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.
Sure the TV model has changed. Although not perfect gone are the days of having to schedule your life in order not to miss a show. I watch very few shows when broadcast
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.
Nothing you've stated makes any sense unless you want to describe how Siri on my iPhone or iPad is completely pointless when I'm around other people, using the phone, or watching TV whilst using my iPhone or iPad.
Sure the TV model has changed. Although not perfect gone are the days of having to schedule your life in order not to miss a show. I watch very few shows when broadcast
That is not the model being changed. There is no refactoring there... you shimmed a device into the model, to adjust it to your liking. The actual choice of content hasn't changed, the delivery method hasn't changed, the payment method hasn't change (other than you adding costs to the model), the Other 500 shows that you didn't watch are still being paid for by your dime... Advertisers are seeking (or avoiding) your demographic and the lack of ability of content to attract critical mass of eyeballs may terminate your show.
Your sample size of one (or 1 Million) isn't a new industry model. My (80yo) mother can't run a DVR, let alone wire one up to her cable box. Video on demand isn't portable. My Mother can use an (G5) iMac and an iPhone. before then she had neither a computer or a smartphone, and could barely use her flip phone without someone else programming it. Now, she can program it herself.
Again, look at the world before iMac... and after.
That is not the model being changed. There is no refactoring there... you shimmed a device into the model, to adjust it to your liking. The actual choice of content hasn't changed, the delivery method hasn't changed, the payment method hasn't change (other than you adding costs to the model), the Other 500 shows that you didn't watch are still being paid for by your dime... Advertisers are seeking (or avoiding) your demographic and the lack of ability of content to attract critical mass of eyeballs may terminate your show.
Your sample size of one (or 1 Million) isn't a new industry model. My (80yo) mother can't run a DVR, let alone wire one up to her cable box. Video on demand isn't portable. My Mother can use an (G5) iMac and an iPhone. before then she had neither a computer or a smartphone, and could barely use her flip phone without someone else programming it. Now, she can program it herself.
Again, look at the world before iMac... and after.
before iPod and ITMS... and then after
before iPhone.... and after
Before iPad... and after
Those are models being changed...
My 97yo grandmother can't use an iPhone or a Mac. Does that mean those devices have no market? To paraphrase Steve Jobs, "those users are not the focus because they will eventually be gone." So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."
I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective. I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.
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 do think Apple will stay out of the high high end. Much like Mac Servers, 17" tablets, Gamer Tuned Graphics in PCs and Laptops, , Apple won't be selling 88" Plasma TVs.
and the $400 delta here, in this example, it would manage my OTA/Cable search as well as the ITMS library ("Siri, I think Notre Dame is playing Basketball right now, please tune in the game..." instead of me trying to find it on the 30 odd channels of sports channels and apps (apps will be the new 'channels')).
Now, my temporary panacea is that the $100 AppleTV box will have a Coax connector and do the same. Still that leads me to two remotes, a decision on how to do sound cabling to HT, etc.
Apple TV could happen yet is dead at the moment. I have pointed out possible advantages. I also find a $150 box could do 98% of Apples needs. Apple is targeting getting Internet devices to most electronics. Current versions of Apple devices show that Apple would require more than is possible. Apple has what it is needed. I prefer a Apple TV with screen.
So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."
I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective.
I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.
1) If my 80 can do it, then a 65 yo can do it, and 65 is where the money is.
But then you start arguing my point. so I guess I should shut up.
2) a different perspective is eliminating the complexity through computational power and ease of a single interface. That's my argument. You make it sound revolutionary.
3) as for your last point. Cable and Networks are the Music Stores/Labels and bookstores/publishers of TV. When it comes to content (and in the end, it's all about the content). Apple wants to be the 'store' and get it's 30%. Hence, they are in direct business conflict with Cable companies, and indirect conflict with Network advertisers, just like they were in direct conflict with wireless 'features' since they were sticky to the wireless carrier (email, voicemail, browsing, contacts, etc). The only way this makes sense is for Apple to eliminate the waste of the current system, and bring a quantum change to the value proposition, like they did with ipods, phones, and tablets.
My 97yo grandmother can't use an iPhone or a Mac. Does that mean those devices have no market? To paraphrase Steve Jobs, "those users are not the focus because they will eventually be gone." So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."
I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective. I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.
The beauty of the iPhone and a major selling point is that it could be unlocked and used on telcos around the world that didn't sell it. Everyone keeps talking about content deals but most will be only good in the States. We're all thinking selfishly in that regard, how about Europe, South America, China, etc? It would have to be something that can be sold worldwide not just in the US.
That is not the model being changed. There is no refactoring there... you shimmed a device into the model, to adjust it to your liking. The actual choice of content hasn't changed, the delivery method hasn't changed, the payment method hasn't change (other than you adding costs to the model), the Other 500 shows that you didn't watch are still being paid for by your dime... Advertisers are seeking (or avoiding) your demographic and the lack of ability of content to attract critical mass of eyeballs may terminate your show.
