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.”
Sometimes when I watch a movie and there's an actress in the background that looks really hot, I want to know who it is and it's a nightmare trying to find out who they are. You have to listen to the audio to see if they have a character name and then run through the credits trying to match them to the real name and some credits are really small. Not only that, if it's a less important role, they sometimes just call them say stewardess number 4. Then I have to Google for all the stewardess names to find the right girl.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. The searches currently would go like this:
but with the face/character detection, it skips right to the name.
Steve Jobs gave Apple a five-year head start in the mobile revolution and Samsung is only 18-months behind the power curve come October 5th and from where I sit, Samsung is holding a pair of queens.
My sense is, Samsung is attempting to resurrect Steve Jobs in order to glean anything of value and it's not working and it won't buy them time.
I like it though. Reading SJ's email and correspondence is fascinating, but the rolling disclosure about how his mind worked is painfully indicative of Walter Isaacson's failure to capture Steve Jobs the man.
This is good for AAPL though, it's good for all Apple consumers who admired SJ. Apple isn't giving away recipes or secrets, they have all the time and money to lead Samsung around the bend and back.
Apple would do well to encapsulate this charade in an advertising campaign of commercials to expose what it is Apple's competitors have to do to get the chance to breath rarified air.
Most of it looks pretty standard but a few things that stood out to me were the following:
- tie products together to further lock customers into our ecosystem
This has been evident but now it's clearer that it's one of Apple's motivations.
- catch up to Android (notifications, tethering, speech ... )
There's confirmation about Apple copying Android notifications. It was pretty obvious at the time but also minor relative to the copying that went the other way.
- TV subscription, app, browser, magic wand?
After 4 years, they still haven't done any of this. I guess this is one of those areas where they won't do it until they can do it right. Getting the controls right from the sofa is key to most of this. Subscriptions and other content is down to the providers.
I think 'further lock customers into our ecosystem' is reaching the double-edged point for Apple. I always thought I'd hop back to Apple once they built a bigger phone- but the thought of getting to use only what Apple allows, and knowing that trying to use anything non-Apple on an Apple phone can be sometimes deliberately cludgey (either by Apple's own doing or by their competitors design). Knowing that I'd be buying myself back into iTunes, and then macs and possibly TV just makes me want to stay away from Apple entirely unless the phone is substantially better. The phone is the key driver because that's the one that will drive which ecosystem(s) I use.
Documents on Apple referencing Android and the need to play catch-up in areas could be problematic- or at least open the doors to many years of litigation to come. Samsung looks like they are setting up their defense to be 'its not us, its Google' and forcing Apple to go after Google. If Apple argues 'bounce-back' is worth $40 dollars per phone and Android phones need to pay up or remove the feature- Apple could face a similar argument to remove notifications and tethering from iPhones. Not saying its right or who would win, just that lawyers will be happy to argue it for the foreseeable future.
TV I think there's too much focus and competition for any one to pull off a major coup and revolutionize it. To me, I'd like to see a shift from the broadcast/segmented mindset. Let the content creators create. That's what its really all about. Take Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones and just make them. Don't focus so much on making broadcast 'episodes' Just make the serious. When I'm ready to watch on my time, just let me say 'turn on Game of Thrones' to my phone and have the series pick up where I left off. If I hadn't watched in a while, I won't mind if its smart enough to ask if I want a quick recap first
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.
I'm skeptical that this was some secret list of Steve's. More likely it was a list culled together from all his executives. But maybe it will put to rest the idea that Steve had all these grand visionary ideas and now Apple is doomed because he's not here to to shepard them to completion.
I'm skeptical that this was some secret list of Steve's. More likely it was a list culled together from all his executives. But maybe it will put to rest the idea that Steve had all these grand visionary ideas and now Apple is doomed because he's not here to to shepard them to completion.
