Have you thought that apple tv could be just content and not a tv set ?
Makes a lot of sense. Or, once Apple gets its way with content they could sell the complete package with no cable boxes, etc ... The TV would just include programming. If they can't escape the comcasts of the world then they might as well stick with yet another box with wires. I don't really see why a TV couldn't be viewed in the same way as a computer. Computers stay useful through many iterations of the OS. The problem with current media players is that they are really playing second fiddle to the cable boxes.
People are more likely to upgrade a box every few years than a TV. Our Plasma TV is about 7 years old, we have no intentions of buying another one unless this completely dies, but we would update our Apple TV 2 when the next one is released.
Too much headache to build large screen Apple television at reasonable cost,sell at profit and service. Best, to make Apple-TV set-top box with home-kit and other functions so it becomes your house entertainment/control hub and Television becomes just a large screen display made by Samsung,LG or other manufacturers. Future technology for Apple TV-set top box and better display for the large screen display evolve at their own way.
You guys do realize that this is a BS piece to counter Mr Carl Icahn right? So the anti-TV crowd are going to fall on there sword if Apple do release a TV set or fall on you're knees and worship the new thing?
Not every fucking product Apple releases needs to be "as revolutionary as the iPhone". That's an impossible standard to maintain. "Best device in it's category" is enough for me. An Apple branded TV, with iOS built in, as well as Facetime camera, Siri, gesture control, etc would be pretty damn tempting, and something possible to achieve with any TV connected to an Apple Box.
When you cant build something thats substantially better than what already been made, you better look in other directions.
I dont watch TV since im tired of swtiching channel just to find something watchable and then I have to watch ads for 15minutes for every 30minutes of actual valuable content. None of these issues would be resolved with a TV set you describe. Watch only what you are actually interested in based on your history of previously watched shows and movies and organize content in a way that is not necessary to spend hours looking where and when a specifc show or movie will be aired and ofc never miss anything you actually care when you are unable to be infront of the TV on a specific date and time....thats something that can bring me back infront of the TV. Thats the core...cameras, facetime, siri are just extras that it may or may not have.
I wouldn't think it is the last word on an Apple TV set, but right now is not the time. A key benefit of an Apple TV set would be no need to manage inputs (or very rarely). This requires that Apple TV set be able to aggregate majority of content that the premium segments would want to watch within its UI. A few things would have to progress to the point that Apple could offer something "differentiated" like this.
- Flexibility in content options. Things are starting to improve here (e.g. HBO Now, continued Netflix growth), but still majority of content is tightly controlled by the incumbent PayTV operators. Will see if Apple's rumoured service appears, and how it is received. If successful, the odds of an Apple TV set increase.
- TV App Store, which allows wide variety of content providers, and casual gaming providers, to have access from the main screen.
- Unified search for content across those sources (rather than having to search each application). A few startups have been doing this with deep linking on the apps.
- Elegant solution to upgrade the "smarts" in the TV every few years, to keep a TV as up-to-date as a standalone ?TV STB.
If the rumoured new Apple TV box does gain some ground in some of these areas, then we may see Apple look at this again. It never ceases to amaze me how difficult some people (majority?) find it to switch inputs. A TV may just be a niche, with lower margins than average, but given how adjunct it would be to the Apple TV box, it could be a good financial niche. At over $1K, even at 20% margin, it would provide more bottom line than the STB. Upgrades to the unit (one or two over lifetime) would provide the value over long-term.
Apple has repeatedly shown it can enter markets that are low margin and build a successful business. But it requires a differentiated product, and it has been the tightly controlled PayTV incumbents which prevent that. As that erodes (has already begun), then the go-to-market problem might get addressed.
We don't need another TV set, from anyone. We need a new way to choose and get what we want to watch. The music model works. You like a song buy or stream it. You like the album choose that. Like a particular episode of a show. Buy it or stream it. Want the season of a show, buy it or stream it. This is not complicated as far as the technology goes. Until we can focus on the reason this does not happen we will forever be stuck pursuing better technology to show the same content via a bad delivery system. Until such time as all those involved are satisfied with making a reasonable profit instead of needing or wanting to rule the world, this is where we will remain. Talking about the next great piece of hardware.
