Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?
I would say, by far, yes. Perhaps not the display itself, which they'll likely source (and corner the market on), but simply the whole banana, the whole experience from when you take it out of the box. And the idea of having a room with one TV (made by Apple) and no other boxes, excites the hell out of me. I'd love my Apple Television to be my one place for everything living room: TV, movies, games, everything! And yes, one remote control for my living room, finally (I detest universal remotes).
The living room IMO is currently broken, and as far as I can see it, Apple is the one and only company within an asses-roar of a chance of fixing it - if only they can get the content.
And yes, Google, Samsung and all the rest with immediately start their copying machines. Smart TVs exist, just like Smartphones existed before the iPhone. Fixing the TV will be every bit as difficult as fixing phones was, even more so "go-to-market"-wise.
I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one ludicrously heavy piece of aluminum.
Elegance, cohesion, and the ultimate, most simplistic setup.
By design, it can't get more simple than a TV that does everything. One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.
No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.
One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.
No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.
I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).
The TV itself being well designed is expected, it could even use carbon fibre for reduced weight. But what about the distribution method?
If Apple feeds multiple data streams in server-side and filters it down through a single internet stream, that works but why would the content providers go for it when Apple's TV marketshare is zero?
If it works with ?TV boxes, iOS devices and Macs, that's a lot more people but then why would people buy a TV if the service works with much cheaper devices?
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
I think they should do something like live streaming with content licenses, no encrypted streams and delivered to any device. To prevent copying, they can even superimpose a license key into the content every x frames and re-encode those blocks - the license key would be sent to the server to authenticate the stream. You can superimpose a license by adjusting the colour of content by a faint shade.
For example, take an image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer, add a text layer and make it huge, centered. Set the text color to 98% white and the layer to multiply then merge down with one of the image layers. You can't see the key.
However, if you set the layer with the key to subtract and merge down, you get the difference between the layer and the original, which should be the license key. You can see it clearly if you adjust the image or use edge detection. This way, if anyone did illegally distribute content, they can revoke that license.
I would have liked to see a pay-per-view method, perhaps in addition to subscriptions so that you get to watch instantly without having to subscribe. You'd just flip through content and movies and pay as you watch with no commitment to buy. It can work out to be quite expensive that way for heavy watchers though so the option to subscribe would be there too.
The TV itself I don't see as the important element here.
I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).
I would much rather pay for 'perfect', 'cause that's how I honestly see it. And if they can get the content and offer some kind of subscription, they may then be able to subsidise the TV. Not to mention, TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next (not you specifically) you can buy it from Apple. And being Apple, they'll likely make it so appealing that lots of people will, shall we say, upgrade early.
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
They may include a GB Ethernet port, but I get your point. Relying on your router is an issue, I'm not saying there won't be issues, but this setup is all but inevitable, in my opinion.
The TV itself being well designed is expected, it could even use carbon fibre for reduced weight. But what about the distribution method?
If Apple feeds multiple data streams in server-side and filters it down through a single internet stream, that works but why would the content providers go for it when Apple's TV marketshare is zero?
If it works with ?TV boxes, iOS devices and Macs, that's a lot more people but then why would people buy a TV if the service works with much cheaper devices?
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
I think they should do something like live streaming with content licenses, no encrypted streams and delivered to any device. To prevent copying, they can even superimpose a license key into the content every x frames and re-encode those blocks - the license key would be sent to the server to authenticate the stream. You can superimpose a license by adjusting the colour of content by a faint shade.
For example, take an image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer, add a text layer and make it huge, centered. Set the text color to 98% white and the layer to multiply then merge down with one of the image layers. You can't see the key.
However, if you set the layer with the key to subtract and merge down, you get the difference between the layer and the original, which should be the license key. You can see it clearly if you adjust the image or use edge detection. This way, if anyone did illegally distribute content, they can revoke that license.
