Ah, I believe the first sentence is a reference to your statement regarding "the way we watch television". It's obviously just a misinterpretation of your meaning.
I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was SHV. I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was autostereoscopic 3D (that's either/or, not and/or; I realize both will be physically and financially impossible for about 15 more years). But neither of these will happen.
That leaves us with whatever the TV equivalent of an H-IPS panel is called… in a pretty, aluminum box. Big whoop.
I subscribe to the idea of an "Apple Television" having little to no connectivity. But since we haven't even heard the merest whisper of content deals leveraged, that's not gonna happen.
Hypothetical: "Apple Television" is released. One cable: power. How do you get content? iTunes Store. But… that's it. So it's a 10-15x$ Apple TV (existing product) that… can't be expanded in any way.
Or, picture this: a la carte subscribable shows (not even entire channels, shows), streamed live alongside their old-timey broadcast equivalents. News channels that are 1:1 with broadcast, live sports, etc. Purchase shows right after they've aired and download them to your machine. Purchase individual live sports events. And then the entire iTunes Store backing that up.
Video iAds instead of the standard, static broadcast ads during commercial breaks. Make television advertising actually desirable to customers by capitalizing on interactivity and whatnot. Does anyone not hit mute when the ads come up?
That's good for either a TV or an Apple TV, but since the content would be the same on both, I see a grand many more going for the $99 option.
I was being facetious with my first 3 sentences. Of course we all watch TV with our eyes. Of course I'm curious as to what Apple can do, but the competition is not standing idly by. A previous poster wished he could search across multiple channels and Roku already does that. I'd pay more a month for Hulu if episodes didn't expire. While there are commercials is much less than broadcast TV.
Ah, I believe the first sentence is a reference to your statement regarding "the way we watch television". It's obviously just a misinterpretation of your meaning.
Thanks, when it comes to the Apple branded TV you and I are in agreement.
Boy that Siri implementation expectation is persistent.
Worst possible idea... Shrug..
If it's the only method for input, sure, that's a horrible idea, same as if an iPhone that only had Siri for input is a horrible idea, but there are things Siri can do faster then we can do with our fingers on a touchscreen, keyboard or remote control.
For your phone:
"Remind me to pick up the dry cleaning when I leave work."
Should Apple sell a flip phone alongside the iPhone? A laptop that spins its screen to turn into a "tablet" alongside the iPad?
Apple throws a dart and hits the center. Everyone else fills the gaps.
What does that have to do with a television set. Who is selling a flip phone with iOS on it? Or a convertible laptop with OS X? If Apple is thinking of revolutionizing the TV space don't tell me they're content with having this amazing UI and content on a TV screen with a Samsung logo on it. Of course people don't replace their TV's that frequently and have multiple TV's in their home, so I can see Apple offering a set top box type option too.
I'll bet Apple had the TV designed already. Just waiting for the technology to be ready and for the media contracts to fall into place.
yep, they sure have, for about 5 years now they keep showing the same minimalist TV behind their product on their own website.
AI, don't you get it? It's not going to look like the Thunderbolt display, it's not going to look like the iMac. It probably won't look like that thing on the Apple TV website either. However, that image has darken the Webiste for at least 5 years now. So they must have some idea what Apple thinks their TV should look like.
If Apple is thinking of revolutionizing the TV space don't tell me they're content with having this amazing UI and content on a TV screen with a Samsung logo on it.
It tells you a lot more than it says (it says three words), meaning that you're inferring most of it.
Of course people don't replace their TV's that frequently and have multiple TV's in their home, so I can see Apple offering a set top box type option too.
Hence my examples showing that this isn't Apple's style.
You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard
I think the problem is the TV paradigm is wrong. Cable didnt' change the paradigm, it just multiplied it by 100. the iPhone changed the model from a phone with a web browser, to a computer with a phone app.
Apple TV would be a computer application with video content management system tailored to me, assessible on what ever device I currently closest to my personal device.
I didn't say it's an Big Apple Monitor. I said it would be be bigger (so the progression from iPhone/PodTouch - iPad Mini, iPad, MBA, MBP, iMac, Mac Pro/Cinema, then... the TV made by Apple (as opposed to AppleTV). Nor did I infer the difficulty is in in the size.