It seems like a good progression. Apple can tie in its ECO system to a wider audience by doing a set top box concept. Being selfish I would at some point appreciate a Apple designed TV. Made of only high quality and environmentally sound materials that ties in with other Apple ecosystem devices...A thin all aluminum TV would be very sexy.
There's nothing wrong with televisions. The problem is the boxes to which they're connected. There is absolutely no way Apple could make a TV that's as revolutionary as the iPhone in 2007. So Tim made a wise decision.
It's very simple to see why Apple hasn't.
Look how long LCD panels last (and in turn, look how fast CRT's were replaced)
If Apple was to release a Television, they would have had to have done it back in 2006-2008, back when the iPhone was new, because that's also when the DTV conversion happened. At the end of 2009, no more Analog OTA. So by now everyone who waited, has since replaced their old analog TV's with new LCD panels that they are going to hang on to until the backlights burn out, or the image persistence gets bad enough to justify replacing it.
Since then, nobody cares about switching to 3D, and nobody cares about switching to 4K or 8K, curved screens, or super-thin screens. Even the "SmartTV" platform that Google slapped together gum and bailing wire on top of Android is being phased out, with both Samsung and LG using their own "open" proprietary implementations to produce their own walled gardens. The SmartTV race is dead, all the horses died before they even completed the race.
The Settop-box is still the best option for Apple to have a presence in the living room, but with that, it has to compete with Cable and IPTV providers own equipment (which both offer mediocre VOD services and handily spam you with reasons to pay for thier half-assed version of netflix-compromise that only offers content they removed from VOD early.) It also has to compete with game consoles who can also run a significant amount of the very same VOD services like Netflix, Amazon (US only), Hulu (US only), Crunchyroll, etc. What Apple could still do is release a STB that has the exact same processing power as the iPad/iPhone, every year, and allow iPhone/iPad developers to release "AppleTV" versions of the same software. This would of course require a standardized input controller, and that is where I think there is a huge stumbling block, and why all smart TV's have been so far gross unusable messes.
To give you an example, the "best" device so far to use with Netflix, is the Wii U, because the Wii U's second screen lets you do everything you could do with a mouse, without having to obscure the TV's output in doing so. The remote's on the LG smart TV... has more in common with the Wii U remote (accelerometer controlled) ,with a lack of actually knowing it's pointing at the TV (eg no infrared point of reference.) Nintendo may actually have the best input devices for their respective game consoles, even if they seem pretty stupid at release.
So what would really benefit Apple would actually be the option of pairing the the AppleTV STB with a Wii U controller -like device, or with existing PS3/PS4/Wii/Xbox360/XboxOne controllers. Or hell, maybe just make their own controller that works with all the game consoles too on top of working with the Mac/Windows systems. It wouldn't be too innovative if it merely duplicates the PS4/XboxOne controller. But existing MFi controllers are not only more expensive than PS3/PS4 controllers, they are also the least ergonomic things I've ever seen. They feel like cheap imitations of a game console controller, but for 80$.
The problems
One glance at the list of MFi controllers proves there’s no shortage of the things, so why don’t they seem to be catching on? A few issues are at play here.
Price – The cheapest decent controller you can buy will set you back $60. That’s a big chunk of change to drop on a piece of hardware that lets you play games that generally range from free to $3.
Build quality – The controllers coming out in the past few months have been pretty good, but prior to that, most of them have felt like cheap hunks of plastic — nowhere near worth the steep prices companies were charging for them. It’s possible they’ve just gotten a bad rap.
Not enough good compatible games – This is a classic chicken and egg problem. Developers have a lot on their plate when they make a game, and since not many people own a MFi controller, that’s an easy feature to leave out. But if more high-profile games supported MFi controllers, people might be more inclined to buy them.