Maybe he has an even secreter list, hidden by steganography in PNG files innocently labeled "family vacation photos". Plans for the mothership, the formula for transparent aluminum, blueprints on constructing a real RDF out of old discarded warp cores, and instructions for downloading Steve's consciousness into an old PowerMac G4 Cube are eluding the prying eyes of lawyers and competitors...
Sometimes when I watch a movie and there's an actress in the background that looks really hot, I want to know who it is and it's a nightmare trying to find out who they are. You have to listen to the audio to see if they have a character name and then run through the credits trying to match them to the real name and some credits are really small. Not only that, if it's a less important role, they sometimes just call them say stewardess number 4. Then I have to Google for all the stewardess names to find the right girl.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. The searches currently would go like this:
but with the face/character detection, it skips right to the name.
I don't see any item in this list/timeline that says "totally destroy the user experience of iOS devices with a horrific GUI overhaul that destroys everything about iOS that made iPhone and iPad successful".
I don't see any item in this list/timeline that says "totally destroy the user experience of iOS devices with a horrific GUI overhaul that destroys everything about iOS that made iPhone and iPad successful".
Ah, so that's why Apple is selling more iDevices than ever and iOS 7 adoption rate is 85%.
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.
The original poster was not talking about connecting a box to a TV. Here, I'll expand on his notion with my own meme for the future of TV, from whatever company pioneers it, but I'll assume Apple for this illustration.
Ever since the discussion of an iTV began I've been advocating for something I termed an iPanel, which as this poster has described, contains only the display panel, driver circuitry, and a wireless transceiver. Even speakers are separate. All the brains are housed in a separate component that either is also your wireless router or sits in the closet be t to your wireless router and cable modem (as mine do). No wires, no cable from the wall to a box on a shelf under your TV, none of any of that. The iPanel is light and comes in a number of sizes. You might hang them on the walls of several rooms. Your iWatch controls it and recognizes which room you are in so can be used to easily migrate your content from room to room and out to the iPanel by the pool. No duplication of the brain in each iPanel when it exists within that one box that exists within wifi range of all your registered iPanels and iWatches and iPods, iPhones, iPad, any of which can be used to control it and send data to iPanels and speakers in any room. That one box in the closet could, at any one time, be transmitting separate video and sound to multiple panels/speakers throughout the home, keeping all occupants entertained and informed. Starting to catch the vision now? And when an upgrade is needed to the brain, it's done once to one piece of equipment. Want a larger display in the bedroom? Go ahead and replace the one you have in there now with a new one that isn't made expensive through inclusion of a plethora of internal circuitry. And as long as you're satisfied with the size and resolution of the display you have in each area of the home, you don't need to change it just because there's some new tech in the brain.
Roku CEO: Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad.
SJ: Apple TV is a "must have" accessory for iOS devices
Guess the Roku CEO wasn't wrong all along. Time for some crow eating.
No Crow Served here.
I don't think Apple even paid no never mind to Roku. Do you have a reference from Schiller or Cook mentioning Roku's CEO's statement, specifically about being an iOS accessory.
In fact, Roku's CEO figured it all out, and understand it more than t most AI readers.
People's first purchase into the Apple world will be an iPad or an iPhone. Once you have that you will accessorize it with
Your iPad/iPhone... ($150 profit... on average)
- iTMS (let's start at $25 profit from music and apps... a year)
- iCloud
- iTunes Match (10 Profit a year)
- a MacBook Air. ($200 profit)
- a Airport Express/Time Capsule probably $100 profit on the latter
- an AppleTV...$20 profit plus leading to painless purchase of video content... let's say $40 profit a year... forever.
(give away the razor, make your profits on the blades).
my planning charges have Apple making about $175 a year off every adult buying an iPhone, and of that 25% is Apple TV related.
sell 200Million iPhones and 50M iPads... you make $10 Billion in profits just on AppleTV and presented content, if the marriage of iPhone/iPad and AppleTV is compelling.
Last year: Apple made 37Billion. 25% of that would be 9B.
