Jefferies says Apple may have licensed JDSU's 'body gesture' sensors for next Apple TV

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     


     


    While Douglas Adams was know for his wonderful wit, it is still rather amazing to see how prescient so many of the great science fiction writers have been about the technologies we've seen develop over the years.

  • Reply 22 of 47


    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

    While Douglas Adams was know for his wonderful wit, it is still rather amazing to see how prescient so many of the great science fiction writers have been about the technologies we've seen develop over the years.


     


    Indeed. And speaking of the inverse, I can think of two instances (can't remember one of them, though) where Arthur C. Clarke, of all people, got it way wrong.


     


    In 3001, he writes of towers to geostationary orbit (logical extreme of what we'd call a space elevator) and a ring around the world (also being considered), but talks of storage in terms of "a disc, the same diameter and about twice the thickness as my contemporaries (this is Poole, awoken after 1,000 years), but carrying only a petabyte of data".


     


    A petabyte! In ONE THOUSAND YEARS. In the size of a CD. That's some SERIOUS lowballing, if you ask me. image


     


    The second instance that I can't remember also involves an error of that timeframe magnitude, but where by the time of publishing reality had already caught up with the book.


     


    Anyway, but my purpose of the Adams quote was to highlight the absolute silliness of "air gestures" in controlling a device. Kinect, for example, is about a 0.00.0.0.0.0.1 release of what will eventually be a true VR system, but really until the 0.00.1 release we shouldn't be waving our bare bodies around in an effort to control stuff. Nintendo (the Apple of the game industry) got it right in this regard, which is why the other two pulled a Microsoft and copied them after mocking Nintendo's 'waggle stick' and losing billions.

  • Reply 23 of 47
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,453member
    Minority Report was STATE OF THE ART thinking for gestural interface manipulation and that's no where near standard yet. There is no way Apple is going to leapfrog that for the consumer to watch TV. Yeah, there's all kinds of stuff this technology may do in the future, but not in time for Christmas, and certainly not reliably.

    I totally agree about tactile feedback. Most people sit in dark or dimly lit rooms and when they reach for the remote they have a few sets of button that they can feel without looking them in order to navigate the TV. That won't change, unless consumer's habits change.

    And how is the TV supposed to distinguish a voice command from across the room during a Football game cranked up to full volume, in a room full of guests loudly talking and cheering? Some kind of voice recognition no doubt, but what happens if you have a cold, or you have food in your mouth? And i'd like to believe Apple could pull this off, but the reality is, they cant even make it work reliably wi Siri, when its just one
    person sitting alone in a room. No this is third or fourth generation implementation, not initial product release stuff. If things go this direction, it'll be well after it is introduced, and Apple can guarantee performance.

    The same arguments go for motion control ... How is the TV supposed to distinguish one person out of a room full of screaming football fans? Again face recognition? While I would like to think Apple could implement something better than Google, the technology on the Android is a major fail, and as far as that goes, Apple's own technology in iPhoto is far from reliable. So I just don't see this happening anytime soon. Perhaps a special "badge" the controller wears? Then how is that really better than a remote? At least that way anybody can use it.

    I think this speculation is all in response to Steve Jobs cryptic remark that he had "cracked" the TV interface. But I don't think this has to do with voice commands or gestural commands. I think it has more to do with integrating all the channels, and boxes, and services that currently require a masters degree to install and figure out how to navigate. All this other stuff is beta, intended for some later implementation in addition to traditional methods ...
  • Reply 24 of 47
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member


    The gesture stuff in kinect is spectacularly awful and is essentially broken unless you're a) standing up, and b) making enormous over the top movements.


     


    Also when Kinect is watching you, you have to sit completely motionless or it will pick up your movements and interpret them incorrectly. So yes, you have to watch TV without moving a muscle.


     


    What's wrong with the remote control as an interface? It works, there's no need to re-invent the wheel.

  • Reply 25 of 47
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Might be nice? That would be pretty darn good, but the joy of watching TV is finding that new show sometimes. I recently found Wicked Tuna by channel surfing and was amazed at how big tuna fish can get, what it takes to reel them in, and how much money they're worth.