I would have liked to see a pay-per-view method, perhaps in addition to subscriptions so that you get to watch instantly without having to subscribe. You'd just flip through content and movies and pay as you watch with no commitment to buy. It can work out to be quite expensive that way for heavy watchers though so the option to subscribe would be there too.
The TV itself I don't see as the important element here.
It appears that you have identified the fundamental flaw in a certain group's conception of the Apple HDTV. Theirs is not so much an Apple TV set as it is an Apple replacement for virtually all visual entertainment in the home. Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.
Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner. In the early days of HDTV, few sets included tuners for over-the-air reception. These were labeled as "HDTV monitors." It is no longer legal to sell HDTV monitors, except for those with tiny screens, to consumers.
An Apple HDTV must be able to receive OTA digital broadcasts out of the box in much the same way that an iPhone must be able to place a "911" emergency telephone call prior to activation. In order words, each Apple HDTV will include at least one ATSC tuner. In my view, if Apple includes ATSC as a matter of law, then it will also include ClearQAM as a prudent business decision. Along with tuners for OTA and cable providers, prudence also dictates that the Apple HDTV will include a selection of peripheral ports to match those from the competition. These include HDMI, component video, composite, video, TOSLINK, and such like.
This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the ?TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. NetFlix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your ?TV.
When Steve Jobs said that Apple had solved TV, he did not mean that Apple would foist onto the market a device that locks-out everything except Apple-provided content. The model to follow is the iPhone. Rather than restricting users to Apple-products, the iPhone created vast new markets for mobile software and peripherals that were here-to-fore unimagined. And what is more, everything that you could do with your pre-2007 cellphone can be done with your iPhone. The iPhone forced us to sacrifice nothing.
There are many things that Apple could do to enhance our viewing experience. Some of these will require the cooperation of cable and satellite providers. Others will require the cooperation of component manufacturers, many of whom will be new competitors for Apple. Steve Jobs was able to get the record labels to cooperate in an earlier decade. Perhaps, Tim Cook can get the TV providers to cooperate in this decade.
Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.
No cable TV? Indeed.
No satellite TV? Clearly.
No DVDs? That's not to say you can't rip your DVDs and have them stream to your iTV via a computer or a networked hard drive to a third party iTV app you download from its App Store.
No Blu-Ray? Physical media is soon dead, anyway. (soon, meaning relatively soon)
No video camera playback? If you own one you can do it from your Mac to your iTV, wirelessly, but AirPlay and other apps will take care of most people's needs.
No game console? iTV will also be a game console.
No broadcast TV? That doesn't mean there will be no live news and sports. Apps can provide this.
Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner.
Whomever presumes you have a democracy or open market is dead wrong. There goes government "fixing" technology again.
This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the ?TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. Netflix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your ?TV.
..TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next…
So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.
Doesn't sound reasonable. I'm in the market for a new panel when my panel dies. I'm in the market for new hardware when I can't get the newest software. These two times would never coincide on a TV.
No one would pay $2,000 every three (let's be generous and kick them in the crotch for FOUR years) when they could pay $1,099 and then two-three years later pay another $99 and have EXACTLY the same thing.
Originally Posted by Ireland
It will have an App Store.
Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.
So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.
You're not supposed to do anything, but be realistic here, Apple would be well aware the normal lifespan of TVs, and if phones are any indication, Apple will support you for far longer than other smart TV makers.
Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.
And a game store. And an everything else store. I'm sure Apple has great plans. On a personal level, though, I'd like to see a subscription TV service for TV, as opposed to "a channel store", but that may be asking too much. Or, like I mentioned before, this may be the very reason we've yet to see an iTV product from Apple - they may be waiting to get a subscription TV show deal, to give customers the shows they want, and to very likely sign people up with a 12 month or so TV contract, so they can somewhat subsidise the cost of the actual TV, and make their usual Apple-profit margin.
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
I'd like to see a subscription TV service for TV, as opposed to "a channel store"
Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…
…TV contract…
I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…
I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.
