That's my thinking - an 'Apple TV' box will do almost everything that you can do by integrating it. The only exception would be if they decide to put a BR player in the TV. I could be wrong, though.
What I really think they should do is license iOS for televisions with strict quality standards. They could bury Google TV overnight.
maybe. but since we have aapletv, haven't watch an hour of normal cableTv, except some liver sport event. And think iTV will be much more capable than the small box
and when you had a dumb phone was the same true? you had 10 digits and 2 symbols...
If your TV had say an 'weather app' would you watch the news for that?
How do you access your DVR? Your DVD? Your NetFlix? or literally do you have 15 channels and that's it? How do you know what your favorites are? How do you figure out how to watch your show when it goes into syndication...
I strongly doubt you press one button to nav your entire viewing life.
What if your phone and your TV could 'interchange' automatically? When you walk into your room, and could just 'turn your TV on and continue interacting' would you do it? Or tell Siri on your phone to 'Turn on the TV and let's watch MadMen' and it just happened?
What if your TV had FaceTime?
I dont care much for the news on my TV anymore, there's a DVR button on the remote and the UI is pretty straightforward, DVD is built in my PS3, Netflix built into the TV. HBO, AMC, all the sports channels, YES, PBS, Spike, A&E, Criminal Investigation, Spike, Starz, and a few others are where i do 95% of my TV watching. I dont care for FaceTime on a TV. Siri on a TV would be great but not enough.
There is not enough value to be added to the idiot box to allow Apple to sell TVs and the steep margins they demand. If Apple really does come out with a television set, it will probably be one of their few missteps over the past few years. That speaker they made for a while is the last blunder I recall. Interesting, another piece of entertainment hardware.
And the iPad is just an overgrown iPod Touch. And the iPhone isn't necessary and won't succeed because smartphones already do everything people want. And the iPod is just another mp3 player. And...
I glad Apple is run by people who are always so wrong.
The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is the TV.
Absolutely, but I'll make one change to what you said:
Quote:
The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is television.
It's subtle, but I think you can see where I'm going with it.
There are other things that could really use this treatment but mostly outside of Apple's strengths. The automobile is a perfect example.
Know what I want to see? I want to see Tesla go to Apple and say, "Make our batteries." I'm planning to get a Tesla myself, but imagine one with Apple battery tech behind it.
We're talking 500 miles per charge (MPC) for cheaper than everyone else's 200 MPC vehicles.
And Tesla is doing just about everything else with vehicles that needs done, not just the means of fueling. I respect them greatly for that.
There are so many places for television to go that I don't know that it will ever be done. Microsoft is working on interactive linear television using the Kinect, where you can choose to take part (or not take part) in an episode of Sesame Street. What if you could play along with game shows? What if you could vote on American Idol? No one has done anything with the signal going back the other way. We have video conferencing on TVs, but no one has really popularized it yet. There is far more to the television than just improving the picture quality. Then there's all the voice command and logic stuff that people have been guessing at. The "play the latest episode of game of thrones" stuff. That's much better than searching through your TIVO or finding a channel. Maybe you can just say "I want to watch stuff about cars" and the tv can pull in a playlist made up of TV shows, movies, and youtube videos. Sony just bought an OnLive competitor, so TVs can have a game system that is played on some distant server and beamed back... so you always have the latest and greatest games on your TV. No one has great glasses-free TV yet. No one has done holograms yet. To say Apple has nothing to add to this conversation is short sighted.
The day all this comes to pass is the day I move to a remote island in the Pacific.
So, what, when all these stupid rumors don't come true, where is there left to move? "Apple is making a game console"? I guess they could always go back to that one. What else do consumers buy? What do they generically "like"? I guess Apple could be getting back into speaker systems. Or microwaves.
And if they are true will you shut up for a while?
After nearly 30 years of using Macs, I know quite a bit about Apple's DNA. I also know that statements from Jobs are situation dependent and subject to change.
BluRay on an Apple computer isn't likely. The arguments that Jobs gave involved licensing and security. The fundamental problem is that with a computer, it's too easy to rip the BluRay content to disk and then distribute it illegally - which complicates the CRM and licensing. If Apple were to make a TV (not that I consider it likely), those problems wouldn't exist. The licensing would be exactly the same as any other BR player pays to the consortium. None of the problems of BR on computers would exist.
Licensing? Obviously, Jobs was opposed to it.That doesn't mean that Apple can't ever do it. What was the problem with licensing the first time around? Apple basically set up competitors who undercut Apple's products. Other than that, it worked reasonably well. PCC tended to have systems that had better performance than Apple systems at a lower price. Motorola had some nice low end systems. But all of them took business away from Apple - which wasn't a good thing. OTOH, if Apple licensed the OS for a TV, it would have no impact on Apple's business (it would actually be synergistic as it might encourage people to buy more Macs, iPads, etc). And since a TV does fewer things than a computer, it would be simpler to manage.
