I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
Where did you find this out?
Are you saying this in respect to the lower resolution of the videos sold in the last year (320x240) or the quality of what's being sold now (640x480 for 4:3)? Whatever it is, what you say doesn't make sense anymore.
I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
Love to find out where you got the info from, as no one out here in Hollywood seems to know that. Certainly not at Disney, and one would think they would be the arbiter of this one.
I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
You "found out", or you "pulled out of your behind"?
Some people seem enamored with the idea of a mini+iTV "media center" but I'm not sure their reasons for wanting them hooked together. For me the primary value of iTV is it being able to interact with computers and media library storage in other locations.
I think the idea is to have an iTV with PVR via the Mac Mini.
I've already decided that I'm just getting the PVR that my cable company uses. I think iTV is cool. but it's not that cool. I don't think, for me, it would be used even 1/8th as much as a PVR. I don't really need the iTunes store on my TV when I make better use of the resources I already have and that is without the PVR. If the iTV had a PVR I think I may have used iTV and the store just because of the convenience of it, but for me it seems like a waste of time and money in it's current state.
The majority of the population is concentrated in urban areas. Only 20% of americans live in rural areas according to the 2000 census.
Some rural areas with good local cable companies (some co-op) has had as good or better connectivity and overall wireless is likely to play a much larger part in rural areas than areas.
Sorry that the "facts" disagree with your world view. If you can't use Google then you sure as hell aren't in the "sweet spot" for the target market.
Bullshit. Waiting longer for more broadband and HD penetration allows Microsoft and Sony to catch up. Waiting longer allows the HD-DVD and BluRay camps to make nice. There 95.5 million prospective buyers and if only 1% (an order of magnitude lower than the market study suggest) respond thats still a successful product launch.
By the time they launch (Q1 2007), Verizon, SBC, BellSouth and Comcast will have added millions of more broadband users. It wont take "overnight" to download 720p movies for a large number of broadband users.
Vinea
- Did you read the PDF report you linked to? The headline in that PDF is the following: "Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas". Translation--- that report is loaded with estimates, not hard figures, Vin.
- It also states, right at the beginning of the article: "About 30 million American households have adopted broadband service...", that was in 2005. Households, not individuals...
- It continues--- "companies do not report the number of subscribers served or whether subscribers are business or residential within each zip code..." I'm assuming most of the broadband use in the US at this time is assigned to businesses, not individual households. Try as you might to prove otherwise, experience has shown me most families do not have the household budget to throw money into broadband, I see many more families with cable TV than broadband.
- Yes, consumers seem to be in a wait and see posture regarding HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that is obvious. iTV still doesn't address ease of use issues and assumes high percentages of dissatisfaction with readily available DVD solutions.
I wonder about the conclusions you are drawing based on evidence you are really scraping hard to find, Vinea.
You're seeing the trees you want to see, and completely failing to see the forest the consumer sees.
Apple knows how people are using the Mac Mini (as a media center), and you can be sure they don't plan to 'replace' the Mac Mini's role (there's money in them there hills). Notice the USB port on the back of the iTV? Plan on seeing a Blu-Ray capable Mac Mini right about the same time as the release of iTV. Mac Mini is NOT required for streaming movies/music, so it's inexpensive for PC/iPod owners to extend their iPod experience into the living room.
The Mac Mini is the upgrade option, including HD playback of Blu-Ray movies, burning, and more.
As for recording capabilities, I'm sure there is still a raging debate inside Apple as to whether following the PVR model today will kill thier plan of REPLACING traditional TV in the future. They would definitely prefer you choose to download your shows, all the way until you decide you no longer need cable/satellite and subscribe to just the shows you want via iTunes, and watch live Sports events via broadband streams.
Nonetheless, I don't have exact specs, but it looks to me like the iTV is made for stacking with the Mini.
For one week after the broadcast, you will be able to watch TV shows for free on demand. This could be paid for by advertisements. If not by advertising, perhaps a Tivo type monthly subscription for this service. If this is an actual download it will have to have some kind of expiration date. If the miracle in streaming technology Think Secret hinted about last year actually exists, perhaps the free ones will just be streamed. After that, or if you want to watch without commercials, or if you want to collect episodes, it's $1.99. It might be enough to make me forget about DVR.
- Did you read the PDF report you linked to? The headline in that PDF is the following: "Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas". Translation--- that report is loaded with estimates, not hard figures, Vin.