Your sample size of one (or 1 Million) isn't a new industry model. My (80yo) mother can't run a DVR, let alone wire one up to her cable box. Video on demand isn't portable. My Mother can use an (G5) iMac and an iPhone. before then she had neither a computer or a smartphone, and could barely use her flip phone without someone else programming it. Now, she can program it herself.
Again, look at the world before iMac... and after.
before iPod and ITMS... and then after
before iPhone.... and after
Before iPad... and after
Those are models being changed...
What other choice of content would you like besides TV shows, movies, and games?
Do you want it delivered by reverse osmosis? There's OTA, coaxial, and fiber right now. What new and un-thought of way is there?
It's been proven that the $2.99 per show isn't a option many will jump on.
The beauty of the iPhone and a major selling point is that it could be unlocked and used on telcos around the world that didn't sell it. Everyone keeps talking about content deals but most will be only good in the States. We're all thinking selfishly in that regard, how about Europe, South America, China, etc? It would have to be something that can be sold worldwide not just in the US.
Look at the iPhone as an example. The first was AT&T, then called Cingular, in the US. Then it expanded to few other carriers in other countries; i think 5 in total and none where the #1 carrier in their respective markets. Then it's grown carrier by carrier with contracts. Eventually it even moved to Verizon and Sprint with new HW and contracts.
This is how I expect Apple would could sell a device that has to be adaptable for various protocols and contracts needed. You start with a powerful partner (but not necessarily the most powerful for that market) and move from there.
There is nothing wrong with expecting Apple to focus on the US first. This is their home market. This is their largest single market. Someone usually points out that Apple does most of their business outside the US (which is correct) but they do far more business in the US than any other country in the world.
As with iTunes Store the content will mirror what is available for those countries. That means many countries will not have TV Shows or Movies readily available. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. Hopefully one day these deals will become worldwide and all available right after the last market aires the episode or after the theater demand dies down, and available for a reasonable price. If those things happen then torrents and newsgroups could become more trouble than they are worth for many people who have the money and desire to pay for content.
However, that's just content but TV systems are various HW types even within the US so we're not talking about something as simple as some additional power amps for the same 3G baseband HW, like in the iPhone, but a lot more sophisticated HW to be adaptable across the globe.
It's never been done before for the HEC so it would be revolutionary.
Cable and Networks are the Music Stores/Labels and bookstores/publishers of TV.
Unless you can only go to music/bookstores/publishers to enjoy the content then it's not the same. Cable companies provide the internet. If Apple wants to piggyback on their network with content they already offer their existing customers they will have to work with them, not against them, or we all lose.
They were just talking about this on CNBC and all the guys who think they're so smart said Apple would come out with a TV set. Of course these same yahoos whined that Apple released too many products this year and people are going to think twice now about buying Apple stuff because of concerns over shelf life. :rolleyes: let's not forget the people complaining now were the same ones saying Apple has to release a smaller iPad to compete with the Kindle Fire. Now they're complaining that Apple released too many products with not enough differentiation. And even iPhone and iPad mini supplies were a negative with one clown suggesting because iPhone shipping times have decreased that means fewer people are buying the product. Of course if iPhone shipping times were still 2-3 weeks then they'd be complaining about Apple not managing their supply chain effectively. It's basically heads I win tails you lose. Even though they're all hating on Apple they've upped their target on iPhone sales to 50M so if Apple doesn't sell at least 50M this quarter it will be a failure. :rolleyes:
Yogi Berra would say: "nobody buys iPhones anymore because they're too popular".
Comments
Sure the TV model has changed. Although not perfect gone are the days of having to schedule your life in order not to miss a show. I watch very few shows when broadcast
Nothing you've stated makes any sense unless you want to describe how Siri on my iPhone or iPad is completely pointless when I'm around other people, using the phone, or watching TV whilst using my iPhone or iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
... but Apple does sell an all in one computer along with the Mac Mini.
I'm looking for the center in that combination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Sure the TV model has changed. Although not perfect gone are the days of having to schedule your life in order not to miss a show. I watch very few shows when broadcast
That is not the model being changed. There is no refactoring there... you shimmed a device into the model, to adjust it to your liking. The actual choice of content hasn't changed, the delivery method hasn't changed, the payment method hasn't change (other than you adding costs to the model), the Other 500 shows that you didn't watch are still being paid for by your dime... Advertisers are seeking (or avoiding) your demographic and the lack of ability of content to attract critical mass of eyeballs may terminate your show.
Your sample size of one (or 1 Million) isn't a new industry model. My (80yo) mother can't run a DVR, let alone wire one up to her cable box. Video on demand isn't portable. My Mother can use an (G5) iMac and an iPhone. before then she had neither a computer or a smartphone, and could barely use her flip phone without someone else programming it. Now, she can program it herself.
Again, look at the world before iMac... and after.
before iPod and ITMS... and then after
before iPhone.... and after
Before iPad... and after
Those are models being changed...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Non-upgradability is worth $400 to you?
If the 400 delta buys me the quality and longevity of an Apple Device.
See iMac. (I'm still running G5's in my fleet)
See Batteries in a MBA or an iPhone. (my white 2009 macbook is flagging 'replace battery soon', otherwise, it worked great for my wife).