     


    Ah, but think of all the shows you will never find channel surfing because the distribution rights haven't been locked up for your country.  :-)


     


    For every big hit American show there are similar shows in other countries at the exact same time that you will never know about.   Americans tend to assume that these shows are just poor copies of the US hits, but in fact at least half the time, it's the other way around and the US show is the poor copy of a highly inventive original.  


     


    I don't see it happening for at least 50 years or so, but what a joy it would be to sit down in front of a screen and be able to watch any show from any place on earth with on the spot translation/subtitles. 

  • Reply 26 of 47
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Bezel plastics or it didn't happen...
  • Reply 27 of 47

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post



    This article must make British TV producer ITV crazy.

    Skil, I'm with you in this. I just can't see jumping up and down and waving my hands around in the air to get my TV to do what I want. Or talking to it for that matter.

    It just strikes me we might be going the wrong direction with technology ...

     


     


    Sure, but combine the ability to have intelligent audio controls via a Siri-based user experience, and you have an excellent range of controls now. The point is that we communicate with our words and with our motions / body-language. As technology develops further with the combination of audio and visual controls, we will be talking with our tvs as if someone else is holding the remote and pressing the buttons. We'll just be telling them what to do, and using our hands and pointing to what we want. They will understand us so well that we'll get frustrated with other humans not interpreting our communication correctly eventually. That "digital person" will be Siri, at least for the first few years, and at some point I'm guessing we'll be able to customize the "avatar Siri" to be whatever we'd like them to be.


     


    Remote controls are toast. Soon our entire homes will be centrally automated and the tv will just be one extension of this automation.

  • Reply 28 of 47
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post




    I wonder if Apple regrets not buying the company behind Kinect (or adopting the tech) when they were approached before MS.



     


    Probably not.  Kinect projects thousands of infra-red laser beams all around the room and thus only needs to "read dots" as users move around.  So it (or the Xbox 360 itself) only needs to handle a few thousand data points to analyze motion and depth.


     


    That's fine for large gestures, but probably will never be able to distinguish finger gestures or to recognize individual users by face biometrics unless the user is very close.  And projecting thousand of laser dots means that the device is physically complex. Complexity usually translates into higher costs (in components, labor, or both.)


     


    If JDSU's technology uses a more conventional camera, with no laser projection system, it could be far cheaper to produce.  And if it has high enough resolution, Apple could in theory detect very fine finger gestures and could recognize individual users (by leveraging the face recognition algorithm used in iPhoto for years.)  Compare that to the physically large and complex Kinect system with its relatively crude software, and maybe you'll see why Apple passed on buying the company that came up with the Kinect technology.

  • Reply 29 of 47
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zkdman View Post

    [...]


    Remote controls are toast. Soon our entire homes will be centrally automated and the tv will just be one extension of this automation.



     


    Exactly.  We only tolerate the current TV control situation because we've been brought up with it.


     


    People used to think that wood-burning stoves were the height of luxury.  Sure beat cooking in the fireplace.

  • Reply 30 of 47

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post


    The gesture stuff in kinect is spectacularly awful and is essentially broken unless you're a) standing up, and b) making enormous over the top movements.


     


    Also when Kinect is watching you, you have to sit completely motionless or it will pick up your movements and interpret them incorrectly. So yes, you have to watch TV without moving a muscle.


     


    What's wrong with the remote control as an interface? It works, there's no need to re-invent the wheel.



     


    Yeah, let's just quit innovating. You're right. I'll call Apple and tell them to "pack it up... We're all done here. Kotatsu says there's no need to re-invent the wheel". Wait, then they'd be just like Microsoft then. Nevermind.


     


    So maybe let's go ahead and take a second look at the remote control as an interface. It's been great, but it's certainly not perfect. Have some vision!!

  • Reply 31 of 47
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    Ah, but think of all the shows you will never find channel surfing because the distribution rights haven't been locked up for your country.  :-)

    For every big hit American show there are similar shows in other countries at the exact same time that you will never know about.   Americans tend to assume that these shows are just poor copies of the US hits, but in fact at least half the time, it's the other way around and the US show is the poor copy of a highly inventive original.  

    I don't see it happening for at least 50 years or so, but what a joy it would be to sit down in front of a screen and be able to watch any show from any place on earth with on the spot translation/subtitles. 