The latest figures are only 17% of Americans still live in rural areas. So for the other 83% of us the possibility of broadband are decent. Even in rural areas broadband isn't non-existant. Which part of 17-20% confuses you?
They say difficult to assess the extent. Not that it was non-existant. Given these are based on FCC required reports the data doesn't get any better than this.
In addition:
"In July 2005, FCC found that 99 percent of the country?s population lives in
the 95 percent of zip codes where at least one provider reported to FCC
that it serves at least one high-speed subscriber as of December 31, 2004. In
83 percent of the nation?s zip codes, FCC noted that subscribers are served
by more than one provider, and the commission noted that for roughly 40
percent of zip codes in the United States, there are five or more providers
reporting high-speed lines in service."
99% of the pop lives somewhere where at least one person in thier zip code is getting broadband service.
Quote:
- It also states, right at the beginning of the article: "About 30 million American households have adopted broadband service...", that was in 2005. Households, not individuals...
Yes. That's a good number as there are multiple users per household. Plus the figures are much higher in 2006. 48% of online households have broadband as of 2005.
Quote:
- It continues--- "companies do not report the number of subscribers served or whether subscribers are business or residential within each zip code..." I'm assuming most of the broadband use in the US at this time is assigned to businesses, not individual households. Try as you might to prove otherwise, experience has shown me most families do not have the household budget to throw money into broadband, I see many more families with cable TV than broadband.
Broadband penetration of businesses are listed seperately. Broadband is up to 89% of business users now. Assume what you want but you are wrong.
Plus you ignored the previous line:
"Based on the modifications to the filing requirements FCC implemented,
FCC collects, through its Form 477 filings, information on several aspects
of each company?s provision of broadband at the state level, such as the
total number of subscribers served, the breakdown of how those
subscribers are served by technology, and estimates within each
technology of the percentage of subscribers that are residential. "
They DO report which are residential vs business...just NOT on a by zipcode basis.
Quote:
- Yes, consumers seem to be in a wait and see posture regarding HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that is obvious. iTV still doesn't address ease of use issues and assumes high percentages of dissatisfaction with readily available DVD solutions.
I wonder about the conclusions you are drawing based on evidence you are really scraping hard to find, Vinea.
You're seeing the trees you want to see, and completely failing to see the forest the consumer sees.
I wonder about your obtuseness and why given hard evidence from the GAO from FCC reports you still assert that broadband penetration is poor (it is but in percentage...we have more broadband users than any other country in the world). Seeing what I want to see? That's the kettle calling the pot black. Which part of 73% of all online users have broadband is hard to understand?
Really hard to scrape? Its called Google. But given how net savvy you appear to be I guess for you that is hard to do.
Love to find out where you got the info from, as no one out here in Hollywood seems to know that. Certainly not at Disney, and one would think they would be the arbiter of this one.
One of the Microsoft VPs on AVSForums said as much with respect to HD and unprotected video chains. Apple seems uniquely positioned as a company that can control the entire ecosystem from iTunes to Macs to iTV and has a proven track record of DRM with music.
That's the basis of my contention that iTV will allow 720p downloads because Apple can tell the studios that the video chain remains encrypted and hardware protected until inside the display.
That could be why they prefer to have a seperate box like the iTV rather than upgrade the mini. As a general purpose PC it's a lot more vulnerable and the DRM measures likely too restrictive for computing. Plus it makes 720p available to all existing PC and Macs that are capable of running iTunes 8 rather than waiting for the DRM protected motherboards and vid cards.
One of the Microsoft VPs on AVSForums said as much with respect to HD and unprotected video chains. Apple seems uniquely positioned as a company that can control the entire ecosystem from iTunes to Macs to iTV and has a proven track record of DRM with music.
That's the basis of my contention that iTV will allow 720p downloads because Apple can tell the studios that the video chain remains encrypted and hardware protected until inside the display.
That could be why they prefer to have a seperate box like the iTV rather than upgrade the mini. As a general purpose PC it's a lot more vulnerable and the DRM measures likely too restrictive for computing. Plus it makes 720p available to all existing PC and Macs that are capable of running iTunes 8 rather than waiting for the DRM protected motherboards and vid cards.
