I do think there's a market for a TV that does it all, but I don't think the market is very big.
It's been possible to put a DVD player in TVs for many years but how many have actually done it? And how many cable/satellite decoders are integrated into TVs? How many surround amps are integrated into TVs (and if you're talking HD TV, many people want surround!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
This is true. I wonder if Apple could make a great universal remote?
There are 3 things I can think of
1) A universal remote with keys that change depending on what context/mode the remote is in (as Apple patented)
2) A universal remote using touch screen technology, with infrared (and bluetooth for interactive displays?)
3) Attach a IR transmitter to the iTV so it can control the other devices. Then use a really simple remote to control Frontrow (which in turn controls your AMP, cable box, TV, whatever)
Any of these configured graphically on your screen, hopefully premade by Apple (or an open-source style community for the thousands of remotes out there)
It seems to me that Apple hasn't decided yet what its pc footprint will look like. It wants Windows operability in every Mac, but it won't go for virtualization yet. Until it decides what to do with all of its apps that could go pc, I doubt Apple will make big gaming inroads in any particular direction.
If Apple allows you to buy a Mac with Vista Pro (or XP Home) in dual boot, many people will buy that. They could easily bundle Parallels then (or sell it cheaply) and it would run its virtual PC from that bootcamp Windows version, integrating the display seemlessly with the Mac (currently in Beta).
I'll be setting my brother up to do that shortly. Mac mainly with seemless windows, reboot into bootcamp for games.
You Mac fans must be delusional if you think _hardware_ makes for a gaming console. Consoles live and die by their games. What games do Macs get? I'm serious here, what is the huge selection of Macintosh games? Don't even mention iPod game downloads, it's not even in the same league as console gaming. Bungie jumped ship from Mac to PC in the mid-90s, I don't think Mac has ever been a serious competitor to PC gaming since. "Mac gamer" might as well be an oxymoron (Roosterteeth agrees anyway). Apple has been successful in other ways.
There is NO possible chance Apple will buy Nintendo, because Nintendo ain't selling. Nintendo is very profitable right now. The DS is a huge success, especially in Japan, and the Wii is selling out with every shipment--believe me, I've tried getting one. This article suggests further: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/10/ni...d-your-breath/
mrpiddly, "X-Plane"? Oh yeah, hardcore gamers everywhere are just lining up to play "X-Plane". Sorry, but _flight sims_ aren't console gaming material. And according to the reviews, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is the better game.
Macs are great for audio and video purposes. But Mac is by no stretch a 'gamer's platform'. I would be surprised if the Mac platform received even 1/10th of the releases to the PC gaming market. If you want games, you buy a PC or you buy a console. If you want a multimedia device, you buy a PC or a Mac. The fact consoles are now doing more than just playing games is still secondary to their primary purpose. I use my Xbox 360 as a DVD player, but that's about it. The downloads I have are video game trailers and demos. Occasionally I'll rip a CD onto my X360 so I can listen to it in games. If a console doesn't revolve around gaming but instead focuses on being a family multimedia center, it's doomed from the start. Gamers buy consoles to play games. Xbox Live's entire media download service is laughable, especially when a service like Netflix is far more convenient. People who want to browse the internet and download music and movies aren't going to buy a machine the hooks up to their television, they're going to buy a computer. Apple is in no position to enter the console gaming market, they just don't have the developer support to have a large and competitive library of games.
Apple is branching out to become a consumer electronics company. That became obvious once they had success with the iPod. They will continue to do that. I don't think they will look back.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Cider is there but their licencing is TOO expensive at this time .. sure Apple could take over some game distribution over Itunes , using the few game devs ,buy titles, make titles and port over using Cider then their own engine.
I was wondering about why it's taking so long to get Cider games out. This site is very interesting:
"TransGaming business model for Cider is one of revenue share, with no upfront fees."
"Let's say Aspyr wants to license Battlefield 2142 from Electronic Arts and use Cider to bring it to the Mac. So first Aspyr would have to pay a large chunk of money to Electronic Arts to license the game. Then once the game is available and selling, Aspyr would have to pay royalties to both Electronic Arts and TransGaming, leaving very little for Aspyr itself. Also consider that Aspyr has to front the bill for everything including the initial license, the marketing costs, build costs, distribution costs, and more."
