I don't think an iWatch is a good idea because it will be feature-limited simply by virtue of its small design. With smartphones and tablets, the sky is the limit on what you can do with those devices. But an iWatch would simply be an accessory to an iPhone or iPad unless Apple can develop some kind of killer functionality to make an iWatch a must-have stand-alone device...
Of course, this could all be a distraction while Apple surprises us with something else. I hope so.
I ponder whether they will simply make a display for their little box. By revamping their Cinema Display line to work as a TV display as well. They won't likely have a 50 inch or over model at the moment but a 30 and maybe a 40-42. They might even be able to spec it high enough to be 3D capable and work with blu-ray players for such movies until they can get them in their store.
If Apple is going to get into TVs, they have to make AT LEAST a 50" or 55" set in my opinion. I have an Apple TV and while I like it, I'm not in love with it. I'm not fussy on the UI and it's very sluggish. I'm hoping whatever Apple does is light years better. Create a device with a responsive and intuitive UI, DVR capabilities, great content, home network and web connectivity and I'm hooked.
If Apple releases a watch...then hell will be frozen over.
You mean again?
apple already released a watch -- the sixth gen. iPod Nano. Not sure how this would be different, except it would do a lot more and be much more stylish.
Don't know why people are so opposed to this concept. Sports enthusiast in particular would welcome such a watch, and frankly anybody who buys a shuffle or a nano now. I wouldn't be surprised to see this replace the shuffle.
If apple Is to release iwatch , it will make google glass an idiot .
If apple did their homework and this product solves a need, then they will have a hit. If it's more a want product then it won't be as much of a hit. Google's Glass seems more like a novelty want product more than a need.
What I'd like to know is if it's possible to put all the radios needed for mobile phone connectivity, wifi, and LTE data into something that can be worn on the wrist. And whether the idea that Dick Applebaum first floated here would work: turning an ordinary iPad or mini into a tethered cell phone/tablet.
So the wrist computer could be used by itself as a phone, or with a Bluetooth or wifi as a web browser connected to a tablet or even an iPod touch.
This is a nice fantasy, but this kind of thing isn't made possible by the presence of a HUD on your head, it's made possible by Artificial Intelligence which actually hasn't developed to the stage that it can actually do this stuff yet.
Google glass will be able to do pop-ups and pop-overs on what you are seeing, but the pop-ups will be more like advertisements for coupons and restaurants. It will be able to link into social media eventually like foursquare ratings on restaurants etc. but it won't be able to do anything or give you any information that pulling an iPhone out of your pocket can't also give you.
What you're thinking is that there will be some magic (Artificial Intelligence again), computer entity behind it all that understands you, understands what you want, what you think, knows about all your friends and interests and can talk back to you and suggest things in real time. This is the basic fantasy piece built into every single "concept" of future living you've ever heard about since they first started talking about "the future" at all.
It will only happen when Artificial Intelligence becomes a reality. So far, there is absolutely no indication at all that the basic problems of making an artificial intelligence have been solved or even correctly understood to the point where they *may* in the future be solved. This kind of thing (a computer that can understand you when you talk to it), is either impossible, or is literally hundreds of years out. Siri is pretty much the pinnacle of what we can expect from systems like this for the foreseeable future. The accuracy will be improved, but it won't gain magical sentience overnight.
It won't happen in your lifetime that you will have such an "intelligent assistant." Get used to it.
I'm not as certain as you that we won't see an "intelligent assistant" in our lifetime, unless you're a whole lot older or unhealthy than me. The second link is particularly interesting.
apple already released a watch -- the sixth gen. iPod Nano. Not sure how this would be different, except it would do a lot more and be much more stylish.
Don't know why people are so opposed to this concept. Sports enthusiast in particular would welcome such a watch, and frankly anybody who buys a shuffle or a nano now. I wouldn't be surprised to see this replace the shuffle.
I for one am not necessarily opposed to it. I'm just not sure that I'd want one. I might -- who knows? If anyone is gong to get me to wear a watch again, it's likely Apple. The concept design image looks quite nice although it doesn't look like it would be comfortable to wear.
