There was a post I saw recently floating around suggesting that apple should make a TV. I think this is a really great idea, and I believe it will happen eventually. Maybe not for a few years, but within the next five I hope. I know they would do a great job if they did this, and who knows maybe they could sell a cool shiny aluminium Apple TV bundled with the 'seeked by many' Media centre.
Just imagine an apple TV, that contains a 250GB/500GB hard drive (like iMac), an internal set of 12watt speakers (like panny Viera), the beefed up elegant Front Row Full-Blown media centre, side-load slot load Superdrive, comes with the apple remote, and is available in three sizes 26", 32" etc. As a build to order you can get OS X, keyboard and the usual Mac stuff. But you have to pay extra.
The standard version of the 'Apple Media TV' contains the TV, and the remote and the hard drive and software to make it work!
(everything is inside the TV, hard drive etc. all built in)8)
p.s. If apple did this I don't think I'd be the only happy camper. (blast me all you want)
The thing which intrigues me is that less Macs than PC's are being recycled. Is it just a matter of Apple being bad at recycling, or are simply less Macs thrown away?
Macs have a higher resale value even when used, you'd be a moron to toss them.
Uh I have my mac mini driving my 42 HD plasma display and it looks great with excption of the overscanning. The only other thing I feel like I need is a bluray burner but I'm sure we'll see those in the spring ish 07 revision. Apple doesn't NEED a dvr though, higher rez downloads, streaming, I don't know but as far as I'm concerned the macmini is only about 2 steps away from making the media canter leap even if front row sucks(and it does) I rip my VD's to hard disk and or use the dvd r in the mini connect it via DVI and away we go music and 5.1 through the optical port. the ports all worked out fine for me and I never panned on connecting a computer to my HD display.
Geuss the pint is... it works now and apple really needs is the media and distribution.
?The new products in the pipeline are the best I?ve ever seen in my life,? Jobs said.
I should hope so, if their products didn't get better with time we'd still be using G3s.
PS, Apple's remote may be troublesome for a media machine.
Yeah, it's simple, but that's because they haven't put in recording yet. When they do that, you'd better believe you're going to want more buttons.
One question though: Why in god's name doesn't Quicktime support mpeg2?? Yeah, it'll be dead as soon as DVDs start moving to better media, but that wont be for 6+ years!11one1one! HD's great and all but for lossless transcoding into .vob format, mpeg2 is is the only option.
Yes, I know, you can pay Apple to get a QT plugin for mpeg2.. but why?
Apple can either absorb them, or you can pay them.
Since they're pushing MPEG4, and prior to that, Sorenson3 (oy, what a licensing fiasco that turned out to be), they've never had a solid business model for paying the fees for you.
Apple building a PVR is way too "me too" for Apple.
If it wasn't for Steve Jobs' persoal biases against T.V., Apple should have been at the forefront. Instead they let Microsoft beat them to the punch. What they than do now is do it better.
TV networks are letting you download shows that are being sold at the iTMS for free, but they have commercials. The Mac user-base is something that SJ listens to. SJ realizes that millions of Mac users love our favorite shows. I watch 24.
Even if SJ doesn't have the time to get into, and try to enjoy a show. He knows he can sell the shit out a Mac Home media center with a built in PVR to the millions of people that do.
Apple offers TV programs on iTunes. Why bother with a DVR and all that extra hassle? You want it, buy it and watch it whenever you want. There are none of the uncertainties involved with DVRs (like the industry they depend on trying to kill them), and the interface is pretty sleek, too. You have all the hard drive space you want.
Right now, Apple and the networks are doing a trial run, just to see how well this works in practice. If it works well, expect Apple to do an end run around everyone's assumptions and turn every computer with iTunes into a "media center PC" with the blessing of the content providers. What used to be TV is then simultaneously DVR'd by default and no longer dependent on advertizer revenue for money, which means no skipping ads and more creative freedom. And, if Apple does it right, it means much more of an in for independent and shoestring-budget work as well as the slick stuff.
No more paying for premium cable just to get that one network so you can watch those two shows. And if you prefer the current way, because for instance you leave the TV on all the time, well, the current way will still be there.
Assuming that the trials have been successful, the only thing that could go wrong is the passage of that stupid bill that kills network neutrality...
Apple offers TV programs on iTunes. Why bother with a DVR and all that extra hassle? You want it, buy it and watch it whenever you want. There are none of the uncertainties involved with DVRs (like the industry they depend on trying to kill them), and the interface is pretty sleek, too. You have all the hard drive space you want.