But as they say, why not cut Aspyr out of the picture or Apple buy them out? I'm sure that Apple would readily take some of the losses involved with the use of Cider because for one thing it improves Mac sales if it makes the Mac a viable gaming platform and the marketing and distribution is taken care of with their established Apple store where people go to buy Mac stuff anyway.
Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Exactly what other content distribution plans are you talking about?
Some good discussion on this thread. Althought the thread is officially about video games, what people need is not another game console but is a good living room solution - one box and one remote.
However this solution will have to go head-to-head with the game consoles for this territory. Right now the game consoles are not the one box solution and won't be for a while. Apple has an opportunity to step in a deliver an elegant and complete solution. However, Apple lacks in the gaming department.
I suggested the possibility of using remote computer power from another computer in the house. Maybe the latency would be too much of an issue. Maybe not. I know Apple's Logic can offload effects processing to remote computers. Maybe this is not Xgrid per say, but these processes are still time sensitive. Yes they have latency but they also do heavy dsp processing. I was only talking about sending the input and output remotely and technically it could be done with no extra latency with a wired solution. Of course wireless would be a big plus.
Do I think Apple is going to do this? No I don't. I think their iTV will be simple at first. I'm afraid they will not capitalize on a good opportunity to take over the living room and by the time they have a complete solution, the game consoles will have morphed into equally good solutions themselves.
Apple does need to boost their gaming. We all know it is a liability now and could be even bigger in the future. Making a console doesn't seem prudent for for Apple and they have no game titles.
They could try developing their own games but I doubt this is the right move. They could also purchase game developers but I don;t think they have to. I'm guessing that Apple needs a solution to enable PC games to run natively on a Mac. That would solve the quanity and quality of games issue.
Can this be done? In theory yes. But how about realistically? I'd love to hear opinions of those who really know the details. Could they redirect game APIs to their own OS implementations? Or something else.
If Apple could solve that half then they have to solve the other half. If one box replaced every other component in the living room, I'd guess this box could sell for $2000 or more and it would be worth every penny. By the time you add up a cable box, HD-DVD/BlueRay/DVD/CD, Amp, TiVo, VCR - most people have $2000 easy. They also have a mess of wires and remotes and a user interface/experience that sucks. Apple would bring their expertise to this mess.
As long as Apple doesn't make this box look like an average PC computer they could pull it off. Of course design like that would be so - Apple.
Since Apple is moving into the living room, I want Apple to do it right and give us a complete solution not just a piece or two. By combining all the components into one box, Apple could add gaming to this set box but it would not be a straight comparison to game consoles. Thus people would not compare the two directly. If Apple could find ways to cut costs in other components - say like by using digital amps, fewer i/o, fewer remotes, etc. - they could then add more CPU and GPU horsepower and provide a decent gaming platform.
Now is the time to introduce this elegant solution before too many people drop the money for new game consoles. If not now, then there is window but it is shrinking every day. I think Apple can do this living room solution and marketing it easily. There mindshare and their stores provide a place for people to see it all in action.
If Apple did some other innovative stuff at the same time, like 16:9 video iPod, iPhones with iChatAV/VoIP/video phone capabilities, an iWork to rival MS Office, they would have such a compelling product line and would make MS and Sony embarassed.
The biggest question in my mind is what is inside the iTV box.?
Educated guesses would suggest....
* a processor. Prolly an x86.
* Some ram. Some storage - probably a small hard drive.
* A fast network connection to a Mac and then on to the internet
* a media processor / GPU possibly Nvidia based.
* a connection to a TV and sound system
And what you have there is a device which is a perfectly respectable gaming platform - which is probably equal in hardware terms to a PS2 or Xbox. But certainly inferior to PS3 or 360. But it might sit in homes where game consoles have no place.
But here is the unique feature - the Front Row interface allows you to browse the games store, preview, select and download a game without leaving the couch. A model of distribution which is quite different from the boxed-goods model favoured by MS, EA and Sony.
This would certainly not be a hardcore game platform. But it would be a way of making more money out of the iTV. And it would be an ideal platform for the casual gamer. The sort of person who would never enter a games store might think nothing of spending $9.99 on Deer Hunter: The Revenge.