Honestly you could say the same things about computers and phones. Just because others aren't making money in that space doesn't mean Apple doesn't/couldn't. They have the vertical integration companies like Samsung/LG don't have (but are trying to build). IF Apple did do a TV my assumption is it would be more than just a dumb monitor.
The smartphone market was ripe for the taking. Few had smartphones, and many people were carrying around a iPod and a feature phone. Adding those 2 features plus making the web browsing experience exponentially better and then apps is what made the iPhone a hit, the iPad built on that and most people use it for their computing needs instead of a desktop. Can Apple make a TV that much different than what's already out?
There is definitely merit to "owning" the living room, and Apple certainly seems to have designs on that space. I don't think that it necessarily follows that Apple needs to get into the consumer electronics business.
What they *should* do is to occupy the "universal remote control" space - making everyone else's consumer electronics controllable with Apple devices.
Remote Control is a market that is begging for a single set of standards. Apple has the clout and the cachet to make the CE industry follow along and make their products compatible, as they've shown with AirPlay (and before that, with iPod). If Apple promulgated a single "iRemote" standard and got 1-2 major component makers on board, it would be a very short time before "Works With iRemote" stickers were on everything at Best Buy.
At the moment, the universal remote space is intimidating and cluttered. There are are a number of consumer-level universal remotes (Harmony, etc.), and a number of pro-install only universal remotes. None of these systems really work all that well, they're complicated, and they are really expensive.
This is a perfect situation for Apple. It's a tech market that is begging for homogenization, and there are literally millions of devices already in homes that are capable of becoming Apple "Universal Remotes". And Apple could use a new world to conquer right now.
1. Create an open remote-control platform / app.Call it "iRemote", or whatever. This would be a single app for remote control for any wifi-enabled or AirPlay components - with "module" apps that can be added in for third parties - DirecTV, AppleTV, insteon/crestron/lutron lighting, and so forth.
2. Build IR/RF capabilities into the next-gen iPad Mini. This would be a differentiator for the product, would allow iRemote to work with existing CE components, and would create a compelling reason to own both an iPad and a mini. They could also build a candy-bar style touchscreen remote with some hard buttons, obviously.
3. Purchase Logitech's Harmony division. Not sure that this is necessary, but it would presumably provide some patents, and would definitely provide some "heat" for Wall Street - it would conclusively demonstrate Apple's intent to make this more than a hobby.
We all know that Apple has had designs on the living room for a long time. When every component in your living room is being controlled with an iDevice, they'll be most of the way there. An iPad iRemote platform would have strong ties to the iTunes content ecosystem, and would drive those sales, too.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee So far, there is absolutely no indication at all that the basic problems of making an artificial intelligence have been solved or even correctly understood to the point where they *may* in the future be solved. This kind of thing (a computer that can understand you when you talk to it), is either impossible, or is literally hundreds of years out.
You should take a few minutes to read this MIT article Gazoobee.
the assumptions he makes are ridiculous. Not the least of which that Apple would be making a "watch" to compete with the likes of Rolex et al.
The margins are great on watches because "watches" are jewelry with nothing inside worth more than a nickel in parts.
I'd go further than that. His assumptions about margins are absurd. He assumes that Apple will earn the same margins as the rest of the industry. Currently, TVs are very low margin products with margins in the single digits. Apple is not going to play in that arena. If Apple were to make a TV at all, they'd be using margins comparable to their existing product line - at least 20-30%. So the 'estimated' margins on TVs are far too low.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the estimated margins on watches is too high. Currently, watches are often status symbols and sold as jewelry (certainly the expensive ones). The cost of making them is quite small. An Apple watch would contain a lot more expensive stuff inside - so margins might be lower than the industry average. In fact, I'm not sure it makes any sense to compare an iWatch to watches at all. It should probably be compared to consumer electronics devices - with margins in the 30% range.
I have an idea that might help Apple... The ought to try releasing a really nice big fast computer the could be used to do something productive. I think it would really catch on.
