I'm impressed the 2010 memo that has iPhone 5 features, tie everything to cloud, "HDMI Dongle" and it proves that Apples works on products years in advance and choose "no" to HDMI dongle a la Chromecast.
In 15 years I don't expect TVs to be anything more than a panel of glass or other material not more than a few millimeters thick. It may not even need a power cable, and almost surely will not have much more in the way of connnectivity than a wifi chip in it. The "smart" part of a TV viewing experience will come from assorted Internet Wifi devices that beam images to it.
Smart TVs will be called smart because in an of themselves in one box they will a lot of functions, internet connectivity and apps. If Netflix continues to improve and eventually offers some kind of attractive plus plan with all the shows people want and there's a Netflix app and ecosystem of games and apps built into every new TV sold there will be no need or desire for consumers to want an Apple TV box. "My TV does all that stuff."
Because eventually everyone will have a TV like that. It's only a matter of time. It's really content dependent, but eventually someone is gonna crack this nut. Apple really has no choice but to eventually play the make-your-own-TV game. Otherwise they will be locked out by default. I'm speaking in terms of years here of course.
So you think it's just fine that the whole world knows stuff like this:
5. iOS - Scott, Joz
Strategy: catch up to Android where we are behind (notifications, tethering, speech, ...) and
leapfrog them (Siri, ...)
I'm sure Google is getting a good chuckle over that one. And what exactly has Siri leapfrogged? Certainly not Google Now.
I didn't need this email to know that.
Do you honestly think Apple does not have internal meetings where they discuss where others might be ahead of them......JUST BECAUSE it doesn't show up in their marketing or public statements???
I'd love to know why Apple's legal tea couldn't keep this from being made public. It has nothing to do with the trial and if anything is just embarrassing to Apple. There's a reason these documents are marked CONFIDENTIAL.
There you go again with that word embarrassing. Why don't you just stop since you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Smart TVs will be called smart because in an of themselves in one box they will a lot of functions, internet connectivity and apps. If Netflix continues to improve and eventually offers some kind of attractive plus plan with all the shows people want and there's a Netflix app and ecosystem of games and apps built into every new TV sold there will be no need or desire for consumers to want an Apple TV box. "My TV does all that stuff."
Because eventually everyone will have a TV like that. It's only a matter of time. It's really content dependent, but eventually someone is gonna crack this nut. Apple really has no choice but to eventually play the make-your-own-TV game. Otherwise they will be locked out by default. I'm speaking in terms of years here of course.
You're speaking in terms of 10-15 years. It's not even remotely relevant. People don't buy TV's but once every 5-10 years. What you describe is irrelevant. Apple will sell a shitload of AppleTV in that time, as they can update a box every year with new hardware and content and abilities....GOOD luck updating your magical integrated TV set every year.
At the bottom of each page is this: Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only. I wonder who leaked this then? For me it's not the contents that are embarrassing but the fact it was made public. These things are labeled as confidential for a reason.
In the day, the existence of Little Boy and Fat Man were secret too, let alone photos of them. This is no longer the day. The email you're kvetching about is four years old. Its day is long past as well, and most of its content has come to pass. It's no longer classified or confidential; it's history. So tell me, do you think it's safe now to declassify General Washington's plans to cross the Delaware on Christmas night and attack the Hessians at Trenton? After all, we wouldn't want Ol' George to be "embarrassed."
Lawyers will warn you that if you don't want corporate secrets to come out and get a lot of publicity, don't sue or allow yourself to be sue. That's what's happening here.
In the day, the existence of Little Boy and Fat Man were secret too, let alone photos of them. This is no longer the day. The email you're kvetching about is four years old. Its day is long past as well, and most of its content has come to pass. It's no longer classified or confidential; it's history. So tell me, do you think it's safe now to declassify General Washington's plans to cross the Delaware on Christmas night and attack the Hessians at Trenton? After all, we wouldn't want Ol' George to be "embarrassed."