Quiz games, family games, card games, adventure games, puzzles - this type of product is sneered at by the games industry. Apple could afford to offer this stuff for $9.99 and you could get it without even leaving the couch. If the iTV had a substantial user-base.
You know - despite what I said before - it might just work.
I would love to see somebody do an actual latency analysis on this. What about direct connenct with an uncompressed signal over something akin to SDI? This would solve the latency compresion issues and network bandwidth issue. This could be done.
Another solution is to have another box that does the processing that connects with one data cord. It could be like a Mac mini but higher powered and not need all the io. If somebody wants games they could add it fast and easy. Thus Apple could have iTV without gaming and then a gaming add on if someone were interested. Simplicity is the key and I think Apple can come up with a solution.
One box, one remote is a powerful idea.
The real solution is much simpler -- put a CPU/GPU pair into the iTV box and do your processing locally. This is what Apple is doing, but it is unlikely to be comparable to the game consoles because they can't afford to sell it at a loss and they don't want a big noisy box.
The biggest question in my mind is what is inside the iTV box.?
Educated guesses would suggest....
* a processor. Prolly an x86.
* Some ram. Some storage - probably a small hard drive.
* A fast network connection to a Mac and then on to the internet
* a media processor / GPU possibly Nvidia based.
* a connection to a TV and sound system
And what you have there is a device which is a perfectly respectable gaming platform - which is probably equal in hardware terms to a PS2 or Xbox. But certainly inferior to PS3 or 360. But it might sit in homes where game consoles have no place.
But here is the unique feature - the Front Row interface allows you to browse the games store, preview, select and download a game without leaving the couch. A model of distribution which is quite different from the boxed-goods model favoured by MS, EA and Sony.
This would certainly not be a hardcore game platform. But it would be a way of making more money out of the iTV. And it would be an ideal platform for the casual gamer. The sort of person who would never enter a games store might think nothing of spending $9.99 on Deer Hunter: The Revenge.
Quiz games, family games, card games, adventure games, puzzles - this type of product is sneered at by the games industry. Apple could afford to offer this stuff for $9.99 and you could get it without even leaving the couch. If the iTV had a substantial user-base.
You know - despite what I said before - it might just work.
C.
I like the idea. I have never been a "gamer" in the traditional sense but certainly prefer the simpler, more family friendly games. I'd certainly buy and play them for my iTV.
Then you potentailly loose ease of use. The set up for a tv with cable and DVR (Tivo) is actually quite difficult. When we moved and reset up our system it took several calls to tech support before we were able to get it working again. I would like to see it all intergrated but that's me. Certainly there are arguements for keeping them seperate.
The iTv is supposed to take care of the streaming from the computer, plus other as yet unknown functions.
My DVR from Time Warner is extremely easy to use, and so far, at least, is all I need in that department.
I do my own tech set-up, so ,unless there is a hardware fault, that's not really a problem.
My concern has always been that as one component is upgraded, I can do that, without throwing out the other parts as well. The same thing is true if something breaks down.
I guess that goes back to the argument against all in one computers as well for many of us. I feel the same way about fax/copier/printer/scanner combo's. Though I do have a laser version, I only use it for faxing, and quick flatbed copying when I don't want to used my scanner (or my wife doesn't).
Then what's the point of an Apple branded TV? Really, you're just saying you want an Apple Cinema Display with an HDMI connection? How is that a particularly compelling product? It's just a bare bones TV. It's not going to dissuade anyone from stopping off at their local Walmart for the HD TV they've been itching for.
At least with an iTV integrated into it, it could do something not many other TV's could.
I'm not sure if I understand your other comment about being a component person but not liking receivers...sort of seems like an oxymoron. If you going with components, a receiver is generally an essential part of that system to get it all to tie together, unless you're just plugging it all into the TV and decided the TV's speakers are good enough for you. Which at that point, your TV is the receiver.
And I'm not saying an Apple branded TV doesn't interest me, but if it's just a TV with an Apple logo on it, big deal. I could buy a Sony TV and slap an Apple sticker on it and it would have as serve the same purpose as an Apple TV.
Then what's the point of a Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubushi, Hp, Sansung, or any other brand display?