Also, there’s the discoverability issue: You have to dig around to find a list of games that are MFi-compatible.
So an "Apple TV" that is tuned for games would need to come with a controller. Then developers would actually build that into the software.
According to the report, Cupertino has worked on other exotic display technologies in a quest to build a next-generation television, including a prototype transparent display powered by lasers.
How do you figure? Are MacBooks heavier than plastic computers?
I think Aluminium is heavier, but has better strength-to-weight ratio than plastic (so can be much thinner to get same tensile strength), but its more expensive.
How do you figure? Are MacBooks heavier than plastic computers?
I think Aluminium is heavier, but has better strength-to-weight ratio than plastic (so can be much thinner to get same tensile strength), but its more expensive.
Plastic computers usually have HDDs, and CD/DVD drives that make them heavier. It's not the material that makes them weigh more but what's inside. The same would not be true with TVs.
You guys do realize that this is a BS piece to counter Mr Carl Icahn right? So the anti-TV crowd are going to fall on there sword if Apple do release a TV set or fall on you're knees and worship the new thing?
Nope. Most of us already have TVs and don't need a replacement yet. I know I don't (hopefully).
Comments
Have you thought that apple tv could be just content and not a tv set ?
Makes a lot of sense. Or, once Apple gets its way with content they could sell the complete package with no cable boxes, etc ... The TV would just include programming. If they can't escape the comcasts of the world then they might as well stick with yet another box with wires. I don't really see why a TV couldn't be viewed in the same way as a computer. Computers stay useful through many iterations of the OS. The problem with current media players is that they are really playing second fiddle to the cable boxes.
People are more likely to upgrade a box every few years than a TV. Our Plasma TV is about 7 years old, we have no intentions of buying another one unless this completely dies, but we would update our Apple TV 2 when the next one is released.
Well, I know @Ireland is going to be disappointed with this rumour.
https://goo.gl/6eUWKl
You guys do realize that this is a BS piece to counter Mr Carl Icahn right? So the anti-TV crowd are going to fall on there sword if Apple do release a TV set or fall on you're knees and worship the new thing?
Not every fucking product Apple releases needs to be "as revolutionary as the iPhone". That's an impossible standard to maintain. "Best device in it's category" is enough for me. An Apple branded TV, with iOS built in, as well as Facetime camera, Siri, gesture control, etc would be pretty damn tempting, and something possible to achieve with any TV connected to an Apple Box.
When you cant build something thats substantially better than what already been made, you better look in other directions.
I dont watch TV since im tired of swtiching channel just to find something watchable and then I have to watch ads for 15minutes for every 30minutes of actual valuable content. None of these issues would be resolved with a TV set you describe. Watch only what you are actually interested in based on your history of previously watched shows and movies and organize content in a way that is not necessary to spend hours looking where and when a specifc show or movie will be aired and ofc never miss anything you actually care when you are unable to be infront of the TV on a specific date and time....thats something that can bring me back infront of the TV. Thats the core...cameras, facetime, siri are just extras that it may or may not have.
could you please just shut up! Thank you.
I wouldn't think it is the last word on an Apple TV set, but right now is not the time. A key benefit of an Apple TV set would be no need to manage inputs (or very rarely). This requires that Apple TV set be able to aggregate majority of content that the premium segments would want to watch within its UI. A few things would have to progress to the point that Apple could offer something "differentiated" like this.
- Flexibility in content options. Things are starting to improve here (e.g. HBO Now, continued Netflix growth), but still majority of content is tightly controlled by the incumbent PayTV operators. Will see if Apple's rumoured service appears, and how it is received. If successful, the odds of an Apple TV set increase.
- TV App Store, which allows wide variety of content providers, and casual gaming providers, to have access from the main screen.
- Unified search for content across those sources (rather than having to search each application). A few startups have been doing this with deep linking on the apps.
- Elegant solution to upgrade the "smarts" in the TV every few years, to keep a TV as up-to-date as a standalone ?TV STB.