You WANT a dystopia?
Just makes you want to find the line at your nearest Apple Store and wait for it, doesn't it?
Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.
Imagine where you connect your aTV to your cable outlet and it automagically configures itself to talk to the Time Warner backend with all your account info (except Netflix). Access to the entire cable lineup without the hassles of cablecard, etc.
Branding/customer relationship is probably the most significant roadblock between TWC and Apple. I dunno, I just don't see TWC under the same competitive pressures as AT&T was. Even where they have some competition.
As much as I dislike comcast I'd drop fios and go back to comcast if they had this.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Why? Can they build one better than what's out there?
I would say, by far, yes. Perhaps not the display itself, which they'll likely source (and corner the market on), but simply the whole banana, the whole experience from when you take it out of the box. And the idea of having a room with one TV (made by Apple) and no other boxes, excites the hell out of me. I'd love my Apple Television to be my one place for everything living room: TV, movies, games, everything! And yes, one remote control for my living room, finally (I detest universal remotes).
The living room IMO is currently broken, and as far as I can see it, Apple is the one and only company within an asses-roar of a chance of fixing it - if only they can get the content.
And yes, Google, Samsung and all the rest with immediately start their copying machines. Smart TVs exist, just like Smartphones existed before the iPhone. Fixing the TV will be every bit as difficult as fixing phones was, even more so "go-to-market"-wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one piece of plastic.
Aluminium.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Aluminium.
I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one ludicrously heavy piece of aluminum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I guess I still don't get the benefit to having the whole gig inside one ludicrously heavy piece of aluminum.
Elegance, cohesion, and the ultimate, most simplistic setup.
By design, it can't get more simple than a TV that does everything. One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.
No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.
Done.
Originally Posted by Ireland
One TV, one power cord, one remote. Nothing else to think about. Not to mention, one company to blame if something goes wrong, and unsurpassed support from said company.
No additional boxes (not even one). No additional remotes. No HDMI cables (zero). No other power cords. No mess of cables, at all.
I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).
The TV itself being well designed is expected, it could even use carbon fibre for reduced weight. But what about the distribution method?
If Apple feeds multiple data streams in server-side and filters it down through a single internet stream, that works but why would the content providers go for it when Apple's TV marketshare is zero?
If it works with ?TV boxes, iOS devices and Macs, that's a lot more people but then why would people buy a TV if the service works with much cheaper devices?
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
I think they should do something like live streaming with content licenses, no encrypted streams and delivered to any device. To prevent copying, they can even superimpose a license key into the content every x frames and re-encode those blocks - the license key would be sent to the server to authenticate the stream. You can superimpose a license by adjusting the colour of content by a faint shade.
For example, take an image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer, add a text layer and make it huge, centered. Set the text color to 98% white and the layer to multiply then merge down with one of the image layers. You can't see the key.
However, if you set the layer with the key to subtract and merge down, you get the difference between the layer and the original, which should be the license key. You can see it clearly if you adjust the image or use edge detection. This way, if anyone did illegally distribute content, they can revoke that license.
I would have liked to see a pay-per-view method, perhaps in addition to subscriptions so that you get to watch instantly without having to subscribe. You'd just flip through content and movies and pay as you watch with no commitment to buy. It can work out to be quite expensive that way for heavy watchers though so the option to subscribe would be there too.
The TV itself I don't see as the important element here.
A better strategy is to write and publish it here to show ur different voices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I see what you're saying; it's just a bad idea financially, for both sides. I'd much rather add two cords and one box and save a thousand on my end (and tens of millions on their end).
I would much rather pay for 'perfect', 'cause that's how I honestly see it. And if they can get the content and offer some kind of subscription, they may then be able to subsidise the TV. Not to mention, TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next (not you specifically) you can buy it from Apple. And being Apple, they'll likely make it so appealing that lots of people will, shall we say, upgrade early.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
They may include a GB Ethernet port, but I get your point. Relying on your router is an issue, I'm not saying there won't be issues, but this setup is all but inevitable, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhongmin Li
A better strategy is to write and publish it here to show ur different voices.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The TV itself being well designed is expected, it could even use carbon fibre for reduced weight. But what about the distribution method?