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
See iMac.
The iMac offers large hardware improvements over the Mac Mini.
My 97yo grandmother can't use an iPhone or a Mac. Does that mean those devices have no market? To paraphrase Steve Jobs, "those users are not the focus because they will eventually be gone." So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."
I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective. I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.
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 do think Apple will stay out of the high high end. Much like Mac Servers, 17" tablets, Gamer Tuned Graphics in PCs and Laptops, , Apple won't be selling 88" Plasma TVs.
and the $400 delta here, in this example, it would manage my OTA/Cable search as well as the ITMS library ("Siri, I think Notre Dame is playing Basketball right now, please tune in the game..." instead of me trying to find it on the 30 odd channels of sports channels and apps (apps will be the new 'channels')).
Now, my temporary panacea is that the $100 AppleTV box will have a Coax connector and do the same. Still that leads me to two remotes, a decision on how to do sound cabling to HT, etc.
I have pointed out possible advantages.
I also find a $150 box could do 98% of Apples needs.
Apple is targeting getting Internet devices to most electronics.
Current versions of Apple devices show that Apple would require more than is possible.
Apple has what it is needed.
I prefer a Apple TV with screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So why does your grandmother have to know how to use any current DVR for others to enjoy what Apple could bring to the table tomorrow? Imagine if people in 2006 said, "My grandmother doesn't use a smartphone so it's foolish for Apple to make a smartphone."
I have no doubt that if Apple releases a new device/service for the TV it will change the game just as they have done in the past. Note that they have consistently changed the game not being doing the same or the opposite, just by coming at it from a different perspective.
I don't think the common perspective of they need to abolish all ties with anything and everything that is currently being done is the right one just I as didn't think that Apple shouldn't work with telcos to bring the iPhone to the world.
1) If my 80 can do it, then a 65 yo can do it, and 65 is where the money is.
But then you start arguing my point. so I guess I should shut up.
2) a different perspective is eliminating the complexity through computational power and ease of a single interface. That's my argument. You make it sound revolutionary.
3) as for your last point. Cable and Networks are the Music Stores/Labels and bookstores/publishers of TV. When it comes to content (and in the end, it's all about the content). Apple wants to be the 'store' and get it's 30%. Hence, they are in direct business conflict with Cable companies, and indirect conflict with Network advertisers, just like they were in direct conflict with wireless 'features' since they were sticky to the wireless carrier (email, voicemail, browsing, contacts, etc). The only way this makes sense is for Apple to eliminate the waste of the current system, and bring a quantum change to the value proposition, like they did with ipods, phones, and tablets.
The beauty of the iPhone and a major selling point is that it could be unlocked and used on telcos around the world that didn't sell it. Everyone keeps talking about content deals but most will be only good in the States. We're all thinking selfishly in that regard, how about Europe, South America, China, etc? It would have to be something that can be sold worldwide not just in the US.
What other choice of content would you like besides TV shows, movies, and games?
Do you want it delivered by reverse osmosis? There's OTA, coaxial, and fiber right now. What new and un-thought of way is there?
It's been proven that the $2.99 per show isn't a option many will jump on.
Apple+TV = Big Brother with a robotic woman's voice
Look at the iPhone as an example. The first was AT&T, then called Cingular, in the US. Then it expanded to few other carriers in other countries; i think 5 in total and none where the #1 carrier in their respective markets. Then it's grown carrier by carrier with contracts. Eventually it even moved to Verizon and Sprint with new HW and contracts.
This is how I expect Apple
wouldcould sell a device that has to be adaptable for various protocols and contracts needed. You start with a powerful partner (but not necessarily the most powerful for that market) and move from there.There is nothing wrong with expecting Apple to focus on the US first. This is their home market. This is their largest single market. Someone usually points out that Apple does most of their business outside the US (which is correct) but they do far more business in the US than any other country in the world.
As with iTunes Store the content will mirror what is available for those countries. That means many countries will not have TV Shows or Movies readily available. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is. Hopefully one day these deals will become worldwide and all available right after the last market aires the episode or after the theater demand dies down, and available for a reasonable price. If those things happen then torrents and newsgroups could become more trouble than they are worth for many people who have the money and desire to pay for content.
However, that's just content but TV systems are various HW types even within the US so we're not talking about something as simple as some additional power amps for the same 3G baseband HW, like in the iPhone, but a lot more sophisticated HW to be adaptable across the globe.
It's never been done before for the HEC so it would be revolutionary.
Unless you can only go to music/bookstores/publishers to enjoy the content then it's not the same. Cable companies provide the internet. If Apple wants to piggyback on their network with content they already offer their existing customers they will have to work with them, not against them, or we all lose.
Yogi Berra would say: "nobody buys iPhones anymore because they're too popular".
Or nobody goes to Apple stores anymore because they're too crowded.
TiVos come to mind, this had better be better than those (and that's possible) or it's no sale for me.
This is the second time you linked to Loewe, please stop. Their AirSpeaker is a dodgy box, I've had two.