The Difficulty is not how we 'watch' television. the iPad pretty much solves the 'watching' problem. The Difficulty is how we 'navigate features/content' from multiple sources. The TV model hasn't changed since.... radio. It's a network deciding when/howmany content should be delivered to l generate the most revenue . The apple solution has to build a 'MyChannel' from Internet/OTA/Cable sources, which you can search by just saying "I'd like to watch the Football Game" and that context have it decide I mean the most recent Pittsburgh Steeler or Iowa Hawkeye game. Not needing to understand satellite channel, cable channel, torrent, BigTenApp, OTA channel, whatever. Doing that without the person buying an intermediary device that is in house that requires the person to learn how to debug connectivity problems (Apple will NOT send a technician to your house), one that holds true to their 'experience design.' and not about building another product line independent of their other products... they not only complement each other, they are interdependent to each other, in a semi-open way. (They don't want to be another Sony). That's the difficulty.
The HDTV would need to have a longer lifeline of support than what apple currently does for many of its products. People will hold onto that 40" tv for a decade; will that TV be supported by apple's software updates in a decade? As providers change the software requirements to keep up with more modern functionality, can that hardware maintain? A $100 set top box is far easier to replace than a $1500 HDTV.
They do sell their MacBook lines and iMac alongside the Mac mini and Mac Pro. That would be an equivalent to an Apple HDTV and Apple TV where the later in each can be connected to non-Apple monitors. For the Mac mini it's an option for those that want to spend less to get a Mac and for the Mac Pro it's for those that have unique monitor needs that Apple can't supply with their single monitor solution.
Yes, sell an ATV type device for people who don't want to buy or aren't in the need for a new TV. And offer a kick ass TV for those who are in the market/can afford it. Apple sells displays, why is it so hard for people to think they could sell a TV set? Of course I don't see any of this happening until they get content deals worked out. They don't want to be just another Google or Samsung in the TV space.
Siri is not the center of all iOS devices, it's not the be-all/end-all of anything...yet
Siri is a toy...a hobby...an nice to have but not need to have.
Just imagine how crap Siri would be in the living room, sitting down with the family, people talking, laughing, crying. Siri can't even deal with basic background noise much less in very closed quarters...not to mention if you watch TV later at night and don't want to wake the rest of the household by talking to your TV. There are many more examples of how this is a bad idea...but we've all gone over them about a million times on these forums already.
The HDTV would need to have a longer lifeline of support than what apple currently does for many of its products. People will hold onto that 40" tv for a decade; will that TV be supported by apple's software updates in a decade? As providers change the software requirements to keep up with more modern functionality, can that hardware maintain? A $100 set top box is far easier to replace than a $1500 HDTV.
Sad fact is there's nothing sexy about a $100 set top box. Unles Apple comes up with something so mind blowing it will be a collective ho-hum from the market. I'd love a TV solution where the only cord I have is a power cord for the TV. And no other clutter. Someone please invent that.
Not many people had smartphones before the iPhone and even less owned a tablet but everyone has at least one TV. It was easy for people to give up feature(less) phones for the iPhone. Don't see people dumping their $1000+ TV for a Apple branded TV.
Define not many. People DID dump their Blackberries and Windows smartphones to buy a $700 iPhone. It's not as if there weren't a significant amount of smartphone users out there already. They weren't all upgrading from feature phones to smartphones. Likewise, many Blackberry and Windows phone users did not dump their phones because their companies would not allow it. I see a similar ratio to TVs. And nobody said anything about people dumping their $1000+ TVs ... Most will justify the purchase by moving the living room TV into the bedroom, or a kids room, or a den. The customer Apple targets is by no means a one-TV household. And to the extent that's a small percentage of the average TV set buyer, Apple will happily take it, never having been afraid of small marketshare, only small margins.
You also incorrectly assume the TV market is somehow saturated ... As if all the major TV manufacturers are about to gout of business because everybody has a flat screen TV and won't be buying a new one for many years, or a second, or a third, or upgrading the ones they got for new features. I have friends who bought a new TV every time there was an improvement: 32" to 46", 46" to 52", Plasma to LCD, 720p to 1080p, 60Hz to 120Hz, LED, 120Hz - 240Hz, 3D, integrated web, etc. This is exactly Apple's customer. So what makes you think they won't do the exact same thing when Apple comes out with a superior product, or more importantly choose to spend a little more on an Apple when buying a brand new TV?
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.
I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.
However, no one is talking about disposing pre-existing televisions. My remarks were in context of someone suggesting that apple could sell both a full-fledged television and an apple Tv box contemporaneously, which is perfectly reasonable, at least to most people. Very analogous to iMac/Mac mini (which was designed for 'switchers' who already had a monitor and keyboard/mouse)
I'm not sure I can be clearer.