I don't care how old it is. Is it has f*ck all to do with this trial and Samsung getting it made public is for no other reason than embarrassing Apple and trying to change the narrative from patent violations to Apple fearing the competition and wanting to stop a rising competitor.
Do you honestly think Apple does not have internal meetings where they discuss where others might be ahead of them......JUST BECAUSE it doesn't show up in their marketing or public statements???
I believe Apple has tons of internal meetings where they discuss the competition. But I doubt they want the contents of those meetings spilled across the internet for everyone to see. And this stuff is leaking to what end? Doubtful any Samsung devices will be banned and any fine they pay is basically pocket change to them. What exactly is Apple going to win?
You don't think it's embarrassing that a confidential email like this gets leaked? I do.
I'd lean more your way too, tho perhaps not go as far as saying it's embarrassing. Economically Apple may (or may not) benefit but from a PR standpoint I don't really see this latest lawsuit as worth it myself. For the hardcore fans of Apple, perhaps their most valuable segment, disclosures like this openly introduce questions on some firmly held beliefs, and I'd suspect this won't be the last confidential Apple document we get to read.
You're speaking in terms of 10-15 years. It's not even remotely relevant. People don't buy TV's but once every 5-10 years. What you describe is irrelevant. Apple will sell a shitload of AppleTV in that time, as they can update a box every year with new hardware and content and abilities....GOOD luck updating your magical integrated TV set every year.
Not a compelling argument you're making. And I'm arguing they continue to sell Apple TV. Obviously the TV would be more powerful than an Apple TV. And yes, the way the world will very likely be in 15 years should be of interest to Apple. But depending on who innovates in this space we're more likely talking 8 - 10 years. In 8 to 10 years pretty much everyone you know will be rocking a new TV and those TVs will be smart, and will have apps like Netflix and others built in. And I it's think it's common sense to assume they'll will eventually have App Store and games etc. One of these days the idea of attaching a box to your TV will be a thing of the past? Is that, 5, 10 or 15 years away? I don't know, but I feel it's a nigh on certainty that it's gonna happen at some point. Apple should try to play its hand and push the content owners hard for a TV subscription plan, like Steve himself mentioned, so they can have a reason go-to-market strategy.
"Words are, in my not-so-humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic."Albus Dumbledore:
I see voice search as being the future of TV. There are plenty of things that voice isn’t very good at. For instance, writing this reply can be accomplished better with typing, but if I want to setup an appointment on my iPhone then Siri is how I will do that. Instead of unlocking my phone, locating the calendar app, opening it, going to the right date, creating a new appointment, adding a name for the appointment, using the dials to then set a start time, and saving it. Instead I just hold down the Home Button and saying “Set appointment for the Dentist on May 1st at 9:30am.” It will even let me know if there are any conflicts with that date and time. That’s how I want voice search to be for a TV!
I want to be able to say something like “Play season 7 episode 19 of The Big Bang Theory” or “Play the last night’s episode of Elementary” or “Play the oldest unplayed episode of The Daily Show” or even set reminders to watch a show at a particular time with “Remind me to watch the Longmire season premiere.” To me that’s just the tip of the iceberg of when the living room will finally start to become a 21st century environment.
Eventually I want to be able to say “Play at 2x speed” or “Jump back 2 minutes” or “Start scene over from the beginning” or “Pause. Identify the grey jacket worn in that scene. [This jacket is made by blah blah and retails for yada yada. Would you like me to save this search to your Reading List?] Yes. Resume playback.”
"He Who Controls The Remote Controls The Universe"Baron Harkonnen
I also want to see a way for the TV to magically alter it's layout based on the one who controls the remote. Since TVs and their boxes tend to be used my multiple people within a home but usually watched or controlled by only one person at a time, I want the remote to have biometrics that can instantly determine the user which can then alter the UI for that user’s preferences and viewing habits.