    You're absolutely correct. Some of those British sitcoms are hilarious.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    miquetmiquet Posts: 16member
    Apple and Samsung back in court again , haven't Samsung brought out a gesture based tv system ?
    I just don't get why apple continue to fall behind the eight ball and make ideas known that it's competitors can copy and put into production way before they can . To get content streamed over the Internet constantly would put up broadband prices to consumers and with some providers slowing heavy users it would be a joke to watch that type of tv .
  • Reply 33 of 47
    focherfocher Posts: 645member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post




    I wonder if Apple regrets not buying the company behind Kinect (or adopting the tech) when they were approached before MS.



    For those of us who have used a Kinect, I doubt Apple regrets that decision whatsoever.

  • Reply 34 of 47
    mcrsmcrs Posts: 172member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    My suspicion is Apple will end up defining this technology and leave Microsoft's System as a toy by comparison. This seriously looks like a company Apple should buy. Mkt. Cap JDSU around 3 $B.


     


    Apple should buy it now or wait until this Canadian Company going under. JDSU barely survives the dot.com disaster of 2000 while the other Canadian company Nortel slowly, surely and finally failed to recover from it even with its highly creative accounting. Then and only then, Apple can join another consortium to buy JDSU's patents for cheap, like it had done with Nortel's and it is currently doing with Kodak's. Shortly after the purchase, with a bunch of RDF fanfare ala SJ, Apple will declare: "we invent the advance body motion sensor." 

  • Reply 35 of 47
    focherfocher Posts: 645member


    People are so wrong about all of this, with the constant "voice is the future" or "motion is the future". Every Jedi knows that it takes both a vocal command with a gesture to use a Force power. It's not "these aren't the droids you're looking for" ... it's "these aren't the droids you're looking for" combined with a wave of the hand. Just one or the other isn't enough.

  • Reply 36 of 47

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bosox View Post


    $900 share price??? Have they been smoking Gene Munster's Piper pipe? Oh wait... I took a few hits off Gene's hookah over the years and my shares are worth $640 this morning. 



    Just passed through $647.

  • Reply 37 of 47

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    ...I don't want to get up to do so and look like Tom Cruise in Minority Report.


     


    The future will be iMatrix that plugs directly into the base of your skull. Effortless entertainment is just a delicious blue pill away.

  • Reply 38 of 47


    This is an upcoming LG TV:


     



     


    LG 55EM9600 (55-inch OLED)


     


    http://asia.cnet.com/product/lg-55em9600-55-inch-oled-45834945.htm


     


     


    LG's 55-inch OLED TV gets official design, possible €9,000 price tag ($12.000)  (update 3: LG fills in more)


     


    http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/23/lg-55-inch-oled-tv-gets-official-design-possible-9-000-price/


     


     


    And next Years model



     


     


     


    LG To Launch 4K* OLED TV In 2013


    http://asia.cnet.com/lg-to-launch-4k-oled-tv-in-2013-62215629.htm


     


    * 4K resolution is 4 times the 1080P resolution used on current HDTVs


     


     


    And:


     


    LG supplying MacBook Pro Retina displays to Apple


     


    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/06/19/lg_supplying_macbook_pro_retina_displays_to_apple.html


     


     


     


     


    And


     


     


    Apple now getting iPad Retina displays from LG too


     


    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57397542-64/apple-now-getting-ipad-retina-displays-from-lg-too/


     


     


    And


     


     


    Apple TV with Retina Display Would Cost $25,000


     


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2012/07/02/apple-tv-with-retina-display-would-cost-25000/


     


     


     


    So, we know that LG makes the display component of Apple  Retina Displays including Retina Touchscreens.


     


    A 55 inch OLED Retina TV would cost somewhere between $12,000 and $25,000.


     


    Pretty limited target audience...


     


     


    Except a 4K display has some interesting specialty uses -- say for video editors.  (It wasn't too long ago, that the hardware/software for a video editor cost $125,000)... so this could be considered reasonable for a large display.


     


     


    Now, what if Apple were to take LG's large display and add touch capability to it...