Quite frankly, this is a silly argument. If people here don't know that Apple is deliberately becoming a consumer electronics company, then they aren't paying attention to what is happening. Apple is now a "hot" brand. They would be stupid to fail to take advantege of that fact.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Once Apple came out with an mp3 player, they began to branch out.
They tried in the past with consumer devices, but failed. Now it is different. Apple's name is no longer derided, just the opposite.
The iTv is branching out. Games on the iPod is branching out. Cell phones is branching out.
Having a Tv among the 30" monitors is far less of a stretch than making phones.
While a phone is not a logical extension of a current line, a Tv is.
After all, a Tv is no more than a large monitor. All of the Tv manufacturers make monitors, and visa versa.
If Apple came out with a 36" monitor with an HDMI connector, would it be a monitor, or a Tv? What about a 42" model? Or a 50" model"? Or a 60" model?
If they call it a Tv, then it has to have an HD tuner (if over 32" now, and smaller sizes later). If they call it a monitor, then it doesn't. That's the only difference. Large monitors are called "presentation" monitors, but they can be used with a computer, and EyeTv.
I agree that an Apple tv is a logical progression of their current strategy. To me though it will be like an iMac, all in one intergration. For better and/or for worse.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Sorry, this is a second post to your post.
When SA was up for sale, there was talk of Apple being interested.
I didn't believe it, because Apple only buys small, cheap companies.
It might have been a good idea if they did get it. It has put a great deal of power into Cisco's hands.
But, consumer electronics companies, as a rule, do not make set-top boxes, except for Pioneer. So, I wouldn't say that the failure to purchase SA is any indication that Apple is not going in the direction of a more balanced company.
I see just the opposite.
I know this terrifies many Mac users, but it's true nevertheless.
Apple doesn't have to go the route of the set-top box. That requires that they bow to the wishes of the cable, and soon, the phone companies. They couldn't add any features that those companies wouldn't want them to add. This is Tivo's problem as well.
Hello everyone, long time lurker, first time poster ;-)
I've gotta agree with Ireland here. While it might not happen overnight this is the direction several companies are heading. The main goal is to obtain control of the living room basically by controlling multimedia content. While it is years down the road, I've read similar remarks to Irelands on other news stories and or forums.
Think about all of your electronics in your house and even how you obtain your content ( cable, satelite, IP, etc etc ) Now imagine one device to control them all. ( oops! LOTR ref there LOL! )
But seriously, I don't think this idea is too far fetched. However I don't think we'll start to see any of it for another ten years as technologies change, productions costs drop etc etc.
I feel that eventually we'll pick and choose what we want to watch when we want to watch it. Imagine everything on demand in a sense, (a la carte) IP driven with bandwidth and clarity like we've never imagined.
I look back to 1996 when I bought my first Mac. It was a performa 6300, running on a PPC chip at 100mghtz, with a HUGE 1.2 gig HD, an insane 16 MB of Ram, a 15" CRT monitor. Oh yeah I got a printer too, all for the price of around $3,000.
Look at where we are now. Faster, smaller, more efficient, cheaper etc etc.
You've got to really be open minded and think why not? I mean Apple is known for innovation and if anyone can pull it off, I'd pick them above all else.
Apple is the innovator, MS the immitator ;-) (ZUNE anyone? -yuk!)
As for gaming... I'd hope to god that Apple is not following in the tracks of Sony, Nintendo and MS, but at the same time they need to be capable of providing the same content with their set top iTV box coming out soon, again leading the way for masses. Once they do, we'll see MS, Sony & Nintendo follow up with add ons or similar devices built into their next gen systems that will come in another few years.
Hell, I'm excited with all the buzz around Apple! I'd rather have this to discuss than poor sales or tech issues with products, or how low the stock is, but everything seems to be pointing to a brighter future for Apple and that we should be thankful for!
I say bring it all on, I can't wait!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it again.
When apple eventually ups the quality on the video to basic HD, that's when we'll see the Apple (Black) TV, iTV READY (i.e. iTV inside) Cool (slightly bigger) remote with a few more than six buttons (eg 8 buttons), it will have a hard drive too (possibly), and a DVD drive (that playes everything).