Vinea
Don't disagree that content makers (studios and such) want a secure path (which is why I think iTV and the plan behind it might be great), but as far as demoting the resolution, everyone that's I've heard talk of it (and, granted, most of them are busy making movies or televisions shows, so we don't have much time to chat) has not agreed that it was so much the studios forcing any issues by dictating as the studios not knowing where to go: WalMart? Google? Apple? It's a bit chaotic out there. And, more important, some of the Imagineers who were brought over to help out on online distribution at Disney basically have said that the tech isn't mature enough to push into 720p yet. But soon. I think Steve knows all of this (how can he not), and will slowly increase resolution over time.
I'm pretty jazzed by the whole thing. I wanted a way to do all of this, and now, come the new year, there's going to be one.
I also don't think the 640x480 rez is mandated by the studios...I think that they'd have gone along with the 960x540 resolution but until iTV the primary users of DL'd movies will be iPod owners. For them 640x480 is good enough.
I also agree there is confusion among the studios. I think they will go with a little bit of everything until a clear winner appears. The nice thing about the Disney partnership is that they've been one of the more paraniod studios. An Apple solution that passes their muster, even with Steve on the board, will make the less paranoid studios more accepting that the Apple solution is "secure enough".
So yeah, I'm pretty jazzed too. I was going to skip the whole HD-DVD/BR fiasco for a while and live with cable HD but this will be a nice lower cost alternative as long as I don't get hung up on no media.
The funny thing about this thread since iTV isn't a finished or shipping product yet. Much of this thread my be rendered wrong when its full spec and functionality are announced.
The nice thing about the Disney partnership is that they've been one of the more paraniod studios.
Paranoid? They are absolutely not paranoid!!! (Please speak into this cup of coffee here and speak loudly.)
Yeah, they can be a little "conservative" at times, but once they get onboard, they're very fun to work with (many a happy time there). I can't wait to see how this all unrolls -- lots of new toys to play with soon.
Alright well this is what I can see Apple doing in the farther-away future...don't worry I'm prepared to be flamed
I think that the iTV will eventually become a whole reciever/amp. It already has most of the things it needs, but make it slightly bigger, put on a LCD (or oLED I suppose) screen on the front and have more ports. So now Apple has their reciever, but they need speakers to work with them right? So they release wireless (bluetooth or 801.11n) surround sound speakers to connect wirelessly to your iTV. Gives you the option of 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Also supports 2 subwoofers. This could get rid of much of the cable problem, except for the power needed to run them. This is the major flaw in my area. The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
Ok so now we pretty much have the speakers, the reciever, the DVD, CD, by this time HD-DVD/Blu-ray player, and the amp. What is left? Why the TV itself of course. This is the most controversial part of this idea. The 30inch display is already a great screen, which could be their smaller tv, with a seperate iTV. The bigger ones (Insert sizes here...) could have the option to have a built in iTV on the back of it. By the way I think i forgot to mention that the iTV would have its own HDD by this point to store everything. The Apple Remote and iPod are the remote of course, as well as the iPhone. All of these items connect wirelessly to your Mac (PC I suppose too, which brings up the question what if Apple did manage to dominate all the markets I have been talking about and then pull support from PC...?)
This would make Apple the center of everything pretty much, and would be everywhere. All they would need then is a built in video game console...which they will NEVER do.
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
I like the idea of iTV replacing the AV receiver. Not replacing its same complex functionality but replacing it with something much simpler. Televisions themselves are capable of directly connecting the cable box, DVD player, and Playstation. Televisions themselves can output an amplified surround sound signal.
In the very near future their will be less need for the complexity and multiple inputs of an AV receiver. Because of digital signals the inputs are being simplified down to the necessary few and much of the hardware functionality can be done in software.
Shadow Slayer 26, I own an Onkyo THX theater stereo system, and I don't think Apple is up to buying a company that big from Japan. AFAIAC Onkyo makes the absolute top of the line in home stereo equipment, and I doubt Japan would let them go.
Other than that - I think your speculation goes way to far. There are so many more subtle things Apple can do to this thing that would give it 40X better penetration (Like DVR/PVR) that are much more immediate for this to work out for them. I think it could be bigger than the iPod if they just upped the spec list a bit. I like the idea of advertisements from the iTS on TV shows, and paying for subscriptions on commercial free ones. I think that is a great idea.
The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
A battary is not realistic for the power a good surround will need, and I don't think anyone would appreciate having to remove the speaker a battery to recharge it every week. Wireless signal may be fine, as power is more likely to be in a given wall space than a speaker feed.
Quote:
The 30inch display is already a great screen
That's overkill, and not using the thing what it was optimized for. Good 30" TVs can be had for half the cost of a 30" ACD. You can get a good 42" 1080p LCD TV for less than the 30" ACD.