This means that when I pick up the remote it wouldn’t show (say) my young daughter’s TV shows but instead lists the shows I like to watch, the ones I’ve recorded, and even go back to where I may have stopped watching a show the last time I was using the TV. I’m not talking about a complex security like in Touch ID, although that could be an option, but more for just identifying the user quickly through a simple hash sent via BT to the primary device. This can be done by using sensors over the device's normal grip area or even having a Touch ID-like button on top that you have to actively touch. Even in the latter instance having it change everything to match your viewing habits is a time saver and major convenience.
"You Shall Passthrough"Gandolf the Grey
Any device connected to a TV via HDMI that is not the primary input source is never going to be a great device for the user. Even among those that love their Apple TV most will likely use the cable/sat digibox as their primary input on their HDTV. This input switching on the TV is long overdue to be removed. I'd love to see TV's simply become the dumb monitors they should have become years ago; meaning, we set the TV when you get it and then never alter the input. In fact, these devices get put so far in their place so far that they no longer come with remote controls because it's simply not needed.
I'd love for Apple to create a device that can be all things, but that doesn't seem like it's in Apple's DNA and the complexities of the various cable/sat standards (even just in the US) are likely too much of a mess for them to ever deal with. For that reason I'd like to at least have an HDMI passthrough on the Apple TV. This way, whatever the primary input is will be sent to the TV and the Apple TV UI will always be ready to overlay on the screen. It would at least get me to use their Apple TV more if I didn't have to go through the rigamarole of finding the TV remote and changing the input which admittedly isn't difficult but definitely is annoying.
One of these days the idea of attaching a box to your TV will be a thing of the past
Isn't that up to the bandwidth providers? I'd think Comcast, Cox, etc. would not want to become just a dumb pipe. Sort of depends on net neutrality, which will have to overcome some pretty deep lobbying pockets to ever become a reality. Sure there will be smart TVs but the inputs and the remote will leave a lot of flexibility for users and providers to connect to all kinds of content options.
I don't know what I was expecting, but I always imagined Steve Jobs' secret list to be more imaginative and inspiring. Guess even Willy Wonka has to put his pants on one leg at a time.
In a way it's probably a good thing because it keeps taking away the idea that Apple without Steve is a company without a magic wand. They didn't have a magic wand. The team at Apple (that is still there) came up with ideas and products and they made rational decisions about the best route to customers when the technology was ready.
That should mean any company can do the same thing. They can but their motivations as a whole are different. When you look at great musicians or artists, their motivation is to focus on the certain style they want to project - like everyone, they choose an identity. Compare it to musicians that try to be like already famous musicians. They show themselves up as imitators from the outset and that's not appealing because people like things that are new (original information) and better (something that resonates positively with their own interests).
The identity people choose is going to polarize other people one way or another based on what's important to them but everyone has common behaviour patterns. We all promote originality, quality, attention to detail for example. Having something that resonates positively with people just needs you to have good taste and a respect for the art form that you align your identity with. That doesn't go away overnight. When Steve went back to Apple, he found people still sitting waiting around for the right way to communicate those values.
That's a key element that often gets overlooked. You can have a motivation that people will respect but communicate it very badly. Microsoft did this with the XBox One. Their motivation with DRM was to make content cheaper and help sustain games developers by strengthening their revenue stream against sales lost to retailers. Their communication was 'we're going to take away your cheaper used games' and there was a backlash. They of course overlooked the fact that they couldn't communicate cheaper games unless they took the step of implementing pricing rules for online purchases.
Apple's motivation with a locked down App Store is security but it gets communicated to some people as control and people resent having someone else dictate their own security model.
Google's motivation is to give people freedom and to be open about things but what gets conveyed is a lack of care because they put out products that aren't fully tested and allowing people too much freedom allows them to set their own quality bar and they end up being disappointed by it and take that resentment out on people who have it better. Another motivation is to lower cost to make technology more accessible to lower earners but they do this through advertising so what they convey is that they are happy to put a price on your identity.