So Mr. Jones of Roku. Now that you've figured out Apple's Strategy, what are you doing about your Strategy?
Ah, so that's why Apple is selling more iDevices than ever and iOS 7 adoption rate is 85%.
Not to mention the notion that Jobs was for skuemorphism and would likely not have green lighted the iOS 7 rethink. Thus, iOS 7's high adoption rate illustrates that it wasn't all about Steve Jobs. There were, and still are, many folks at Apple carrying on the good work Steve Jobs demanded and inspired.
Not to mention the notion that Jobs was for skuemorphism and would likely not have green lighted the iOS 7 rethink. Thus, iOS 7's high adoption rate illustrates that it wasn't all about Steve Jobs. There were, and still are, many folks at Apple carrying on the good work Steve Jobs demanded and inspired.
Nonsense, Apple is doomed both in this lawsuit and in the market. /s
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.
3points
1) once everyone sells a TV like that, the profits will drop in the race to the bottom. Then Apple has no choice but to sell a device that just plugs into your HDMI port... Oh... it already did that.
I think the converse will have to happen... the 'experience' is defined, and then built into the TV chassis. Sort of like iOS for Autos, and even there, it's just a firmware interface.
2) The corp who cracks this has to sell more than TVs or cable channels
3) The problem is the existing distribution contracts. The Long Game is that someone will have to 'break even' for a few years until the critical mass of devices are distributed to bypass the cable spigot, and then show the content creators, that the intermediate content distributors (cable/network), are the money grubbing scum that they are. Contracts will change from 'exclusive' to non-exclusive rights, and then everyone's playing on a level field.
Apple and Amazon are the only players I see that can afford the 'long game', are comfortable selling HW as 'ancillary' not 'profit making,' and have the retail/e-comm infrastructure to make content acquisition painless. Netflix is really no different than Fox or Starz or HDnet, just with a different distribution stream.
Where I agree with you is not clear in your discussion
4) the winner will be the one that creates the 'magic wand' that consumers use to find what they want to watch, control the entire acquisition and display cycle, and is customizable to the individual holding it.
Personally, I think that wand will have a TouchID on it (Daddy wants to watch Death Race 2000, Mommy wants to watch Scandal, and little Joey gets ScoobyDoo meets the Aliens... and no one gets the 'wrong stuff').
In the context of accurate history... Apple DID leapfrog Android since Google Now didn't come until later. Also regarding Maps (aside from initial launch woes and inaccurate data from third-party sources) they also leapfrogged what Google had in terms of 3D on the phone. Google caught up pretty well, although Siri is still pretty great.
I don't think Apple will sell the panel for one major reason... you can't sell it in an Apple store. Imagine trying to sell 60" panels and walk out of the mall. It's all sorts of logistical issues. But an AppleTV you can throw in a small bag and go home. This makes TV panels "dumb" so the price drops out the bottom which doesn't really affect Apple at all.
However, another argument is that technology is basically to a point where you're not going to see a ton of upgrades for hardware, but with software. So if Apple stuck an A8 in a TV with a set resolution, they can be about guaranteed that will last for 8-10 without need for a hardware upgrade. Again, I don't think Apple is going to do it that way, but they could. Of course the panel would be bloody expensive to do this since we are used to bargain basement electronics in TVs, but the TV would last.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. The searches currently would go like this:
but with the face/character detection, it skips right to the name.
Sometimes when I watch a movie and there's an actress in the background that looks really hot, I want to know who it is and it's a nightmare trying to find out who they are. You have to listen to the audio to see if they have a character name and then run through the credits trying to match them to the real name and some credits are really small. Not only that, if it's a less important role, they sometimes just call them say stewardess number 4. Then I have to Google for all the stewardess names to find the right girl.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. <...>
do you realise how loathsome you sound? presumably not
free advice: get out a bit more, stop treating women like objects, one day you may be fit to join the human race
That's the problem with most of these services. They are so limited that it makes it easy to forget they exist. It has to be something that works well.