If the rumoured new Apple TV box does gain some ground in some of these areas, then we may see Apple look at this again. It never ceases to amaze me how difficult some people (majority?) find it to switch inputs. A TV may just be a niche, with lower margins than average, but given how adjunct it would be to the Apple TV box, it could be a good financial niche. At over $1K, even at 20% margin, it would provide more bottom line than the STB. Upgrades to the unit (one or two over lifetime) would provide the value over long-term.
Apple has repeatedly shown it can enter markets that are low margin and build a successful business. But it requires a differentiated product, and it has been the tightly controlled PayTV incumbents which prevent that. As that erodes (has already begun), then the go-to-market problem might get addressed.
It's very simple to see why Apple hasn't.
Look how long LCD panels last (and in turn, look how fast CRT's were replaced)
If Apple was to release a Television, they would have had to have done it back in 2006-2008, back when the iPhone was new, because that's also when the DTV conversion happened. At the end of 2009, no more Analog OTA. So by now everyone who waited, has since replaced their old analog TV's with new LCD panels that they are going to hang on to until the backlights burn out, or the image persistence gets bad enough to justify replacing it.
Since then, nobody cares about switching to 3D, and nobody cares about switching to 4K or 8K, curved screens, or super-thin screens. Even the "SmartTV" platform that Google slapped together gum and bailing wire on top of Android is being phased out, with both Samsung and LG using their own "open" proprietary implementations to produce their own walled gardens. The SmartTV race is dead, all the horses died before they even completed the race.
The Settop-box is still the best option for Apple to have a presence in the living room, but with that, it has to compete with Cable and IPTV providers own equipment (which both offer mediocre VOD services and handily spam you with reasons to pay for thier half-assed version of netflix-compromise that only offers content they removed from VOD early.) It also has to compete with game consoles who can also run a significant amount of the very same VOD services like Netflix, Amazon (US only), Hulu (US only), Crunchyroll, etc. What Apple could still do is release a STB that has the exact same processing power as the iPad/iPhone, every year, and allow iPhone/iPad developers to release "AppleTV" versions of the same software. This would of course require a standardized input controller, and that is where I think there is a huge stumbling block, and why all smart TV's have been so far gross unusable messes.
To give you an example, the "best" device so far to use with Netflix, is the Wii U, because the Wii U's second screen lets you do everything you could do with a mouse, without having to obscure the TV's output in doing so. The remote's on the LG smart TV... has more in common with the Wii U remote (accelerometer controlled) ,with a lack of actually knowing it's pointing at the TV (eg no infrared point of reference.) Nintendo may actually have the best input devices for their respective game consoles, even if they seem pretty stupid at release.
So what would really benefit Apple would actually be the option of pairing the the AppleTV STB with a Wii U controller -like device, or with existing PS3/PS4/Wii/Xbox360/XboxOne controllers. Or hell, maybe just make their own controller that works with all the game consoles too on top of working with the Mac/Windows systems. It wouldn't be too innovative if it merely duplicates the PS4/XboxOne controller. But existing MFi controllers are not only more expensive than PS3/PS4 controllers, they are also the least ergonomic things I've ever seen. They feel like cheap imitations of a game console controller, but for 80$.
Oh look: http://www.cheatsheet.com/technology/why-is-no-one-buying-iphone-game-controllers.html/?a=viewall
So an "Apple TV" that is tuned for games would need to come with a controller. Then developers would actually build that into the software.
And heavy.
According to the report, Cupertino has worked on other exotic display technologies in a quest to build a next-generation television, including a prototype transparent display powered by lasers.
And heavy.
How do you figure? Are MacBooks heavier than plastic computers?
I think Aluminium is heavier, but has better strength-to-weight ratio than plastic (so can be much thinner to get same tensile strength), but its more expensive.
Plastic computers usually have HDDs, and CD/DVD drives that make them heavier. It's not the material that makes them weigh more but what's inside. The same would not be true with TVs.
Nope. Most of us already have TVs and don't need a replacement yet. I know I don't (hopefully).