I don't see anything in Apple's DNA that makes either of those things impossible.
It's all about merging
- the DVD player
- the OTA Antenna
- the cable connection (and delivered channels)
- the DVR for 'Local/Live' content (OTA/LocalCableAccess)
- Internet based media (netflix, iTMS, etc)
- Cloud based DVR and 'live delivery' of premade content (why should 1000's of people DVR Breaking Bad, when one Content Deal with the production company would do it)
- Cloud based 'network/Live[or DVR]' (Internet delivery of paywalled cable content... boxing, MLB, NHL, NFL network).
into an interface a 10 year old and a 65 year old can instantly grok ('touch - All Shows or On Now'....touch 'breaking bad' 'touch play last show' or 'add to one of your 'channels' [On Now gives you the selection of all 'live' media you currently have available to you, presented in a scrollable interface on you iOS device or onscreen]
The 'magic sauce' is all the content deals, and the revenue pass through (pay per view... through AppleID... I for one would pay $$ for Breaking Bad, but I'm not paying Comcast $55/month for the privilege, plus the DVR costs... I'll pay $1.99 at 720P internet delivered for it though).
I'm skeptical of the whole idea, but if it happens, that's exactly the kind of thing that Apple would bring to the table. Better image quality is a waste of time - very few people would see any advantage over BR/1080p. Apple's value would all be in the UI and content. That's similar to their methodology in the other markets they're in - they don't usually shoot for the highest specs (retina display is one of the few exceptions), but choose good specs which are applied in a way that no one else can match.
I know you don't believe they are making a TV, but I think you are perhaps using an incorrect analysis to come to that conclusion. I don't see that the choice of entering one market or another is about what consumers "generically like" for Apple. It's always about what market or product is so f*cked up and complicated that it could benefit from a complete re-think and simplification.
The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is the TV.
There are other things that could really use this treatment but mostly outside of Apple's strengths. The automobile is a perfect example.
I wouldn't mind if Apple made an audio deck for cars that utilized iOS and Siri. The one I have in my car right now is a nightmare from a UI perspective. And when I had it installed at Best Buy the install guy told me they sell and install a ton of these things.
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.
As a mainly Nikon user (professionally) for around 40 years I have to agree with you... just wanted to allow myself a little wishful thinking on a Friday evening whilst NCIS LA is repeating itself on French TV. I do sometimes wonder, though, whether Ives has such a prototype locked away in his toy cupboard/bunker ;~)
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.
Fair enough but there is no reason to assume the merged product will have any resemblance to the current iteration, it could but it might not. There did I cover myself well enough? /smile
Largely oblivious to tight-lipped Apple's precise plans for shaking up the Smart TV segment, these alliance-forming TV makers are reportedly banking on features for their own designs that will resemble those available from Samsung's industry-leading set designs.
Oblivious? Wrong word.
oblivious |??bliv??s|
adjective
not aware of or not concerned about what is happening around one: she became absorbed, oblivious to the passage of time | the women were oblivious of his presence.
Try ignorant.
ignorant |?ign?r?nt|
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated: he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid.
(Definitions courtesy Oxford American Dictionaries, appearing on OS X Dashboard)
Absolutely, but I'll make one change to what you said:
It's subtle, but I think you can see where I'm going with it.
Know what I want to see? I want to see Tesla go to Apple and say, "Make our batteries." I'm planning to get a Tesla myself, but imagine one with Apple battery tech behind it.
We're talking 500 miles per charge (MPC) for cheaper than everyone else's 200 MPC vehicles.
And Tesla is doing just about everything else with vehicles that needs done, not just the means of fueling. I respect them greatly for that.
Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years, you dial a number and you can talk to another person. The iPhones popularity has nothing to do with the actual phone part, it's the iPod, the usability of the device by apps. That's what no one saw not even SJ himself. A TV has to be a TV, what can Apple add that's not in one way or another already on there? Can't improve on picture quality nor make a new form factor. A simpler UI is not the answer.
Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years, you dial a number and you can talk to another person.
Yes, they did, in that the features therein were greatly simplified, changing the way people perform the actual actions. This, as a side note, was supplemented by simplifications to the UI. Of course, that comes back to bite me (or so they'll say) when referring to the below, which I wrote prior to this…
Quote:
A TV has to be a TV, what can Apple add that's not in one way or another already on there?
Why is everyone still talking about the UI? I'm not talking about the UI. I don't care about the UI insofar as it's secondary to the actual reimagining.