Right now, Apple and the networks are doing a trial run, just to see how well this works in practice. If it works well, expect Apple to do an end run around everyone's assumptions and turn every computer with iTunes into a "media center PC" with the blessing of the content providers. What used to be TV is then simultaneously DVR'd by default and no longer dependent on advertizer revenue for money, which means no skipping ads and more creative freedom. And, if Apple does it right, it means much more of an in for independent and shoestring-budget work as well as the slick stuff.
No more paying for premium cable just to get that one network so you can watch those two shows. And if you prefer the current way, because for instance you leave the TV on all the time, well, the current way will still be there.
Assuming that the trials have been successful, the only thing that could go wrong is the passage of that stupid bill that kills network neutrality...
Lets see here, Apple can get sell a $1.99 t.v. episode or a $1000 computer. Gotta sell the episode.
Lets see here, Apple can get sell a $1.99 t.v. episode or a $1000 computer. Gotta sell the episode.
Apple can sell whatever computer the end user wants (greasing adoption by making it work with whatever computer they've already bought), and as many $1.99 episodes as the end user wants. What's missing from my PowerBook that this hypothetical box would need?
Besides, to some degree, you do have to look at the long term. There are a lot of reasons (many political, or IP-based) why dedicated media computers are non-starters. Since computers are hard-wired, and entertainment media is digital (or readily digitized), it makes more sense to fit the entertainment to the computers than vice versa. Besides, anything that lowers the cost to entry will help spur adoption of this new thing. Apple can set the bar at $1000 and do as well as everyone else who's tried that, or they can set the bar at $1.99 for a taste of how it works, and then show off the way their machines make it work so well (remotes, Front Row, iLife, etc.).
Apple can also reach out to PC users this way. As hard as it may be to believe, some people are not going to shell out $1k on a platform they don't know about so they can watch TV on it. MS already offers one, so that's the safer alternative. Apple not only gets business from them anyway, but they strengthen their brand in the same way that iTunes has among people who aren't familiar with Apple. And Apple does have a vested interest in making this work well enough at least for people who don't have Macs and won't buy them: In order to pull this off, Apple has to achieve a critical mass of sales of TV episodes. The more sales, the more clout Apple has with the industry. So restricting sales to Mac users is counterproductive. Restricting sales to users of one as yet unreleased Mac is frankly absurd. I suppose Apple could do things the way everyone else has, but why? What recommends that approach, except for the fact that it's the only one anyone else has ever tried?
Jobs is still personally fixated on the idea that TV is dumb entertainment. Luckily, he has realized, or been told, that there are plenty of people who like dumb entertainment.
I wonder why people misquote what he said, so long ago, and take it so far out of context?
I still like the idea of a sub-$300 box (with a remote) that sits next to my DVD player, supports HDTV and 7.1, plugs into ethernet (and the next wireless standard), and allows me to watch or listen to the content served up by my computer (either a Mac or a PC, but of course a Mac does it better). Much like the airport express with AirTunes, except it supports other media and has an onscreen display and remote control. None of this messy DVR, cable, satellite, broadcast stuff... just a simple media playback mechanism. Download content from iTMS, play it on your existing TV system.
I still like the idea of a sub-$300 box (with a remote) that sits next to my DVD player, supports HDTV and 7.1, plugs into ethernet (and the next wireless standard), and allows me to watch or listen to the content served up by my computer (either a Mac or a PC, but of course a Mac does it better). Much like the airport express with AirTunes, except it supports other media and has an onscreen display and remote control. None of this messy DVR, cable, satellite, broadcast stuff... just a simple media playback mechanism. Download content from iTMS, play it on your existing TV system.
I'd buy two. Today.
Exactly my thought.
What everyone here needs to recognize is that people do NOT want to hook their computers up to their TVs, yes the functionality can be nice in some circumstances, but for 99% this is far too complicated. You just want to click one of two buttons and watch what you want without the hastle.
What I see is a small Mac mini like box with HDMI/DVI ports, Audio out port, a simple yet elegant remote ala the current Apple remote but bigger and a few more buttons, "Front Row +" that allows you to dish up your iTunes music from your computer or directly from the box, as well as video in the same manor.
NO DVR, instead have an expanded version of the current iTunes video store, with a simple click to buy option that can be directly accessed from the interface. This would not be a fully functional computer, but a media only subset of the Mac OS, to keep things simple.
If we are lucky, you could have the option to download the videos free of charge, but they will have commercials and will have an expiration date (to keep the commericals up to date) at which point you could redownload the video. Hopefully content would be larger than 320x240... maybe even HD.
Of course a large HD would be necessary, perhaps 350 or 500GB. Embedded processor, graphics, minimal features to cut down on cost.