As an avid cyclist, I would love to have an iWatch that would work with my Strava app so I could see my speed, cadence and heart rate at a glance. I have avoided mounting my iPhone on the handlebar because it's just too big and I don't want to ruin it if I get caught in the rain. An iWatch would allow me to take calls without having to pull the phone out of the back pocket of the jersey. If I could find a Bluetooth earpiece, a discreet looking one that goes inside the ear, and if the iWatch has a built-in mic, I could talk with my left hand while controlling the bike with my right hand. That would be awesome. I refuse to wear those bluetooth headset with the built-in mic. They're just too hokey for my fashion sense.
There is definitely merit to "owning" the living room, and Apple certainly seems to have designs on that space. I don't think that it necessarily follows that Apple needs to get into the consumer electronics business.
What they *should* do is to occupy the "universal remote control" space - making everyone else's consumer electronics controllable with Apple devices.
...
Agreed. More a year ago, I made similar points. Most people seem to think that an Apple HDTV set is about content. Apple has to make deals with producers, but producers are reluctant to give Apple that kind of control, the reasoning goes. They can't seem to get their heads around the fact that most homes have access to more content than they can manage. The great problem to be solved is content management. This is where Apple has an enormous role to play.
As I see it, an Apple HDTV set would act as the center about which all other entertainment orbits. However, it is the iOS-based universal remote control that acts as the gravitational force that holds everything together. To be successful, this universal remote should be an open standard and should be useful even without an Apple HDTV at the center.
It should be pointed out that there are already iOS-based remote control emulators. You may control your Google TV with such an app on your iPad. In my vision of this brave new living room, the universal remote is like Newstand is for electronic newspapers and magazines or iBooks is for electronic books. Each home entertainment component manufacturer is able to publish its remote emulator that plugs into the larger app. Because all buttons are soft, the emulated remote could emulate every function of each hardware remote for which there is an emulator.
The killer feature of the iOS-based remote is two-way communication between components and the remote. Currently, remotes send commands to commands, but the components do not communicate with their remotes. One of the many consequences of this fact is that one component can be controlled by multiple remotes. This is a disaster in a world where everyone owns an iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, or any combination of these devices. Two-way communication opens the possibility of pairing components to their remotes so that the owner of the component decides who controls the component. Not just any yokel could walk into a bar and use his iPod touch to switch from the Yankees to the Cubs. Two-way communication also opens the possibility of the component transmitting animated program/preview icons to the remote. Ideally, these preview icons could be transmitted from any source connected to the HDTV--satellite receiver, cable box, Blu-ray player, PS4, ... anything. Of course, the user has the option to display channel or peripheral logos instead. The need to memorize channel numbers would be a thing of the past.
Virtually everything mentioned about is either current technology or one iteration beyond current technology. The only really new thing is the standard remote protocol that integrates these technologies. I have no idea if Apple is working on any of this. However, Apple is the only company with the leverage to make any of this happen. There have been rumors about an Apple HDTV play for quite some time. I am anxious to see what the company has up its sleeve.
What you're thinking is that there will be some magic (Artificial Intelligence again), computer entity behind it all that understands you, understands what you want, what you think, knows about all your friends and interests and can talk back to you and suggest things in real time. This is the basic fantasy piece built into every single "concept" of future living you've ever heard about since they first started talking about "the future" at all.
I agree fully general AI is a long way off, but I think you can go surprisingly far without needing a fully general AI though. Look at Siri - in a specific domain, e.g. finding places, setting appointments, sports scores, it can do quite well at understanding you. Well, not understanding you, but giving the answer you were looking for a lot of the time.
I think the virtual assistant is closer than you think, it just won't be as general as in sci fi, and occasionally it will make really dumb mistakes which indicates that it never really understands you at all, and people will groan, but it will still mostly work and quickly become an expected part of life like the cellphone.
Comments
I don't think an iWatch is a good idea because it will be feature-limited simply by virtue of its small design. With smartphones and tablets, the sky is the limit on what you can do with those devices. But an iWatch would simply be an accessory to an iPhone or iPad unless Apple can develop some kind of killer functionality to make an iWatch a must-have stand-alone device...