     


    Ah, but you say:



    1. it would be too tiring to hold your hands out to edit on a vertical touch display


    2. there is no editing software that uses a touch display


     


    Well, for #1, what if the editor were to stand os sit in front of a horizontal or tilted touch display similar to a drafting table...


     


    For #2, there may be a solution under development -- what if you could edit video with FCP X on a large touch display?


     


    Jack Purcher over at Patently Apple, did some detective work and found a bunch of Apple patents related to FCP X and Touchscreens:


     


     


    Huge Patent Day for Apple's iMovie and Final Cut Pro Apps


     


    http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/08/huge-patent-day-for-apples-imovie-and-final-cut-pro-apps.html


     


     


    These were written up, briefly (there's a lot of material),  at  fcp.co -- a web site dedicated to FCP X.


     


     


    I posted this:


     


     


     


    Quote:


    I've been reading through the patent: Media-Editing Application with Live Dragging and Live Editing Capabilities. 



    There are 20 instances of the word "touchscreen", for example:



    "The clip browser 110 allows the user to view clips from a selected folder (e.g., an event, a sub-folder, etc.) of the clip library 105. As shown in this example, the folder “New Event 2-8-11 3” is selected in the clip library 105, and the clips belonging to that folder are displayed in the clip browser 110. Some embodiments display the clips as thumbnail filmstrips, as shown in this example. By moving a cursor (or a finger on a touchscreen) over one of the thumbnails (e.g., with a mouse, a touchpad, a touchscreen, etc.), the user can skim through the clip. That is, when the user places the cursor at a particular horizontal location within the thumbnail filmstrip, the media-editing application associates that horizontal location with a time in the associated media file, and displays the image from the media file for that time. In addition, the user can command the application to play back the media file in the thumbnail filmstrip."




    This signifies to me that FCP X was designed for touch -- or, at least, with touch in mind.



    I can visualize the pro editor of tomorrow standing in front of a large touch display about the size of a drafting table -- using his fingers to scrub clips, grab and drag them to the storyline, tweaking in and out points, correcting sound/timing/color as needed, combining into compound clips...



    The editing paradigm of FCP X, magnetic timeline, etc. make a lot of sense for this use case -- and it would be fast and fun!



    The original Microsoft Surface cost about $10,000 -- I suspect a large flat screen from Apple would cost quite a bit less.



    Less expensive (and less powerful) solutions could be provided by a touchscreen Mac or even a future iPad.



    Even at $10,000 -- it would be less than 1/10 the price of some of the editing solutions from a few years ago.


     




     


    http://fcp.co/final-cut-pro/news/903-apple-try-to-lock-down-final-cut-pro-x-s-unique-design-and-features-by-filing-10-patents


     


     


    Anyway, I believe that a large, retina-quality, touchscreen would have lots of application in science, healthcare, military, education... and specialty cases like video editors.  It may be that some of these uses will drive down the prices to where they would be acceptable at the consumer TV level.


     


    Finally, that would really be a big-assed tablet!

  • Reply 39 of 47
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,460member
    mj1970 wrote: »
    While Douglas Adams was know for his wonderful wit, it is still rather amazing to see how prescient so many of the great science fiction writers have been about the technologies we've seen develop over the years.

    Absolutely agree . Although I sometimes wonder if on occasions scientists see the ideas when they were kids and work like heck to create them as adults.
  • Reply 40 of 47
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post




     


    Dear mother of thinness. TV manufacturers need to be careful; if they make them too thin, the next thing you know people will be using TVs as monofilament-based weapons…


     



    Apple TV with Retina Display Would Cost $25,000



     


    "WHERE'S MY RETINA, APPLE?! ALL THE RUMORS SAID RETINA, SO I DEMAND THAT YOU GIVE ME WHAT YOU WEREN'T EVEN WORKING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU OWE IT TO US. APPLE IS DOOMED."


     


    That article also doesn't give even a made up definition of "retina", so I'm gonna chime in with the real definition of retina in terms of television, Super Hi-Vision. There's an 85" SHVTV made now, no price, and a 145" SHVTV made now, no price.




    I've seen figures ranging from $100,000 to $250,000, so unless Apple plans to sell their TV only at FAO Schwartz, they're out of luck.


     


    Or, the sane option, they're not making a TV at all. image

Sign In or Register to comment.