This box would not need an Optical drive, no keyboard/mouse, and would focus entirely on video/music/podcasts/videopodcasts.
Simplicity would be the key, an area that Microsoft has utterly failed in with Windows MCE, as Steve has pointed out by making fun of the MS remote (I played with one at Best Buy once and my eyes nearly popped out, it has more buttons than any two remotes ive ever seen).
What everyone here needs to recognize is that people do NOT want to hook their computers up to their TVs, yes the functionality can be nice in some circumstances, but for 99% this is far too complicated. You just want to click one of two buttons and watch what you want without the hastle.
What I see is a small Mac mini like box with HDMI/DVI ports, Audio out port, a simple yet elegant remote ala the current Apple remote but bigger and a few more buttons, "Front Row +" that allows you to dish up your iTunes music from your computer or directly from the box, as well as video in the same manor.
NO DVR, instead have an expanded version of the current iTunes video store, with a simple click to buy option that can be directly accessed from the interface. This would not be a fully functional computer, but a media only subset of the Mac OS, to keep things simple.
If we are lucky, you could have the option to download the videos free of charge, but they will have commercials and will have an expiration date (to keep the commericals up to date) at which point you could redownload the video. Hopefully content would be larger than 320x240... maybe even HD.
Of course a large HD would be necessary, perhaps 350 or 500GB. Embedded processor, graphics, minimal features to cut down on cost.
This box would not need an Optical drive, no keyboard/mouse, and would focus entirely on video/music/podcasts/videopodcasts.
Simplicity would be the key, an area that Microsoft has utterly failed in with Windows MCE, as Steve has pointed out by making fun of the MS remote (I played with one at Best Buy once and my eyes nearly popped out, it has more buttons than any two remotes ive ever seen).
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity...
"Front Row in a Box"
Nothing more, nothing less.
Just my 2¢
Although I agree with most of this, why skip the optical drive? That way you don't put it next to the dvd player, you use it instead of. Some models could have standard DVD and some could have some sort of HD DVD.
I also have to wonder about the iTMS only approach. Lord knows I don't want to get into the "Steve hates TV" (talk about misinterpreted). I just think that if this came out without a DVR functionality it wouldn't succeed. DVRs have exploded, and I don't care what you say, downloading huge files from Apple isn't nearly as efficient as recording from a cable stream. The economics just don't work right now.
My hunch is that Apple is waiting for the Cable Card 2 tech to enter the market, bypassing what Jobs called the "monopoly". He wasn't referring to content, but the fact that up until now the cable companies have controlled the access to content through the set top. Cable cards should in theory negate this, which is why it has taken so long to happen.
Comments
Just imagine an apple TV, that contains a 250GB/500GB hard drive (like iMac), an internal set of 12watt speakers (like panny Viera), the beefed up elegant Front Row Full-Blown media centre, side-load slot load Superdrive, comes with the apple remote, and is available in three sizes 26", 32" etc. As a build to order you can get OS X, keyboard and the usual Mac stuff. But you have to pay extra.
The standard version of the 'Apple Media TV' contains the TV, and the remote and the hard drive and software to make it work!
(everything is inside the TV, hard drive etc. all built in)8)
p.s. If apple did this I don't think I'd be the only happy camper. (blast me all you want)
Originally posted by BenRoethig
All you really have to do Steve is buy Elgato.
He already "bought" several of their programmers
Originally posted by Zandros
The thing which intrigues me is that less Macs than PC's are being recycled. Is it just a matter of Apple being bad at recycling, or are simply less Macs thrown away?
Macs have a higher resale value even when used, you'd be a moron to toss them.
Geuss the pint is... it works now and apple really needs is the media and distribution.
Originally posted by onlooker
?The new products in the pipeline are the best I?ve ever seen in my life,? Jobs said.
I should hope so, if their products didn't get better with time we'd still be using G3s.
PS, Apple's remote may be troublesome for a media machine.
Yeah, it's simple, but that's because they haven't put in recording yet. When they do that, you'd better believe you're going to want more buttons.
One question though: Why in god's name doesn't Quicktime support mpeg2?? Yeah, it'll be dead as soon as DVDs start moving to better media, but that wont be for 6+ years!11one1one! HD's great and all but for lossless transcoding into .vob format, mpeg2 is is the only option.
Yes, I know, you can pay Apple to get a QT plugin for mpeg2.. but why?
Apple can either absorb them, or you can pay them.
Since they're pushing MPEG4, and prior to that, Sorenson3 (oy, what a licensing fiasco that turned out to be), they've never had a solid business model for paying the fees for you.