Of course, this could all be a distraction while Apple surprises us with something else. I hope so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
I ponder whether they will simply make a display for their little box. By revamping their Cinema Display line to work as a TV display as well. They won't likely have a 50 inch or over model at the moment but a 30 and maybe a 40-42. They might even be able to spec it high enough to be 3D capable and work with blu-ray players for such movies until they can get them in their store.
If Apple is going to get into TVs, they have to make AT LEAST a 50" or 55" set in my opinion. I have an Apple TV and while I like it, I'm not in love with it. I'm not fussy on the UI and it's very sluggish. I'm hoping whatever Apple does is light years better. Create a device with a responsive and intuitive UI, DVR capabilities, great content, home network and web connectivity and I'm hooked.
Edit: Grammar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
If everyone starts wearing Google glasses 24/7 that will be all she wrote for the TV set.
Folks have been saying similar things about folks having iPads.
Still waiting for the big boys to announce they are giving up in their TV production
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
If Apple releases a watch...then hell will be frozen over.
You mean again?
apple already released a watch -- the sixth gen. iPod Nano. Not sure how this would be different, except it would do a lot more and be much more stylish.
Don't know why people are so opposed to this concept. Sports enthusiast in particular would welcome such a watch, and frankly anybody who buys a shuffle or a nano now. I wouldn't be surprised to see this replace the shuffle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_mac_lover
If apple Is to release iwatch , it will make google glass an idiot .
If apple did their homework and this product solves a need, then they will have a hit. If it's more a want product then it won't be as much of a hit. Google's Glass seems more like a novelty want product more than a need.
So the wrist computer could be used by itself as a phone, or with a Bluetooth or wifi as a web browser connected to a tablet or even an iPod touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This is a nice fantasy, but this kind of thing isn't made possible by the presence of a HUD on your head, it's made possible by Artificial Intelligence which actually hasn't developed to the stage that it can actually do this stuff yet.
Google glass will be able to do pop-ups and pop-overs on what you are seeing, but the pop-ups will be more like advertisements for coupons and restaurants. It will be able to link into social media eventually like foursquare ratings on restaurants etc. but it won't be able to do anything or give you any information that pulling an iPhone out of your pocket can't also give you.
What you're thinking is that there will be some magic (Artificial Intelligence again), computer entity behind it all that understands you, understands what you want, what you think, knows about all your friends and interests and can talk back to you and suggest things in real time. This is the basic fantasy piece built into every single "concept" of future living you've ever heard about since they first started talking about "the future" at all.
It will only happen when Artificial Intelligence becomes a reality. So far, there is absolutely no indication at all that the basic problems of making an artificial intelligence have been solved or even correctly understood to the point where they *may* in the future be solved. This kind of thing (a computer that can understand you when you talk to it), is either impossible, or is literally hundreds of years out. Siri is pretty much the pinnacle of what we can expect from systems like this for the foreseeable future. The accuracy will be improved, but it won't gain magical sentience overnight.
It won't happen in your lifetime that you will have such an "intelligent assistant." Get used to it.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Google-A.I.-Search-Technology-PCs,20476.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/06/27/google_computers_learn_to_identify_cats_on_youtube_in_artificial_intelligence_study.html
I'm not as certain as you that we won't see an "intelligent assistant" in our lifetime, unless you're a whole lot older or unhealthy than me. The second link is particularly interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
You mean again?
apple already released a watch -- the sixth gen. iPod Nano. Not sure how this would be different, except it would do a lot more and be much more stylish.
Don't know why people are so opposed to this concept. Sports enthusiast in particular would welcome such a watch, and frankly anybody who buys a shuffle or a nano now. I wouldn't be surprised to see this replace the shuffle.
I for one am not necessarily opposed to it. I'm just not sure that I'd want one. I might -- who knows? If anyone is gong to get me to wear a watch again, it's likely Apple. The concept design image looks quite nice although it doesn't look like it would be comfortable to wear.