Yes, they did, in that the features therein were greatly simplified, changing the way people perform the actual actions. This, as a side note, was supplemented by simplifications to the UI. Of course, that comes back to bite me (or so they'll say) when referring to the below, which I wrote prior to this…
Why is everyone still talking about the UI? I'm not talking about the UI. I don't care about the UI insofar as it's secondary to the actual reimagining.
Having to open the phone app is easier than punching numbers on a already available keypad? Can't see how that was made simpler.
Anyone who's endured the absurdity of helping an elderly person set up a television system in the last 25 years can only smile at the thought of the various companies involved soiling themselves in terror that a competitor might offer an elegant alternative. Given the lunatic plethora of interfaces and devouring cable octopi they've been smugly inflicted upon the general populace for decades, the irony of them all filling their pants with precisely what they've been selling is nothing less than magnificent.
Any person or groups of persons who make anything crowing "I can sell this!" rather than asking "Will this make the world a better place?" deserves no sympathy. For decades, TVs have been as overpriced, wasteful, stupid, irritating, and ugly as the content they deliver. If their creators now find themselves in the position of of American auto manufacturers 50 years ago (i.e., "Ohmigod, we've made a fortune selling unreliable gas-guzzling junk to idiots and now someone's is offering them a superior alternative!"), well… good.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's my thinking - an 'Apple TV' box will do almost everything that you can do by integrating it. The only exception would be if they decide to put a BR player in the TV. I could be wrong, though.
What I really think they should do is license iOS for televisions with strict quality standards. They could bury Google TV overnight.
BluRay in a Apple product HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
License iOS? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You know nothing of Apple DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I have a feeling Apple TV will continue to be a hobby. If there was something big going on we'd have heard rumors by now.
fair enough... Until Content channels are acquired, there is no 'new' AppleTV. (box or Screen).
maybe. but since we have aapletv, haven't watch an hour of normal cableTv, except some liver sport event. And think iTV will be much more capable than the small box
I dont care much for the news on my TV anymore, there's a DVR button on the remote and the UI is pretty straightforward, DVD is built in my PS3, Netflix built into the TV. HBO, AMC, all the sports channels, YES, PBS, Spike, A&E, Criminal Investigation, Spike, Starz, and a few others are where i do 95% of my TV watching. I dont care for FaceTime on a TV. Siri on a TV would be great but not enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxSampleXX
There is not enough value to be added to the idiot box to allow Apple to sell TVs and the steep margins they demand. If Apple really does come out with a television set, it will probably be one of their few missteps over the past few years. That speaker they made for a while is the last blunder I recall. Interesting, another piece of entertainment hardware.
And the iPad is just an overgrown iPod Touch. And the iPhone isn't necessary and won't succeed because smartphones already do everything people want. And the iPod is just another mp3 player. And...
I glad Apple is run by people who are always so wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is the TV.
Absolutely, but I'll make one change to what you said:
Quote:
The cellphone was ripe for such a re-imagining and so is television.
It's subtle, but I think you can see where I'm going with it.
There are other things that could really use this treatment but mostly outside of Apple's strengths. The automobile is a perfect example.
Know what I want to see? I want to see Tesla go to Apple and say, "Make our batteries." I'm planning to get a Tesla myself, but imagine one with Apple battery tech behind it.
We're talking 500 miles per charge (MPC) for cheaper than everyone else's 200 MPC vehicles.
And Tesla is doing just about everything else with vehicles that needs done, not just the means of fueling. I respect them greatly for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterK
There are so many places for television to go that I don't know that it will ever be done. Microsoft is working on interactive linear television using the Kinect, where you can choose to take part (or not take part) in an episode of Sesame Street. What if you could play along with game shows? What if you could vote on American Idol? No one has done anything with the signal going back the other way. We have video conferencing on TVs, but no one has really popularized it yet. There is far more to the television than just improving the picture quality. Then there's all the voice command and logic stuff that people have been guessing at. The "play the latest episode of game of thrones" stuff. That's much better than searching through your TIVO or finding a channel. Maybe you can just say "I want to watch stuff about cars" and the tv can pull in a playlist made up of TV shows, movies, and youtube videos. Sony just bought an OnLive competitor, so TVs can have a game system that is played on some distant server and beamed back... so you always have the latest and greatest games on your TV. No one has great glasses-free TV yet. No one has done holograms yet. To say Apple has nothing to add to this conversation is short sighted.
The day all this comes to pass is the day I move to a remote island in the Pacific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So, what, when all these stupid rumors don't come true, where is there left to move? "Apple is making a game console"? I guess they could always go back to that one. What else do consumers buy? What do they generically "like"? I guess Apple could be getting back into speaker systems. Or microwaves.
And if they are true will you shut up for a while?
After nearly 30 years of using Macs, I know quite a bit about Apple's DNA. I also know that statements from Jobs are situation dependent and subject to change.