When it comes to new products, if Apple doesn't sweat the details and make an original experience that is comfortable, they will communicate the wrong message. Federighi summed this up pretty well saying that making something new is easy, doing it right is hard.
Comments
What's with the candles?
Actually I think it does.
In 15 years I don't expect TVs to be anything more than a panel of glass or other material not more than a few millimeters thick. It may not even need a power cable, and almost surely will not have much more in the way of connnectivity than a wifi chip in it. The "smart" part of a TV viewing experience will come from assorted Internet Wifi devices that beam images to it.
Smart TVs will be called smart because in an of themselves in one box they will a lot of functions, internet connectivity and apps. If Netflix continues to improve and eventually offers some kind of attractive plus plan with all the shows people want and there's a Netflix app and ecosystem of games and apps built into every new TV sold there will be no need or desire for consumers to want an Apple TV box. "My TV does all that stuff."
Because eventually everyone will have a TV like that. It's only a matter of time. It's really content dependent, but eventually someone is gonna crack this nut. Apple really has no choice but to eventually play the make-your-own-TV game. Otherwise they will be locked out by default. I'm speaking in terms of years here of course.
I didn't need this email to know that.
Do you honestly think Apple does not have internal meetings where they discuss where others might be ahead of them......JUST BECAUSE it doesn't show up in their marketing or public statements???
Does it vibrate?
Lol!
That’s a good enough reason to petition for damages relating to its release, in my mind.
Not a compelling argument you're making. And I'm arguing they continue to sell Apple TV. Obviously the TV would be more powerful than an Apple TV. And yes, the way the world will very likely be in 15 years should be of interest to Apple. But depending on who innovates in this space we're more likely talking 8 - 10 years. In 8 to 10 years pretty much everyone you know will be rocking a new TV and those TVs will be smart, and will have apps like Netflix and others built in. And I it's think it's common sense to assume they'll will eventually have App Store and games etc. One of these days the idea of attaching a box to your TV will be a thing of the past? Is that, 5, 10 or 15 years away? I don't know, but I feel it's a nigh on certainty that it's gonna happen at some point. Apple should try to play its hand and push the content owners hard for a TV subscription plan, like Steve himself mentioned, so they can have a reason go-to-market strategy.
I see voice search as being the future of TV. There are plenty of things that voice isn’t very good at. For instance, writing this reply can be accomplished better with typing, but if I want to setup an appointment on my iPhone then Siri is how I will do that. Instead of unlocking my phone, locating the calendar app, opening it, going to the right date, creating a new appointment, adding a name for the appointment, using the dials to then set a start time, and saving it. Instead I just hold down the Home Button and saying “Set appointment for the Dentist on May 1st at 9:30am.” It will even let me know if there are any conflicts with that date and time. That’s how I want voice search to be for a TV!
I want to be able to say something like “Play season 7 episode 19 of The Big Bang Theory” or “Play the last night’s episode of Elementary” or “Play the oldest unplayed episode of The Daily Show” or even set reminders to watch a show at a particular time with “Remind me to watch the Longmire season premiere.” To me that’s just the tip of the iceberg of when the living room will finally start to become a 21st century environment.
Eventually I want to be able to say “Play at 2x speed” or “Jump back 2 minutes” or “Start scene over from the beginning” or “Pause. Identify the grey jacket worn in that scene. [This jacket is made by blah blah and retails for yada yada. Would you like me to save this search to your Reading List?] Yes. Resume playback.”
"He Who Controls The Remote Controls The Universe" Baron Harkonnen
I also want to see a way for the TV to magically alter it's layout based on the one who controls the remote. Since TVs and their boxes tend to be used my multiple people within a home but usually watched or controlled by only one person at a time, I want the remote to have biometrics that can instantly determine the user which can then alter the UI for that user’s preferences and viewing habits.