Originally Posted by NelsonX
Both are great devices and have different purposes. The watch should have NFC.
"NFC" has become the kitchen sink equivalent in tech. It means nothing at all, and yet devices "must" have it.
Originally Posted by ascii
If everyone starts wearing Google glasses 24/7 that will be all she wrote for the TV set.
Right, because no one listened to the radio after the first television went on sale.
A more accurate statement would be "as long as movie theaters exist, that will be all she wrote for Google Glasses."
How many theater owners will put up with them? And how many people will want to see "Take off your glasses before entering the theater"?
The smartphone market was ripe for the taking. Few had smartphones, and many people were carrying around a iPod and a feature phone. Adding those 2 features plus making the web browsing experience exponentially better and then apps is what made the iPhone a hit, the iPad built on that and most people use it for their computing needs instead of a desktop. Can Apple make a TV that much different than what's already out?
Bad example, a great many people still wash dishes by hand.
There is definitely merit to "owning" the living room, and Apple certainly seems to have designs on that space. I don't think that it necessarily follows that Apple needs to get into the consumer electronics business.
What they *should* do is to occupy the "universal remote control" space - making everyone else's consumer electronics controllable with Apple devices.
Remote Control is a market that is begging for a single set of standards. Apple has the clout and the cachet to make the CE industry follow along and make their products compatible, as they've shown with AirPlay (and before that, with iPod). If Apple promulgated a single "iRemote" standard and got 1-2 major component makers on board, it would be a very short time before "Works With iRemote" stickers were on everything at Best Buy.
At the moment, the universal remote space is intimidating and cluttered. There are are a number of consumer-level universal remotes (Harmony, etc.), and a number of pro-install only universal remotes. None of these systems really work all that well, they're complicated, and they are really expensive.
This is a perfect situation for Apple. It's a tech market that is begging for homogenization, and there are literally millions of devices already in homes that are capable of becoming Apple "Universal Remotes". And Apple could use a new world to conquer right now.
1. Create an open remote-control platform / app. Call it "iRemote", or whatever. This would be a single app for remote control for any wifi-enabled or AirPlay components - with "module" apps that can be added in for third parties - DirecTV, AppleTV, insteon/crestron/lutron lighting, and so forth.
2. Build IR/RF capabilities into the next-gen iPad Mini. This would be a differentiator for the product, would allow iRemote to work with existing CE components, and would create a compelling reason to own both an iPad and a mini. They could also build a candy-bar style touchscreen remote with some hard buttons, obviously.
3. Purchase Logitech's Harmony division. Not sure that this is necessary, but it would presumably provide some patents, and would definitely provide some "heat" for Wall Street - it would conclusively demonstrate Apple's intent to make this more than a hobby.
We all know that Apple has had designs on the living room for a long time. When every component in your living room is being controlled with an iDevice, they'll be most of the way there. An iPad iRemote platform would have strong ties to the iTunes content ecosystem, and would drive those sales, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You should take a few minutes to read this MIT article Gazoobee.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429442/google-puts-its-virtual-brain-technology-to-work/
I'd go further than that. His assumptions about margins are absurd. He assumes that Apple will earn the same margins as the rest of the industry. Currently, TVs are very low margin products with margins in the single digits. Apple is not going to play in that arena. If Apple were to make a TV at all, they'd be using margins comparable to their existing product line - at least 20-30%. So the 'estimated' margins on TVs are far too low.
OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if the estimated margins on watches is too high. Currently, watches are often status symbols and sold as jewelry (certainly the expensive ones). The cost of making them is quite small. An Apple watch would contain a lot more expensive stuff inside - so margins might be lower than the industry average. In fact, I'm not sure it makes any sense to compare an iWatch to watches at all. It should probably be compared to consumer electronics devices - with margins in the 30% range.
Originally Posted by justamacguy
…a really nice big fast computer the could be used to do something productive.
