise they will be blocked because the cable/telco companies own the fiber in the street.
I always thought the reason Google paid so much for Motorola was because they would get a foot in the door with the set top box industry. Again the hardware is easy, it is the software and the partnerships that take a lot of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Those are the two least important aspects of any change to television.
Don't follow that. When I'm looking for a new TV the two things I look for are picture quality and set design. Everything else is less important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
I'm talking about the switch from SD to HD.
You are comparing HD to HD.
Your implication is that what I'm saying is any different from what you're saying. I fail to see how.
No one could care less about UI.
Thanks for continuing to talk about something about which I'm not talking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MojoRisinSD
The way I see it is that Apple realizes the big cable providers will not be able to hold on forever... just like the music companies when MP3 started getting popular. No matter how hard the providers want to fight it, a BIG change is coming! I would say in the next 5 years things are going to be very different. So if Apple can get in on the ground floor, or build it, they will in a heartbeat.
The major problem isn't necessarily the "Smart TV" interfaces or the apps on them (even though they are terrible), it is the standard cable box and it's ancient interface. If Apple figures out how to integrate the cable box with the guide into the TV in an elegant way and also bring the App Store on board, they would instantly have something that no major player has been able to do yet. If that happens, I will drop my 5 year old Bravia in a heartbeat.
In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.
How would it get delivered? Most OTA frequencies are taken. The old frequencies are now being used to transmit LTE.
And those are 2 things that Apple can't change much if at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
You can't name a manufacturer in your quote. As I stated earlier... I don't think the TV will be the differentiator. It will be how you get media to the TV.
At the time of the iPod they said that it was 'lame' (/. CmdrTaco), in that the market had 'better' solutions available.
At the time of iTMS, people said no one would buy music that was DRMed.
At the time of the iPhone, there was Nokia, Microsoft, Palm, and RIM all stating that Apple couldn't sell a smart phone.
At the time of the iPad, HP, Microsoft, RIM were were stating that Apple couldn't sell a 'tablet' (and they didn't).
Almost every time... it wasn't so much 'groundbreaking' as it was a 'compelling experience for the common person.' My 80yo mother can use a Mac, her iPod, and her iPad. She learned all of this after the age of 65. Before then, she was scared of PCs, using an electric typewriter. I don't support her anymore... my 12yo nephew is her tech support for her iPad and Mac.
My parents don't have cable... why... too many channels. But they watch their news on their iPad. I see the 'touch with finger and get' interface of the iPad making their TV life much easier. It's balancing Boxee/NetFlix/Roku/SlingBox/ITMS together with the ability to DVR 'local/live' stuff. Seems like a no brainer for a TV with a couple of processors and a Antenna, knowledge of your connection (Cable plan, and OTA channels), a bit of intelligence to find when shows 'start', and a couple of GB of local storage for local live, and cloud storage for 'national-live' and agreements for content for the rest.
Samsung ain't gonna do that. Nor is LG, or Sony. Because they don't _care_ about end to end experience.
You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.
I suspect when you see Apple's concept, it will be easier to see what the fuss is about. Until then everyone is using metaphors and analogies that simply won't apply. For example you are assuming it is primarily for watching TV Shows. That will obviously be one thing but there will be far more uses, hence a simple, intuitive control system will be essential.
If you want a stab at trying to demonstrate this, the new Nest thermostat does many absolutely amazing things yet has minimal controls. Two years ago all so called intelligent thermostats we removed from the Energy Star system because they used more energy ... Why? Because the vast majority of people simply could fathom out how to program them and incorrectly programmed they are worse than an old fashioned manual knob. Adding tons of features with old historically accepted control paradigms makes things unusable. Apple I hope will do to the big screen what Nest did to thermostats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Right, because after the advent of the interactive menu system on newer TV's, people jumped into the HDTV realm.
I'm sorry to say that you are wrong on this one.
People switched in mass to HDTV due to PICTURE QUALITY improvement.