Now I don't expect that this would work for every video everywhere, but if a company like Apple, Google, Netflix or Amazon announces this feature I'd like it to work for their respective content libraries. We're not talking a lot of data here. We're probably talking about something as simple as a timestamp with an ID and general grid location in the metadata. The local system could then use simplified facial recognize to simply box off the face itself without the grid info in the meta data indicating the specific size of the face for the overlay. The ID could then be pulled with an internet connection. This would likely be smaller than a subtitles file.
Comments
Sometimes when I watch a movie and there's an actress in the background that looks really hot, I want to know who it is and it's a nightmare trying to find out who they are. You have to listen to the audio to see if they have a character name and then run through the credits trying to match them to the real name and some credits are really small. Not only that, if it's a less important role, they sometimes just call them say stewardess number 4. Then I have to Google for all the stewardess names to find the right girl.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. The searches currently would go like this:
but with the face/character detection, it skips right to the name.
My sense is, Samsung is attempting to resurrect Steve Jobs in order to glean anything of value and it's not working and it won't buy them time.
I like it though. Reading SJ's email and correspondence is fascinating, but the rolling disclosure about how his mind worked is painfully indicative of Walter Isaacson's failure to capture Steve Jobs the man.
This is good for AAPL though, it's good for all Apple consumers who admired SJ. Apple isn't giving away recipes or secrets, they have all the time and money to lead Samsung around the bend and back.
Apple would do well to encapsulate this charade in an advertising campaign of commercials to expose what it is Apple's competitors have to do to get the chance to breath rarified air.
Most of it looks pretty standard but a few things that stood out to me were the following:
- tie products together to further lock customers into our ecosystem
This has been evident but now it's clearer that it's one of Apple's motivations.
- catch up to Android (notifications, tethering, speech ... )
There's confirmation about Apple copying Android notifications. It was pretty obvious at the time but also minor relative to the copying that went the other way.
- TV subscription, app, browser, magic wand?
After 4 years, they still haven't done any of this. I guess this is one of those areas where they won't do it until they can do it right. Getting the controls right from the sofa is key to most of this. Subscriptions and other content is down to the providers.
I think 'further lock customers into our ecosystem' is reaching the double-edged point for Apple. I always thought I'd hop back to Apple once they built a bigger phone- but the thought of getting to use only what Apple allows, and knowing that trying to use anything non-Apple on an Apple phone can be sometimes deliberately cludgey (either by Apple's own doing or by their competitors design). Knowing that I'd be buying myself back into iTunes, and then macs and possibly TV just makes me want to stay away from Apple entirely unless the phone is substantially better. The phone is the key driver because that's the one that will drive which ecosystem(s) I use.
Documents on Apple referencing Android and the need to play catch-up in areas could be problematic- or at least open the doors to many years of litigation to come. Samsung looks like they are setting up their defense to be 'its not us, its Google' and forcing Apple to go after Google. If Apple argues 'bounce-back' is worth $40 dollars per phone and Android phones need to pay up or remove the feature- Apple could face a similar argument to remove notifications and tethering from iPhones. Not saying its right or who would win, just that lawyers will be happy to argue it for the foreseeable future.
TV I think there's too much focus and competition for any one to pull off a major coup and revolutionize it. To me, I'd like to see a shift from the broadcast/segmented mindset. Let the content creators create. That's what its really all about. Take Boardwalk Empire or Game of Thrones and just make them. Don't focus so much on making broadcast 'episodes' Just make the serious. When I'm ready to watch on my time, just let me say 'turn on Game of Thrones' to my phone and have the series pick up where I left off. If I hadn't watched in a while, I won't mind if its smart enough to ask if I want a quick recap first
TheMole = Eric Schmidt
SweatShop = Steve Ballmer
UterusDischarge = Andy "I guess we're not gonna ship that phone" Rubin
Maybe he has an even secreter list, hidden by steganography in PNG files innocently labeled "family vacation photos". Plans for the mothership, the formula for transparent aluminum, blueprints on constructing a real RDF out of old discarded warp cores, and instructions for downloading Steve's consciousness into an old PowerMac G4 Cube are eluding the prying eyes of lawyers and competitors...