Gonna respond directly to your trolling and tell you they have those. Cut it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDMeister
As an avid cyclist, I would love to have an iWatch that would work with my Strava app so I could see my speed, cadence and heart rate at a glance. I have avoided mounting my iPhone on the handlebar because it's just too big and I don't want to ruin it if I get caught in the rain. An iWatch would allow me to take calls without having to pull the phone out of the back pocket of the jersey. If I could find a Bluetooth earpiece, a discreet looking one that goes inside the ear, and if the iWatch has a built-in mic, I could talk with my left hand while controlling the bike with my right hand. That would be awesome. I refuse to wear those bluetooth headset with the built-in mic. They're just too hokey for my fashion sense.
Nn bluetooth earpiece here...
http://www.gizmofusion.com/2013/03/google-glass-spotted-in-the-wild/
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattgasaway
There is definitely merit to "owning" the living room, and Apple certainly seems to have designs on that space. I don't think that it necessarily follows that Apple needs to get into the consumer electronics business.
What they *should* do is to occupy the "universal remote control" space - making everyone else's consumer electronics controllable with Apple devices.
...
Agreed. More a year ago, I made similar points. Most people seem to think that an Apple HDTV set is about content. Apple has to make deals with producers, but producers are reluctant to give Apple that kind of control, the reasoning goes. They can't seem to get their heads around the fact that most homes have access to more content than they can manage. The great problem to be solved is content management. This is where Apple has an enormous role to play.
As I see it, an Apple HDTV set would act as the center about which all other entertainment orbits. However, it is the iOS-based universal remote control that acts as the gravitational force that holds everything together. To be successful, this universal remote should be an open standard and should be useful even without an Apple HDTV at the center.
It should be pointed out that there are already iOS-based remote control emulators. You may control your Google TV with such an app on your iPad. In my vision of this brave new living room, the universal remote is like Newstand is for electronic newspapers and magazines or iBooks is for electronic books. Each home entertainment component manufacturer is able to publish its remote emulator that plugs into the larger app. Because all buttons are soft, the emulated remote could emulate every function of each hardware remote for which there is an emulator.
The killer feature of the iOS-based remote is two-way communication between components and the remote. Currently, remotes send commands to commands, but the components do not communicate with their remotes. One of the many consequences of this fact is that one component can be controlled by multiple remotes. This is a disaster in a world where everyone owns an iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, or any combination of these devices. Two-way communication opens the possibility of pairing components to their remotes so that the owner of the component decides who controls the component. Not just any yokel could walk into a bar and use his iPod touch to switch from the Yankees to the Cubs. Two-way communication also opens the possibility of the component transmitting animated program/preview icons to the remote. Ideally, these preview icons could be transmitted from any source connected to the HDTV--satellite receiver, cable box, Blu-ray player, PS4, ... anything. Of course, the user has the option to display channel or peripheral logos instead. The need to memorize channel numbers would be a thing of the past.
Virtually everything mentioned about is either current technology or one iteration beyond current technology. The only really new thing is the standard remote protocol that integrates these technologies. I have no idea if Apple is working on any of this. However, Apple is the only company with the leverage to make any of this happen. There have been rumors about an Apple HDTV play for quite some time. I am anxious to see what the company has up its sleeve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
You seriously think that's going to happen? Has Sergy Brin got you under his RDF?
No, I don't think it will happen. I said if X then Y without claiming whether X was likely or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
What you're thinking is that there will be some magic (Artificial Intelligence again), computer entity behind it all that understands you, understands what you want, what you think, knows about all your friends and interests and can talk back to you and suggest things in real time. This is the basic fantasy piece built into every single "concept" of future living you've ever heard about since they first started talking about "the future" at all.
I agree fully general AI is a long way off, but I think you can go surprisingly far without needing a fully general AI though. Look at Siri - in a specific domain, e.g. finding places, setting appointments, sports scores, it can do quite well at understanding you. Well, not understanding you, but giving the answer you were looking for a lot of the time.
I think the virtual assistant is closer than you think, it just won't be as general as in sci fi, and occasionally it will make really dumb mistakes which indicates that it never really understands you at all, and people will groan, but it will still mostly work and quickly become an expected part of life like the cellphone.