Again, not saying they should make a tv, but its really not hard to comprehend the might produce a television (with much higher margins) along side the apple tv in a form not too dissimilar to how it now is now in order to gain a foothold into the market. That way, when someone is up for a new television set they might just buy the apple tv. Halo effect.
I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.
I can only assume you're talking about the Apple TV box since the standing rationale around here is people buy and keep their TVs for years without upgrading the hardware.
Apple will most likely support far more upgrades to that Apple TV set than you'll ever get from Roku or Samsung.
Comments
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Huh?
Ah, I believe the first sentence is a reference to your statement regarding "the way we watch television". It's obviously just a misinterpretation of your meaning.
I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was SHV. I'd be fine with an "Apple Television"… if it was autostereoscopic 3D (that's either/or, not and/or; I realize both will be physically and financially impossible for about 15 more years). But neither of these will happen.
That leaves us with whatever the TV equivalent of an H-IPS panel is called… in a pretty, aluminum box. Big whoop.
I subscribe to the idea of an "Apple Television" having little to no connectivity. But since we haven't even heard the merest whisper of content deals leveraged, that's not gonna happen.
Hypothetical: "Apple Television" is released. One cable: power. How do you get content? iTunes Store. But… that's it. So it's a 10-15x$ Apple TV (existing product) that… can't be expanded in any way.
Or, picture this: a la carte subscribable shows (not even entire channels, shows), streamed live alongside their old-timey broadcast equivalents. News channels that are 1:1 with broadcast, live sports, etc. Purchase shows right after they've aired and download them to your machine. Purchase individual live sports events. And then the entire iTunes Store backing that up.
Video iAds instead of the standard, static broadcast ads during commercial breaks. Make television advertising actually desirable to customers by capitalizing on interactivity and whatnot. Does anyone not hit mute when the ads come up?
That's good for either a TV or an Apple TV, but since the content would be the same on both, I see a grand many more going for the $99 option.
I was being facetious with my first 3 sentences. Of course we all watch TV with our eyes. Of course I'm curious as to what Apple can do, but the competition is not standing idly by. A previous poster wished he could search across multiple channels and Roku already does that. I'd pay more a month for Hulu if episodes didn't expire. While there are commercials is much less than broadcast TV.
Thanks, when it comes to the Apple branded TV you and I are in agreement.
If it's the only method for input, sure, that's a horrible idea, same as if an iPhone that only had Siri for input is a horrible idea, but there are things Siri can do faster then we can do with our fingers on a touchscreen, keyboard or remote control.
For your phone:
"Remind me to pick up the dry cleaning when I leave work."
For your TV:
"Record tonight's Rock Center on NBC."
"Record all new episodes of Last Resort."
"Record everything with Jack Nicholson."
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
I'll bet Apple had the TV designed already. Just waiting for the technology to be ready and for the media contracts to fall into place.
yep, they sure have, for about 5 years now they keep showing the same minimalist TV behind their product on their own website.
AI, don't you get it? It's not going to look like the Thunderbolt display, it's not going to look like the iMac. It probably won't look like that thing on the Apple TV website either. However, that image has darken the Webiste for at least 5 years now. So they must have some idea what Apple thinks their TV should look like.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
What does that have to do with a television set.
Directly mirrors the supposition at hand.
If Apple is thinking of revolutionizing the TV space don't tell me they're content with having this amazing UI and content on a TV screen with a Samsung logo on it.
It tells you a lot more than it says (it says three words), meaning that you're inferring most of it.
Of course people don't replace their TV's that frequently and have multiple TV's in their home, so I can see Apple offering a set top box type option too.
Hence my examples showing that this isn't Apple's style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You are completely ignoring or not seeing the scope of the issue if you think the YoY iPhone changes are in any the same as Apple doing a TV. This is a completely different paradigm with a completely different set of rules. Until you address those issues and proffered some viable option for circumventing or working within the paradigm you have not presented anything that could conceivably be the "cracked nut" that Jobs referred to.
The very fact that you think the solution is simply a big as monitor with an Apple logo on it is proof that you have not thought it through because a big ass monitor with an Apple logo is not something difficult to do. There are plenty of difficulties affecting the way we watch television and yet only a few people on this forum seem to give that any regard
I think the problem is the TV paradigm is wrong. Cable didnt' change the paradigm, it just multiplied it by 100. the iPhone changed the model from a phone with a web browser, to a computer with a phone app.
Apple TV would be a computer application with video content management system tailored to me, assessible on what ever device I currently closest to my personal device.