Google offers just that feature, tho it's still pretty new so not available for all movies. If they don't kill it :rolleyes: the service should improve quickly I would think.
http://searchengineland.com/google-answers-whos-that-actor-in-that-movie-in-google-play-tv-app-153377
sony's always on Nintedos ass. Copying every bit of hardware and software they develop.
One line down:
"Begin forwarded message:"
I don't see any item in this list/timeline that says "totally destroy the user experience of iOS devices with a horrific GUI overhaul that destroys everything about iOS that made iPhone and iPad successful".
The original poster was not talking about connecting a box to a TV. Here, I'll expand on his notion with my own meme for the future of TV, from whatever company pioneers it, but I'll assume Apple for this illustration.
Ever since the discussion of an iTV began I've been advocating for something I termed an iPanel, which as this poster has described, contains only the display panel, driver circuitry, and a wireless transceiver. Even speakers are separate. All the brains are housed in a separate component that either is also your wireless router or sits in the closet be t to your wireless router and cable modem (as mine do). No wires, no cable from the wall to a box on a shelf under your TV, none of any of that. The iPanel is light and comes in a number of sizes. You might hang them on the walls of several rooms. Your iWatch controls it and recognizes which room you are in so can be used to easily migrate your content from room to room and out to the iPanel by the pool. No duplication of the brain in each iPanel when it exists within that one box that exists within wifi range of all your registered iPanels and iWatches and iPods, iPhones, iPad, any of which can be used to control it and send data to iPanels and speakers in any room. That one box in the closet could, at any one time, be transmitting separate video and sound to multiple panels/speakers throughout the home, keeping all occupants entertained and informed. Starting to catch the vision now? And when an upgrade is needed to the brain, it's done once to one piece of equipment. Want a larger display in the bedroom? Go ahead and replace the one you have in there now with a new one that isn't made expensive through inclusion of a plethora of internal circuitry. And as long as you're satisfied with the size and resolution of the display you have in each area of the home, you don't need to change it just because there's some new tech in the brain.
Roku CEO: Apple TV is essentially an accessory for the iPad.
SJ: Apple TV is a "must have" accessory for iOS devices
Guess the Roku CEO wasn't wrong all along. Time for some crow eating.
No Crow Served here.
I don't think Apple even paid no never mind to Roku. Do you have a reference from Schiller or Cook mentioning Roku's CEO's statement, specifically about being an iOS accessory.
In fact, Roku's CEO figured it all out, and understand it more than t most AI readers.
People's first purchase into the Apple world will be an iPad or an iPhone. Once you have that you will accessorize it with
Your iPad/iPhone... ($150 profit... on average)
- iTMS (let's start at $25 profit from music and apps... a year)
- iCloud
- iTunes Match (10 Profit a year)
- a MacBook Air. ($200 profit)
- a Airport Express/Time Capsule probably $100 profit on the latter
- an AppleTV...$20 profit plus leading to painless purchase of video content... let's say $40 profit a year... forever.
(give away the razor, make your profits on the blades).
my planning charges have Apple making about $175 a year off every adult buying an iPhone, and of that 25% is Apple TV related.
sell 200Million iPhones and 50M iPads... you make $10 Billion in profits just on AppleTV and presented content, if the marriage of iPhone/iPad and AppleTV is compelling.
Last year: Apple made 37Billion. 25% of that would be 9B.
So Mr. Jones of Roku. Now that you've figured out Apple's Strategy, what are you doing about your Strategy?
Not to mention the notion that Jobs was for skuemorphism and would likely not have green lighted the iOS 7 rethink. Thus, iOS 7's high adoption rate illustrates that it wasn't all about Steve Jobs. There were, and still are, many folks at Apple carrying on the good work Steve Jobs demanded and inspired.