That was and is there biggest reason (followed by picture size) in changing their television.
The only people willing to make the switch will be those who are four legged, white furs used for textiles industry and make the sound "meeh" over and over again.
Regarding, AI's misleading title, the only major television manufacturer who formed this "alliance" was LG.
The title should read, LG forms TV alliance, not "TV makers" with a plural.
LG and Philips. Takes 2 to form an alliance. TP/Phillips is real player.
I really think AppleTV boxes ($99) will be the driver. An TV with a built in AppleTV unit (bluetooth/WifI/infrared), would be less than $100 delta to construct. The issue would be would Apple build one at 40" that could be sold for <$600US? Dunno. But if you know you're getting .30 on the dollar for the next 8 years for say $10/week. (12/month...1000 over 8 years), then you can build it on the same financial rationalle as the Kindle.
I don't think any TV alliance can compete with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualie
In my view the last thing Apple should waste time on is cable boxes and interfacing with them. Cable TV is fast becoming a lame duck as people dump it because of high cost, bundling of content, the sad-sack cable boxen and their horrible user interfaces.
Do you seriously think Apple is going to bring you daytime tv drama, talk shows, local news, real time sports, emergency alert messages, stock market data, etc. etc.
No. Apple brings you reruns, that's it.
Smart TV = Watching what you want, when you want, where you want on what you want to watch it on. No arcane and outdated restrictions and rules keeping you from doing that. When that day comes then everyone who has Internet will have Smart TV. Apple does not need to reinvent any hardware.
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
Not really, today I have Apple TV maybe in the future I will have an Apple TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat
a DSLR with a useful range of lenses appealing to the advanced amateur / semi-pro user.
Apple is unlikely to come out with a new product line unless they can target pretty much everybody as a potential buyer. I suspect that there are not enough amateur/semi-pro users to justify that as a new product line. Not only that, but the market is well served now by Nikon and Canon. Apple is only going to enter a new market with something new.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
You haven't explained how will the Apple TV be radically different from the current Smart TVs from Samsung, Panasonic, LG and Sony? When I look at the current AppleTV the interface and features aren't that different from the others.
If you're looking at Hardware and interface... you're looking at the wrong thing.
It all boils down to linking
- Local/Live Content
- ITMS for vid content (to deliver 'network' and 'national/international live' content)
- and a cloud based media collection (nTier DVR).
The TV isn't the issue... the menu isn't the issue. It's the content delivery system coupled with the 'deals' to make it 'one source', and the User experience to set up 'MyTV'
iPod didn't succeed because of the iPod or iTunes... it succeeded because of the content deals.
Samsung and Panasonic and LG and Sony aren't doing that.
No, that would be 0.667 HD.
I disagree. I don't think I'm atypical and I can't really tell the difference between 720 and 1080 HD at the distances I normally view TV (perhaps 9-10 feet for a 55" set). I can tell the difference between BluRay and DVD, but only if I'm specifically looking for it. As soon as the movie starts, it no longer matters - either one is sufficient to not interfere with the movie. When people had B/W TVs, color was such an improvement that they jumped. When people were using VHS, DVD was a big enough improvement to spur a change. HD was a big enough improvement over SD to cause rapid acceptance. Now that we're at 1080HD and BR, any further improvements in picture quality will be pretty marginal.
Yes, a tiny number of people may be interested in something better than BR, but those are the people buying $100 audio cables and $25,000 speaker systems. That's not the market Apple would be interested in. So improving picture quality over BR/1080 isn't likely to be part of the story. If there is an Apple TV, the selling feature will be either usability or content - or both.
No, monopolies and conspiracies are OK unless Apple is involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
This thread isn't about the Apple TV. That is a different product. Although the nomenclature is going to be confusing to those not familiar with Apple's products!
and you say that because you think AppleTV and an AppleTV will be two totally different things? Personally, I think Apple will merge the two with a new iOS skin. The major difference will be that old AppleTV STBoxes won't have a antenna/cable port, whereas new ones will.