Comments
The mac mini simply doesn't have the video & audio capablities of the iTV. There is no S-Video, Component, or Optical.
There is S-Video, and there is Optical.
No Component, though.
I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
Where did you find this out?
Are you saying this in respect to the lower resolution of the videos sold in the last year (320x240) or the quality of what's being sold now (640x480 for 4:3)? Whatever it is, what you say doesn't make sense anymore.
I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
Love to find out where you got the info from, as no one out here in Hollywood seems to know that. Certainly not at Disney, and one would think they would be the arbiter of this one.
I found out why apple is releasing movies and TV programs at a reduced quality. The movie industry demanded that apple release a lower quality product because of fears that higher quality video would be pirated. An example of the movie industry being as ignorant as the music industry.
You "found out", or you "pulled out of your behind"?
Component,
You are right on the other two, but they do not mention component video (as in YPrPb) in that page.
You are right on the other two, but they do not mention component video (as in YPrPb) in that page.
My mistake; I tend to confuse Composite and Component.
Some people seem enamored with the idea of a mini+iTV "media center" but I'm not sure their reasons for wanting them hooked together. For me the primary value of iTV is it being able to interact with computers and media library storage in other locations.
I think the idea is to have an iTV with PVR via the Mac Mini.
I've already decided that I'm just getting the PVR that my cable company uses. I think iTV is cool. but it's not that cool. I don't think, for me, it would be used even 1/8th as much as a PVR. I don't really need the iTunes store on my TV when I make better use of the resources I already have and that is without the PVR. If the iTV had a PVR I think I may have used iTV and the store just because of the convenience of it, but for me it seems like a waste of time and money in it's current state.
The majority of the population is concentrated in urban areas. Only 20% of americans live in rural areas according to the 2000 census.
Some rural areas with good local cable companies (some co-op) has had as good or better connectivity and overall wireless is likely to play a much larger part in rural areas than areas.
http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=28793&rl=1
I posted links. You simply choose not to click on them despite claiming they are too high in the other thread.
28% of all households have broadband. 48% of online households have broadband. GAO report.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06426.pdf
68% of active online users have broadband (that's called a "majority"). There are 95.5 million US broadband users as of Februrary 2006. Nielsen.
http://www.netratings.com/pr/pr_060314.pdf
June numbers indicate a jump to 73.1%
http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0607/
3 million new broadband customers in Q1 2006 alone.
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/pre...06release.html
Sorry that the "facts" disagree with your world view. If you can't use Google then you sure as hell aren't in the "sweet spot" for the target market.
Bullshit. Waiting longer for more broadband and HD penetration allows Microsoft and Sony to catch up. Waiting longer allows the HD-DVD and BluRay camps to make nice. There 95.5 million prospective buyers and if only 1% (an order of magnitude lower than the market study suggest) respond thats still a successful product launch.
http://www.dvd-intelligence.com/main...nes_movies.htm
By the time they launch (Q1 2007), Verizon, SBC, BellSouth and Comcast will have added millions of more broadband users. It wont take "overnight" to download 720p movies for a large number of broadband users.
Vinea
- Did you read the PDF report you linked to? The headline in that PDF is the following: "Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas". Translation--- that report is loaded with estimates, not hard figures, Vin.
- It also states, right at the beginning of the article: "About 30 million American households have adopted broadband service...", that was in 2005. Households, not individuals...
- It continues--- "companies do not report the number of subscribers served or whether subscribers are business or residential within each zip code..." I'm assuming most of the broadband use in the US at this time is assigned to businesses, not individual households. Try as you might to prove otherwise, experience has shown me most families do not have the household budget to throw money into broadband, I see many more families with cable TV than broadband.
- Yes, consumers seem to be in a wait and see posture regarding HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that is obvious. iTV still doesn't address ease of use issues and assumes high percentages of dissatisfaction with readily available DVD solutions.
I wonder about the conclusions you are drawing based on evidence you are really scraping hard to find, Vinea.
You're seeing the trees you want to see, and completely failing to see the forest the consumer sees.
The Mac Mini is the upgrade option, including HD playback of Blu-Ray movies, burning, and more.
As for recording capabilities, I'm sure there is still a raging debate inside Apple as to whether following the PVR model today will kill thier plan of REPLACING traditional TV in the future. They would definitely prefer you choose to download your shows, all the way until you decide you no longer need cable/satellite and subscribe to just the shows you want via iTunes, and watch live Sports events via broadband streams.