Originally posted by slughead
He already "bought" several of their programmers
Buy the company and you get botht the software and hardware. Not like its something Apple hasn't done before.
Originally posted by mmcgann11
Apple building a PVR is way too "me too" for Apple.
If it wasn't for Steve Jobs' persoal biases against T.V., Apple should have been at the forefront. Instead they let Microsoft beat them to the punch. What they than do now is do it better.
Even if SJ doesn't have the time to get into, and try to enjoy a show. He knows he can sell the shit out a Mac Home media center with a built in PVR to the millions of people that do.
(me no apps to do one)
Apple offers TV programs on iTunes. Why bother with a DVR and all that extra hassle? You want it, buy it and watch it whenever you want. There are none of the uncertainties involved with DVRs (like the industry they depend on trying to kill them), and the interface is pretty sleek, too. You have all the hard drive space you want.
Right now, Apple and the networks are doing a trial run, just to see how well this works in practice. If it works well, expect Apple to do an end run around everyone's assumptions and turn every computer with iTunes into a "media center PC" with the blessing of the content providers. What used to be TV is then simultaneously DVR'd by default and no longer dependent on advertizer revenue for money, which means no skipping ads and more creative freedom. And, if Apple does it right, it means much more of an in for independent and shoestring-budget work as well as the slick stuff.
No more paying for premium cable just to get that one network so you can watch those two shows. And if you prefer the current way, because for instance you leave the TV on all the time, well, the current way will still be there.
Assuming that the trials have been successful, the only thing that could go wrong is the passage of that stupid bill that kills network neutrality...
Originally posted by Amorph
Think Different.
Apple offers TV programs on iTunes. Why bother with a DVR and all that extra hassle? You want it, buy it and watch it whenever you want. There are none of the uncertainties involved with DVRs (like the industry they depend on trying to kill them), and the interface is pretty sleek, too. You have all the hard drive space you want.
Right now, Apple and the networks are doing a trial run, just to see how well this works in practice. If it works well, expect Apple to do an end run around everyone's assumptions and turn every computer with iTunes into a "media center PC" with the blessing of the content providers. What used to be TV is then simultaneously DVR'd by default and no longer dependent on advertizer revenue for money, which means no skipping ads and more creative freedom. And, if Apple does it right, it means much more of an in for independent and shoestring-budget work as well as the slick stuff.
No more paying for premium cable just to get that one network so you can watch those two shows. And if you prefer the current way, because for instance you leave the TV on all the time, well, the current way will still be there.
Assuming that the trials have been successful, the only thing that could go wrong is the passage of that stupid bill that kills network neutrality...
Lets see here, Apple can get sell a $1.99 t.v. episode or a $1000 computer. Gotta sell the episode.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
Lets see here, Apple can get sell a $1.99 t.v. episode or a $1000 computer. Gotta sell the episode.
Apple can sell whatever computer the end user wants (greasing adoption by making it work with whatever computer they've already bought), and as many $1.99 episodes as the end user wants. What's missing from my PowerBook that this hypothetical box would need?
Besides, to some degree, you do have to look at the long term. There are a lot of reasons (many political, or IP-based) why dedicated media computers are non-starters. Since computers are hard-wired, and entertainment media is digital (or readily digitized), it makes more sense to fit the entertainment to the computers than vice versa. Besides, anything that lowers the cost to entry will help spur adoption of this new thing. Apple can set the bar at $1000 and do as well as everyone else who's tried that, or they can set the bar at $1.99 for a taste of how it works, and then show off the way their machines make it work so well (remotes, Front Row, iLife, etc.).
Apple can also reach out to PC users this way. As hard as it may be to believe, some people are not going to shell out $1k on a platform they don't know about so they can watch TV on it. MS already offers one, so that's the safer alternative. Apple not only gets business from them anyway, but they strengthen their brand in the same way that iTunes has among people who aren't familiar with Apple. And Apple does have a vested interest in making this work well enough at least for people who don't have Macs and won't buy them: In order to pull this off, Apple has to achieve a critical mass of sales of TV episodes. The more sales, the more clout Apple has with the industry. So restricting sales to Mac users is counterproductive. Restricting sales to users of one as yet unreleased Mac is frankly absurd. I suppose Apple could do things the way everyone else has, but why? What recommends that approach, except for the fact that it's the only one anyone else has ever tried?
Originally posted by jccbin
Jobs is still personally fixated on the idea that TV is dumb entertainment. Luckily, he has realized, or been told, that there are plenty of people who like dumb entertainment.
I wonder why people misquote what he said, so long ago, and take it so far out of context?
I'd buy two. Today.