BluRay on an Apple computer isn't likely. The arguments that Jobs gave involved licensing and security. The fundamental problem is that with a computer, it's too easy to rip the BluRay content to disk and then distribute it illegally - which complicates the CRM and licensing. If Apple were to make a TV (not that I consider it likely), those problems wouldn't exist. The licensing would be exactly the same as any other BR player pays to the consortium. None of the problems of BR on computers would exist.
Licensing? Obviously, Jobs was opposed to it.That doesn't mean that Apple can't ever do it. What was the problem with licensing the first time around? Apple basically set up competitors who undercut Apple's products. Other than that, it worked reasonably well. PCC tended to have systems that had better performance than Apple systems at a lower price. Motorola had some nice low end systems. But all of them took business away from Apple - which wasn't a good thing. OTOH, if Apple licensed the OS for a TV, it would have no impact on Apple's business (it would actually be synergistic as it might encourage people to buy more Macs, iPads, etc). And since a TV does fewer things than a computer, it would be simpler to manage.
I don't see anything in Apple's DNA that makes either of those things impossible.
I'm skeptical of the whole idea, but if it happens, that's exactly the kind of thing that Apple would bring to the table. Better image quality is a waste of time - very few people would see any advantage over BR/1080p. Apple's value would all be in the UI and content. That's similar to their methodology in the other markets they're in - they don't usually shoot for the highest specs (retina display is one of the few exceptions), but choose good specs which are applied in a way that no one else can match.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
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.
As a mainly Nikon user (professionally) for around 40 years I have to agree with you... just wanted to allow myself a little wishful thinking on a Friday evening whilst NCIS LA is repeating itself on French TV. I do sometimes wonder, though, whether Ives has such a prototype locked away in his toy cupboard/bunker ;~)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
And if they are true will you shut up for a while?
I'll shut up when they shut up. Or at least have a logical underpinning, unlike presently. ????
They don't even need any concrete evidence, just a reason for being.
Fair enough but there is no reason to assume the merged product will have any resemblance to the current iteration, it could but it might not. There did I cover myself well enough? /smile
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Largely oblivious to tight-lipped Apple's precise plans for shaking up the Smart TV segment, these alliance-forming TV makers are reportedly banking on features for their own designs that will resemble those available from Samsung's industry-leading set designs.
Oblivious? Wrong word.
oblivious |??bliv??s|
adjective
not aware of or not concerned about what is happening around one: she became absorbed, oblivious to the passage of time | the women were oblivious of his presence.
Try ignorant.
ignorant |?ign?r?nt|
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated: he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid.
(Definitions courtesy Oxford American Dictionaries, appearing on OS X Dashboard)
Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years, you dial a number and you can talk to another person. The iPhones popularity has nothing to do with the actual phone part, it's the iPod, the usability of the device by apps. That's what no one saw not even SJ himself. A TV has to be a TV, what can Apple add that's not in one way or another already on there? Can't improve on picture quality nor make a new form factor. A simpler UI is not the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Again Apple did not re imagine the cell phone, it works exactly the way phones have worked for 100 years, you dial a number and you can talk to another person.
Yes, they did, in that the features therein were greatly simplified, changing the way people perform the actual actions. This, as a side note, was supplemented by simplifications to the UI. Of course, that comes back to bite me (or so they'll say) when referring to the below, which I wrote prior to this…
Quote:
A TV has to be a TV, what can Apple add that's not in one way or another already on there?
Why is everyone still talking about the UI? I'm not talking about the UI. I don't care about the UI insofar as it's secondary to the actual reimagining.
Having to open the phone app is easier than punching numbers on a already available keypad? Can't see how that was made simpler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Having to open the phone app is easier than punching numbers on a already available keypad? Can't see how that was made simpler.
You're missing nearly all of the big picture and ignoring most of the small one.
Please enlighten me then, would you not agree that the popularity of the iPhone has little to do with the actual phone part?
"Smart TV makers forming alliances out of fear…"
Anyone who's endured the absurdity of helping an elderly person set up a television system in the last 25 years can only smile at the thought of the various companies involved soiling themselves in terror that a competitor might offer an elegant alternative. Given the lunatic plethora of interfaces and devouring cable octopi they've been smugly inflicted upon the general populace for decades, the irony of them all filling their pants with precisely what they've been selling is nothing less than magnificent.
Any person or groups of persons who make anything crowing "I can sell this!" rather than asking "Will this make the world a better place?" deserves no sympathy. For decades, TVs have been as overpriced, wasteful, stupid, irritating, and ugly as the content they deliver. If their creators now find themselves in the position of of American auto manufacturers 50 years ago (i.e., "Ohmigod, we've made a fortune selling unreliable gas-guzzling junk to idiots and now someone's is offering them a superior alternative!"), well… good.