Nonetheless, I don't have exact specs, but it looks to me like the iTV is made for stacking with the Mini.
For one week after the broadcast, you will be able to watch TV shows for free on demand. This could be paid for by advertisements. If not by advertising, perhaps a Tivo type monthly subscription for this service. If this is an actual download it will have to have some kind of expiration date. If the miracle in streaming technology Think Secret hinted about last year actually exists, perhaps the free ones will just be streamed. After that, or if you want to watch without commercials, or if you want to collect episodes, it's $1.99. It might be enough to make me forget about DVR.
- Did you read the PDF report you linked to? The headline in that PDF is the following: "Broadband Deployment Is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas". Translation--- that report is loaded with estimates, not hard figures, Vin.
The latest figures are only 17% of Americans still live in rural areas. So for the other 83% of us the possibility of broadband are decent. Even in rural areas broadband isn't non-existant. Which part of 17-20% confuses you?
They say difficult to assess the extent. Not that it was non-existant. Given these are based on FCC required reports the data doesn't get any better than this.
In addition:
"In July 2005, FCC found that 99 percent of the country?s population lives in
the 95 percent of zip codes where at least one provider reported to FCC
that it serves at least one high-speed subscriber as of December 31, 2004. In
83 percent of the nation?s zip codes, FCC noted that subscribers are served
by more than one provider, and the commission noted that for roughly 40
percent of zip codes in the United States, there are five or more providers
reporting high-speed lines in service."
99% of the pop lives somewhere where at least one person in thier zip code is getting broadband service.
- It also states, right at the beginning of the article: "About 30 million American households have adopted broadband service...", that was in 2005. Households, not individuals...
Yes. That's a good number as there are multiple users per household. Plus the figures are much higher in 2006. 48% of online households have broadband as of 2005.
- It continues--- "companies do not report the number of subscribers served or whether subscribers are business or residential within each zip code..." I'm assuming most of the broadband use in the US at this time is assigned to businesses, not individual households. Try as you might to prove otherwise, experience has shown me most families do not have the household budget to throw money into broadband, I see many more families with cable TV than broadband.
Broadband penetration of businesses are listed seperately. Broadband is up to 89% of business users now. Assume what you want but you are wrong.
Plus you ignored the previous line:
"Based on the modifications to the filing requirements FCC implemented,
FCC collects, through its Form 477 filings, information on several aspects
of each company?s provision of broadband at the state level, such as the
total number of subscribers served, the breakdown of how those
subscribers are served by technology, and estimates within each
technology of the percentage of subscribers that are residential. "
They DO report which are residential vs business...just NOT on a by zipcode basis.
- Yes, consumers seem to be in a wait and see posture regarding HD-DVD and Blu-Ray that is obvious. iTV still doesn't address ease of use issues and assumes high percentages of dissatisfaction with readily available DVD solutions.
I wonder about the conclusions you are drawing based on evidence you are really scraping hard to find, Vinea.
You're seeing the trees you want to see, and completely failing to see the forest the consumer sees.
I wonder about your obtuseness and why given hard evidence from the GAO from FCC reports you still assert that broadband penetration is poor (it is but in percentage...we have more broadband users than any other country in the world). Seeing what I want to see? That's the kettle calling the pot black. Which part of 73% of all online users have broadband is hard to understand?
Really hard to scrape? Its called Google. But given how net savvy you appear to be I guess for you that is hard to do.
Vinea
Love to find out where you got the info from, as no one out here in Hollywood seems to know that. Certainly not at Disney, and one would think they would be the arbiter of this one.
One of the Microsoft VPs on AVSForums said as much with respect to HD and unprotected video chains. Apple seems uniquely positioned as a company that can control the entire ecosystem from iTunes to Macs to iTV and has a proven track record of DRM with music.
That's the basis of my contention that iTV will allow 720p downloads because Apple can tell the studios that the video chain remains encrypted and hardware protected until inside the display.
That could be why they prefer to have a seperate box like the iTV rather than upgrade the mini. As a general purpose PC it's a lot more vulnerable and the DRM measures likely too restrictive for computing. Plus it makes 720p available to all existing PC and Macs that are capable of running iTunes 8 rather than waiting for the DRM protected motherboards and vid cards.
Vinea
One of the Microsoft VPs on AVSForums said as much with respect to HD and unprotected video chains. Apple seems uniquely positioned as a company that can control the entire ecosystem from iTunes to Macs to iTV and has a proven track record of DRM with music.