I didn't say it's an Big Apple Monitor. I said it would be be bigger (so the progression from iPhone/PodTouch - iPad Mini, iPad, MBA, MBP, iMac, Mac Pro/Cinema, then... the TV made by Apple (as opposed to AppleTV). Nor did I infer the difficulty is in in the size.
The Difficulty is not how we 'watch' television. the iPad pretty much solves the 'watching' problem. The Difficulty is how we 'navigate features/content' from multiple sources. The TV model hasn't changed since.... radio. It's a network deciding when/howmany content should be delivered to l generate the most revenue . The apple solution has to build a 'MyChannel' from Internet/OTA/Cable sources, which you can search by just saying "I'd like to watch the Football Game" and that context have it decide I mean the most recent Pittsburgh Steeler or Iowa Hawkeye game. Not needing to understand satellite channel, cable channel, torrent, BigTenApp, OTA channel, whatever. Doing that without the person buying an intermediary device that is in house that requires the person to learn how to debug connectivity problems (Apple will NOT send a technician to your house), one that holds true to their 'experience design.' and not about building another product line independent of their other products... they not only complement each other, they are interdependent to each other, in a semi-open way. (They don't want to be another Sony). That's the difficulty.
The glass is the easy part.
The HDTV would need to have a longer lifeline of support than what apple currently does for many of its products. People will hold onto that 40" tv for a decade; will that TV be supported by apple's software updates in a decade? As providers change the software requirements to keep up with more modern functionality, can that hardware maintain? A $100 set top box is far easier to replace than a $1500 HDTV.
When are you people going to get it?
Siri doesn't "just work"...well
Siri would be an pain in the ass...on a TV
Siri is not the center of all iOS devices, it's not the be-all/end-all of anything...yet
Siri is a toy...a hobby...an nice to have but not need to have.
Just imagine how crap Siri would be in the living room, sitting down with the family, people talking, laughing, crying. Siri can't even deal with basic background noise much less in very closed quarters...not to mention if you watch TV later at night and don't want to wake the rest of the household by talking to your TV. There are many more examples of how this is a bad idea...but we've all gone over them about a million times on these forums already.
Siri for TV UI is the dumbest idea.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
yes because you're always in tune with Apple's style. And that's why the iPad mini never happened.
And this does what to refute the point I've made? What did I say that was in any way supposition on my own part? It is YOU who is making suppositions.
I maintain that the iPad mini was a terrible idea.
You also incorrectly assume the TV market is somehow saturated ... As if all the major TV manufacturers are about to gout of business because everybody has a flat screen TV and won't be buying a new one for many years, or a second, or a third, or upgrading the ones they got for new features. I have friends who bought a new TV every time there was an improvement: 32" to 46", 46" to 52", Plasma to LCD, 720p to 1080p, 60Hz to 120Hz, LED, 120Hz - 240Hz, 3D, integrated web, etc. This is exactly Apple's customer. So what makes you think they won't do the exact same thing when Apple comes out with a superior product, or more importantly choose to spend a little more on an Apple when buying a brand new TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Okay: Please tell me why ANYONE would purchase a $2,000 product that does the exact same thing as a $99 product, and I don't have to dispose of my old television with the latter.
Apparently that was unclear.
Because a new TV isn't $99, unless you watch everything on this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Insignia™+-+19"+Class+(18-1/2%26%2334%3B+Diag.)+-+LED+-+720p+-+60Hz+-+HDTV/5606251.p?id=1218671114012&skuId=5606251
I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.
However, no one is talking about disposing pre-existing televisions. My remarks were in context of someone suggesting that apple could sell both a full-fledged television and an apple Tv box contemporaneously, which is perfectly reasonable, at least to most people. Very analogous to iMac/Mac mini (which was designed for 'switchers' who already had a monitor and keyboard/mouse)
I'm not sure I can be clearer.
Again, not saying they should make a tv, but its really not hard to comprehend the might produce a television (with much higher margins) along side the apple tv in a form not too dissimilar to how it now is now in order to gain a foothold into the market. That way, when someone is up for a new television set they might just buy the apple tv. Halo effect.
Originally Posted by joelsalt
I'd rather spend 2000 (no idea where you got that number) on an apple full tv than 1500 to samsung + 100 for an apple tv box, if i were looking to buy a new tv.
Non-upgradability is worth $400 to you?
IF Apple were to make a real TV, it would be with Apple designs.
That said, I'm not taking the word of some analyst, after all they will say whatever makes the clients happy
Apple will most likely support far more upgrades to that Apple TV set than you'll ever get from Roku or Samsung.