This means that when I pick up the remote it wouldn’t show (say) my young daughter’s TV shows but instead lists the shows I like to watch, the ones I’ve recorded, and even go back to where I may have stopped watching a show the last time I was using the TV. I’m not talking about a complex security like in Touch ID, although that could be an option, but more for just identifying the user quickly through a simple hash sent via BT to the primary device. This can be done by using sensors over the device's normal grip area or even having a Touch ID-like button on top that you have to actively touch. Even in the latter instance having it change everything to match your viewing habits is a time saver and major convenience.
"You Shall Passthrough" Gandolf the Grey
Any device connected to a TV via HDMI that is not the primary input source is never going to be a great device for the user. Even among those that love their Apple TV most will likely use the cable/sat digibox as their primary input on their HDTV. This input switching on the TV is long overdue to be removed. I'd love to see TV's simply become the dumb monitors they should have become years ago; meaning, we set the TV when you get it and then never alter the input. In fact, these devices get put so far in their place so far that they no longer come with remote controls because it's simply not needed.
I'd love for Apple to create a device that can be all things, but that doesn't seem like it's in Apple's DNA and the complexities of the various cable/sat standards (even just in the US) are likely too much of a mess for them to ever deal with. For that reason I'd like to at least have an HDMI passthrough on the Apple TV. This way, whatever the primary input is will be sent to the TV and the Apple TV UI will always be ready to overlay on the screen. It would at least get me to use their Apple TV more if I didn't have to go through the rigamarole of finding the TV remote and changing the input which admittedly isn't difficult but definitely is annoying.
Isn't that up to the bandwidth providers? I'd think Comcast, Cox, etc. would not want to become just a dumb pipe. Sort of depends on net neutrality, which will have to overcome some pretty deep lobbying pockets to ever become a reality. Sure there will be smart TVs but the inputs and the remote will leave a lot of flexibility for users and providers to connect to all kinds of content options.
In a way it's probably a good thing because it keeps taking away the idea that Apple without Steve is a company without a magic wand. They didn't have a magic wand. The team at Apple (that is still there) came up with ideas and products and they made rational decisions about the best route to customers when the technology was ready.
That should mean any company can do the same thing. They can but their motivations as a whole are different. When you look at great musicians or artists, their motivation is to focus on the certain style they want to project - like everyone, they choose an identity. Compare it to musicians that try to be like already famous musicians. They show themselves up as imitators from the outset and that's not appealing because people like things that are new (original information) and better (something that resonates positively with their own interests).
The identity people choose is going to polarize other people one way or another based on what's important to them but everyone has common behaviour patterns. We all promote originality, quality, attention to detail for example. Having something that resonates positively with people just needs you to have good taste and a respect for the art form that you align your identity with. That doesn't go away overnight. When Steve went back to Apple, he found people still sitting waiting around for the right way to communicate those values.
That's a key element that often gets overlooked. You can have a motivation that people will respect but communicate it very badly. Microsoft did this with the XBox One. Their motivation with DRM was to make content cheaper and help sustain games developers by strengthening their revenue stream against sales lost to retailers. Their communication was 'we're going to take away your cheaper used games' and there was a backlash. They of course overlooked the fact that they couldn't communicate cheaper games unless they took the step of implementing pricing rules for online purchases.
Apple's motivation with a locked down App Store is security but it gets communicated to some people as control and people resent having someone else dictate their own security model.
Google's motivation is to give people freedom and to be open about things but what gets conveyed is a lack of care because they put out products that aren't fully tested and allowing people too much freedom allows them to set their own quality bar and they end up being disappointed by it and take that resentment out on people who have it better. Another motivation is to lower cost to make technology more accessible to lower earners but they do this through advertising so what they convey is that they are happy to put a price on your identity.
When it comes to new products, if Apple doesn't sweat the details and make an original experience that is comfortable, they will communicate the wrong message. Federighi summed this up pretty well saying that making something new is easy, doing it right is hard.