That's the basis of my contention that iTV will allow 720p downloads because Apple can tell the studios that the video chain remains encrypted and hardware protected until inside the display.
That could be why they prefer to have a seperate box like the iTV rather than upgrade the mini. As a general purpose PC it's a lot more vulnerable and the DRM measures likely too restrictive for computing. Plus it makes 720p available to all existing PC and Macs that are capable of running iTunes 8 rather than waiting for the DRM protected motherboards and vid cards.
Vinea
Don't disagree that content makers (studios and such) want a secure path (which is why I think iTV and the plan behind it might be great), but as far as demoting the resolution, everyone that's I've heard talk of it (and, granted, most of them are busy making movies or televisions shows, so we don't have much time to chat) has not agreed that it was so much the studios forcing any issues by dictating as the studios not knowing where to go: WalMart? Google? Apple? It's a bit chaotic out there. And, more important, some of the Imagineers who were brought over to help out on online distribution at Disney basically have said that the tech isn't mature enough to push into 720p yet. But soon. I think Steve knows all of this (how can he not), and will slowly increase resolution over time.
I'm pretty jazzed by the whole thing. I wanted a way to do all of this, and now, come the new year, there's going to be one.
I also agree there is confusion among the studios. I think they will go with a little bit of everything until a clear winner appears. The nice thing about the Disney partnership is that they've been one of the more paraniod studios. An Apple solution that passes their muster, even with Steve on the board, will make the less paranoid studios more accepting that the Apple solution is "secure enough".
So yeah, I'm pretty jazzed too. I was going to skip the whole HD-DVD/BR fiasco for a while and live with cable HD but this will be a nice lower cost alternative as long as I don't get hung up on no media.
Vinea
But then again maybe not.
The nice thing about the Disney partnership is that they've been one of the more paraniod studios.
Paranoid? They are absolutely not paranoid!!! (Please speak into this cup of coffee here and speak loudly.)
Yeah, they can be a little "conservative" at times, but once they get onboard, they're very fun to work with (many a happy time there). I can't wait to see how this all unrolls -- lots of new toys to play with soon.
I think that the iTV will eventually become a whole reciever/amp. It already has most of the things it needs, but make it slightly bigger, put on a LCD (or oLED I suppose) screen on the front and have more ports. So now Apple has their reciever, but they need speakers to work with them right? So they release wireless (bluetooth or 801.11n) surround sound speakers to connect wirelessly to your iTV. Gives you the option of 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Also supports 2 subwoofers. This could get rid of much of the cable problem, except for the power needed to run them. This is the major flaw in my area. The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
Ok so now we pretty much have the speakers, the reciever, the DVD, CD, by this time HD-DVD/Blu-ray player, and the amp. What is left? Why the TV itself of course. This is the most controversial part of this idea. The 30inch display is already a great screen, which could be their smaller tv, with a seperate iTV. The bigger ones (Insert sizes here...) could have the option to have a built in iTV on the back of it. By the way I think i forgot to mention that the iTV would have its own HDD by this point to store everything. The Apple Remote and iPod are the remote of course, as well as the iPhone. All of these items connect wirelessly to your Mac (PC I suppose too, which brings up the question what if Apple did manage to dominate all the markets I have been talking about and then pull support from PC...?)
This would make Apple the center of everything pretty much, and would be everywhere. All they would need then is a built in video game console...which they will NEVER do.
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
In the very near future their will be less need for the complexity and multiple inputs of an AV receiver. Because of digital signals the inputs are being simplified down to the necessary few and much of the hardware functionality can be done in software.
Other than that - I think your speculation goes way to far. There are so many more subtle things Apple can do to this thing that would give it 40X better penetration (Like DVR/PVR) that are much more immediate for this to work out for them. I think it could be bigger than the iPod if they just upped the spec list a bit. I like the idea of advertisements from the iTS on TV shows, and paying for subscriptions on commercial free ones. I think that is a great idea.
The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
A battary is not realistic for the power a good surround will need, and I don't think anyone would appreciate having to remove the speaker a battery to recharge it every week. Wireless signal may be fine, as power is more likely to be in a given wall space than a speaker feed.
The 30inch display is already a great screen
That's overkill, and not using the thing what it was optimized for. Good 30" TVs can be had for half the cost of a 30" ACD. You can get a good 42" 1080p LCD TV for less than the 30" ACD.