Nonsense, Apple is doomed both in this lawsuit and in the market. /s
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.
3points
1) once everyone sells a TV like that, the profits will drop in the race to the bottom. Then Apple has no choice but to sell a device that just plugs into your HDMI port... Oh... it already did that.
I think the converse will have to happen... the 'experience' is defined, and then built into the TV chassis. Sort of like iOS for Autos, and even there, it's just a firmware interface.
2) The corp who cracks this has to sell more than TVs or cable channels
3) The problem is the existing distribution contracts. The Long Game is that someone will have to 'break even' for a few years until the critical mass of devices are distributed to bypass the cable spigot, and then show the content creators, that the intermediate content distributors (cable/network), are the money grubbing scum that they are. Contracts will change from 'exclusive' to non-exclusive rights, and then everyone's playing on a level field.
Apple and Amazon are the only players I see that can afford the 'long game', are comfortable selling HW as 'ancillary' not 'profit making,' and have the retail/e-comm infrastructure to make content acquisition painless. Netflix is really no different than Fox or Starz or HDnet, just with a different distribution stream.
Where I agree with you is not clear in your discussion
4) the winner will be the one that creates the 'magic wand' that consumers use to find what they want to watch, control the entire acquisition and display cycle, and is customizable to the individual holding it.
Personally, I think that wand will have a TouchID on it (Daddy wants to watch Death Race 2000, Mommy wants to watch Scandal, and little Joey gets ScoobyDoo meets the Aliens... and no one gets the 'wrong stuff').
In the context of accurate history... Apple DID leapfrog Android since Google Now didn't come until later. Also regarding Maps (aside from initial launch woes and inaccurate data from third-party sources) they also leapfrogged what Google had in terms of 3D on the phone. Google caught up pretty well, although Siri is still pretty great.
I don't think Apple will sell the panel for one major reason... you can't sell it in an Apple store. Imagine trying to sell 60" panels and walk out of the mall. It's all sorts of logistical issues. But an AppleTV you can throw in a small bag and go home. This makes TV panels "dumb" so the price drops out the bottom which doesn't really affect Apple at all.
However, another argument is that technology is basically to a point where you're not going to see a ton of upgrades for hardware, but with software. So if Apple stuck an A8 in a TV with a set resolution, they can be about guaranteed that will last for 8-10 without need for a hardware upgrade. Again, I don't think Apple is going to do it that way, but they could. Of course the panel would be bloody expensive to do this since we are used to bargain basement electronics in TVs, but the TV would last.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. The searches currently would go like this:
but with the face/character detection, it skips right to the name.
So instead it would be something more like this.
Sometimes when I watch a movie and there's an actress in the background that looks really hot, I want to know who it is and it's a nightmare trying to find out who they are. You have to listen to the audio to see if they have a character name and then run through the credits trying to match them to the real name and some credits are really small. Not only that, if it's a less important role, they sometimes just call them say stewardess number 4. Then I have to Google for all the stewardess names to find the right girl.
What I want to be able to do is say "pause", "who is the girl at this location" and I'd point at the character. Then it would bring up the bio. It would save so much time. <...>
do you realise how loathsome you sound? presumably not
free advice: get out a bit more, stop treating women like objects, one day you may be fit to join the human race
That's the problem with most of these services. They are so limited that it makes it easy to forget they exist. It has to be something that works well.
Now I don't expect that this would work for every video everywhere, but if a company like Apple, Google, Netflix or Amazon announces this feature I'd like it to work for their respective content libraries. We're not talking a lot of data here. We're probably talking about something as simple as a timestamp with an ID and general grid location in the metadata. The local system could then use simplified facial recognize to simply box off the face itself without the grid info in the meta data indicating the specific size of the face for the overlay. The ID could then be pulled with an internet connection. This would likely be smaller than a subtitles file.