Originally posted by Programmer
I'd buy two. Today.
you'd probably get one with the money you'd be spending for all those features....
Originally posted by Programmer
I still like the idea of a sub-$300 box (with a remote) that sits next to my DVD player, supports HDTV and 7.1, plugs into ethernet (and the next wireless standard), and allows me to watch or listen to the content served up by my computer (either a Mac or a PC, but of course a Mac does it better). Much like the airport express with AirTunes, except it supports other media and has an onscreen display and remote control. None of this messy DVR, cable, satellite, broadcast stuff... just a simple media playback mechanism. Download content from iTMS, play it on your existing TV system.
I'd buy two. Today.
Exactly my thought.
What everyone here needs to recognize is that people do NOT want to hook their computers up to their TVs, yes the functionality can be nice in some circumstances, but for 99% this is far too complicated. You just want to click one of two buttons and watch what you want without the hastle.
What I see is a small Mac mini like box with HDMI/DVI ports, Audio out port, a simple yet elegant remote ala the current Apple remote but bigger and a few more buttons, "Front Row +" that allows you to dish up your iTunes music from your computer or directly from the box, as well as video in the same manor.
NO DVR, instead have an expanded version of the current iTunes video store, with a simple click to buy option that can be directly accessed from the interface. This would not be a fully functional computer, but a media only subset of the Mac OS, to keep things simple.
If we are lucky, you could have the option to download the videos free of charge, but they will have commercials and will have an expiration date (to keep the commericals up to date) at which point you could redownload the video. Hopefully content would be larger than 320x240... maybe even HD.
Of course a large HD would be necessary, perhaps 350 or 500GB. Embedded processor, graphics, minimal features to cut down on cost.
This box would not need an Optical drive, no keyboard/mouse, and would focus entirely on video/music/podcasts/videopodcasts.
Simplicity would be the key, an area that Microsoft has utterly failed in with Windows MCE, as Steve has pointed out by making fun of the MS remote (I played with one at Best Buy once and my eyes nearly popped out, it has more buttons than any two remotes ive ever seen).
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity...
"Front Row in a Box"
Nothing more, nothing less.
Just my 2¢
Originally posted by jimbo123
And the remote having a lcd so you can quickly view the next song to play or go through your/music/video content in iTunes etc.
Might as well give the iPod nano some remote-like functionality, then.
Originally posted by 4fx
Exactly my thought.
What everyone here needs to recognize is that people do NOT want to hook their computers up to their TVs, yes the functionality can be nice in some circumstances, but for 99% this is far too complicated. You just want to click one of two buttons and watch what you want without the hastle.
What I see is a small Mac mini like box with HDMI/DVI ports, Audio out port, a simple yet elegant remote ala the current Apple remote but bigger and a few more buttons, "Front Row +" that allows you to dish up your iTunes music from your computer or directly from the box, as well as video in the same manor.
NO DVR, instead have an expanded version of the current iTunes video store, with a simple click to buy option that can be directly accessed from the interface. This would not be a fully functional computer, but a media only subset of the Mac OS, to keep things simple.
If we are lucky, you could have the option to download the videos free of charge, but they will have commercials and will have an expiration date (to keep the commericals up to date) at which point you could redownload the video. Hopefully content would be larger than 320x240... maybe even HD.
Of course a large HD would be necessary, perhaps 350 or 500GB. Embedded processor, graphics, minimal features to cut down on cost.
This box would not need an Optical drive, no keyboard/mouse, and would focus entirely on video/music/podcasts/videopodcasts.
Simplicity would be the key, an area that Microsoft has utterly failed in with Windows MCE, as Steve has pointed out by making fun of the MS remote (I played with one at Best Buy once and my eyes nearly popped out, it has more buttons than any two remotes ive ever seen).
Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity...
"Front Row in a Box"
Nothing more, nothing less.
Just my 2¢
Although I agree with most of this, why skip the optical drive? That way you don't put it next to the dvd player, you use it instead of. Some models could have standard DVD and some could have some sort of HD DVD.
I also have to wonder about the iTMS only approach. Lord knows I don't want to get into the "Steve hates TV" (talk about misinterpreted). I just think that if this came out without a DVR functionality it wouldn't succeed. DVRs have exploded, and I don't care what you say, downloading huge files from Apple isn't nearly as efficient as recording from a cable stream. The economics just don't work right now.
My hunch is that Apple is waiting for the Cable Card 2 tech to enter the market, bypassing what Jobs called the "monopoly". He wasn't referring to content, but the fact that up until now the cable companies have controlled the access to content through the set top. Cable cards should in theory negate this, which is why it has taken so long to happen.