If Apple feeds multiple data streams in server-side and filters it down through a single internet stream, that works but why would the content providers go for it when Apple's TV marketshare is zero?
If it works with ?TV boxes, iOS devices and Macs, that's a lot more people but then why would people buy a TV if the service works with much cheaper devices?
Assuming it's wifi only, if someone's internet goes down (even a router connection issue) then no TV at all so the whole thing is useless. HDMI input offers a backup but it requires an external box again.
I think they should do something like live streaming with content licenses, no encrypted streams and delivered to any device. To prevent copying, they can even superimpose a license key into the content every x frames and re-encode those blocks - the license key would be sent to the server to authenticate the stream. You can superimpose a license by adjusting the colour of content by a faint shade.
For example, take an image in Photoshop and duplicate the layer, add a text layer and make it huge, centered. Set the text color to 98% white and the layer to multiply then merge down with one of the image layers. You can't see the key.
However, if you set the layer with the key to subtract and merge down, you get the difference between the layer and the original, which should be the license key. You can see it clearly if you adjust the image or use edge detection. This way, if anyone did illegally distribute content, they can revoke that license.
I would have liked to see a pay-per-view method, perhaps in addition to subscriptions so that you get to watch instantly without having to subscribe. You'd just flip through content and movies and pay as you watch with no commitment to buy. It can work out to be quite expensive that way for heavy watchers though so the option to subscribe would be there too.
The TV itself I don't see as the important element here.
It appears that you have identified the fundamental flaw in a certain group's conception of the Apple HDTV. Theirs is not so much an Apple TV set as it is an Apple replacement for virtually all visual entertainment in the home. Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.
Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner. In the early days of HDTV, few sets included tuners for over-the-air reception. These were labeled as "HDTV monitors." It is no longer legal to sell HDTV monitors, except for those with tiny screens, to consumers.
An Apple HDTV must be able to receive OTA digital broadcasts out of the box in much the same way that an iPhone must be able to place a "911" emergency telephone call prior to activation. In order words, each Apple HDTV will include at least one ATSC tuner. In my view, if Apple includes ATSC as a matter of law, then it will also include ClearQAM as a prudent business decision. Along with tuners for OTA and cable providers, prudence also dictates that the Apple HDTV will include a selection of peripheral ports to match those from the competition. These include HDMI, component video, composite, video, TOSLINK, and such like.
This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the ?TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. NetFlix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your ?TV.
When Steve Jobs said that Apple had solved TV, he did not mean that Apple would foist onto the market a device that locks-out everything except Apple-provided content. The model to follow is the iPhone. Rather than restricting users to Apple-products, the iPhone created vast new markets for mobile software and peripherals that were here-to-fore unimagined. And what is more, everything that you could do with your pre-2007 cellphone can be done with your iPhone. The iPhone forced us to sacrifice nothing.
There are many things that Apple could do to enhance our viewing experience. Some of these will require the cooperation of cable and satellite providers. Others will require the cooperation of component manufacturers, many of whom will be new competitors for Apple. Steve Jobs was able to get the record labels to cooperate in an earlier decade. Perhaps, Tim Cook can get the TV providers to cooperate in this decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Their concept of the Apple TV is just the front end to this new closed infrastructure. In this view, there will be no cable TV, no satellite TV, no DVDs, no Blu-ray, no video camera playback, no game consoles, and no broadcast TV.
No cable TV? Indeed.
No satellite TV? Clearly.
No DVDs? That's not to say you can't rip your DVDs and have them stream to your iTV via a computer or a networked hard drive to a third party iTV app you download from its App Store.
No Blu-Ray? Physical media is soon dead, anyway. (soon, meaning relatively soon)
No video camera playback? If you own one you can do it from your Mac to your iTV, wirelessly, but AirPlay and other apps will take care of most people's needs.
No game console? iTV will also be a game console.
No broadcast TV? That doesn't mean there will be no live news and sports. Apps can provide this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
Before going any farther, it is important to remind everyone here that U. S. Federal Law requires that virtually every TV set currently sold in the US to be equipped with an ATSC tuner.
Whomever presumes you have a democracy or open market is dead wrong. There goes government "fixing" technology again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
This notion of the closed infrastructure for the Apple HDTV is baffling. No other Apple product is so limited. Tens of 1000s of software developers produce software for the Mac and iOS. Various third-parties produce entertainment/information content for iTunes and iBooks on their various supported platforms. You can read our Kindle and Nook books on your iPad. Even the ?TV is bundled with apps from several third-party video streaming content providers. Netflix and Hulu Plus compete with the iTunes Music Store, but they are readily accessible from your ?TV.
It will have an App Store.
Originally Posted by Ireland
..TVs don't last forever, so when you're in the market for your next…
So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.
Doesn't sound reasonable. I'm in the market for a new panel when my panel dies. I'm in the market for new hardware when I can't get the newest software. These two times would never coincide on a TV.
No one would pay $2,000 every three (let's be generous and kick them in the crotch for FOUR years) when they could pay $1,099 and then two-three years later pay another $99 and have EXACTLY the same thing.
Originally Posted by Ireland
It will have an App Store.
Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So two years after I buy it, when I can no longer get the newest software or have the newest features, I'm supposed to update.
You're not supposed to do anything, but be realistic here, Apple would be well aware the normal lifespan of TVs, and if phones are any indication, Apple will support you for far longer than other smart TV makers.
It will have an App Store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Killing it immediately, unless it's a Channel Store.
And a game store. And an everything else store. I'm sure Apple has great plans. On a personal level, though, I'd like to see a subscription TV service for TV, as opposed to "a channel store", but that may be asking too much. Or, like I mentioned before, this may be the very reason we've yet to see an iTV product from Apple - they may be waiting to get a subscription TV show deal, to give customers the shows they want, and to very likely sign people up with a 12 month or so TV contract, so they can somewhat subsidise the cost of the actual TV, and make their usual Apple-profit margin.
Originally Posted by Ireland
It will have an App Store. And a game store.
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
I'd like to see a subscription TV service for TV, as opposed to "a channel store"
Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…
…TV contract…
I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.
…subsidize the cost of the actual TV…
You WANT a dystopia?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There goes your "one remote" idea, out the window again. At least have a consistent vision.
Comcast, DirecTV, Dish…
I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be a good product. I'm sorry, I thought this was supposed to be revolutionary. It's Apple, after all. And yet you're wanting the same thing we can get from any TV and any telecom right now.
You WANT a dystopia?
Just makes you want to find the line at your nearest Apple Store and wait for it, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Apple TV is not simple either. You have to use the TV remote and change the external input selection, then turn on Home Sharing on your computer or type in your Apple ID and password which are usually long and complicated using a horribly awkward interface or type in your Netflix username and password. I often make a mistake entering the text and have to start over again. Then, far too often it fails to remember your account settings or loses connection with iTunes requiring you start troubleshooting and reboot each device, rinse and repeat. It sometimes takes literally 10-15 minutes to get the thing up and running.
Imagine where you connect your aTV to your cable outlet and it automagically configures itself to talk to the Time Warner backend with all your account info (except Netflix). Access to the entire cable lineup without the hassles of cablecard, etc.
Branding/customer relationship is probably the most significant roadblock between TWC and Apple. I dunno, I just don't see TWC under the same competitive pressures as AT&T was. Even where they have some competition.
As much as I dislike comcast I'd drop fios and go back to comcast if they had this.