1. Ditch your VCR
2. Dicth your DVD player
3. Ditch your cable box
4. Buy an Apple TV
5. Sign up to Apple's IPTV service.
6. Finally you have one remote, where you can play basic games downloaded from iTunes through your iTV ready Apple TV, and you can buy movies, songs, and every other type of digital media. No more cluttler around your TV, just a simple, powerful, minimal HDTV from Apple.
However if you want more powerful games, you buy and Xbox 360, a PS3, or a Wii (or the next generation of consoles if Apple takes thier time, though I think they'll move fast on this). It's that simple.
They'll start into the TV space with 2 or 3 sizes, and without the IPTV sevice.
The 360 isn't that big of a success. Sony has sold more PS2s since the 360 came out than MS has sold 360s.
Depends on our definition of success. The Xbox should have 10 million consoles sold by years end (source TeamXbox)
The PS2 is going to sell well because it's a hundred bucks nows and cheap and plentiful trumps almost all.
One thing Sony is not prepared for is the online stuff. Xbox Live and soon with Xbox Anywhere (Vista) coming I think Microsoft is well poised to do well against the PS3. I have to admit that MS has really executed well here.
The Xbox 360 even supports the Mac well enough to warrant a purchase.
Comments
It's been possible to put a DVD player in TVs for many years but how many have actually done it? And how many cable/satellite decoders are integrated into TVs? How many surround amps are integrated into TVs (and if you're talking HD TV, many people want surround!)
(vii) One remote = The holy grail. Steve Jobs knows this, but consumers think there's no solution, so they live with all the bullshit clutter that's not wanted or needed.
This is true. I wonder if Apple could make a great universal remote?
There are 3 things I can think of
1) A universal remote with keys that change depending on what context/mode the remote is in (as Apple patented)
2) A universal remote using touch screen technology, with infrared (and bluetooth for interactive displays?)
3) Attach a IR transmitter to the iTV so it can control the other devices. Then use a really simple remote to control Frontrow (which in turn controls your AMP, cable box, TV, whatever)
Any of these configured graphically on your screen, hopefully premade by Apple (or an open-source style community for the thousands of remotes out there)
And nothing to do with games at this point. oops
It seems to me that Apple hasn't decided yet what its pc footprint will look like. It wants Windows operability in every Mac, but it won't go for virtualization yet. Until it decides what to do with all of its apps that could go pc, I doubt Apple will make big gaming inroads in any particular direction.
If Apple allows you to buy a Mac with Vista Pro (or XP Home) in dual boot, many people will buy that. They could easily bundle Parallels then (or sell it cheaply) and it would run its virtual PC from that bootcamp Windows version, integrating the display seemlessly with the Mac (currently in Beta).
I'll be setting my brother up to do that shortly. Mac mainly with seemless windows, reboot into bootcamp for games.
Microsoft at launch was losing about $125 per Xbox 360 console. Due to the decrease of component costs, they are now making $75 per console (http://digg.com/gaming_news/Xbox_360...cturing_Costs). By comparison, Sony is losing $300 per PlayStation 3 (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061116/085020.shtml).
There is NO possible chance Apple will buy Nintendo, because Nintendo ain't selling. Nintendo is very profitable right now. The DS is a huge success, especially in Japan, and the Wii is selling out with every shipment--believe me, I've tried getting one. This article suggests further: http://www.joystiq.com/2006/06/10/ni...d-your-breath/
mrpiddly, "X-Plane"? Oh yeah, hardcore gamers everywhere are just lining up to play "X-Plane". Sorry, but _flight sims_ aren't console gaming material. And according to the reviews, "Microsoft Flight Simulator" is the better game.
Macs are great for audio and video purposes. But Mac is by no stretch a 'gamer's platform'. I would be surprised if the Mac platform received even 1/10th of the releases to the PC gaming market. If you want games, you buy a PC or you buy a console. If you want a multimedia device, you buy a PC or a Mac. The fact consoles are now doing more than just playing games is still secondary to their primary purpose. I use my Xbox 360 as a DVD player, but that's about it. The downloads I have are video game trailers and demos. Occasionally I'll rip a CD onto my X360 so I can listen to it in games. If a console doesn't revolve around gaming but instead focuses on being a family multimedia center, it's doomed from the start. Gamers buy consoles to play games. Xbox Live's entire media download service is laughable, especially when a service like Netflix is far more convenient. People who want to browse the internet and download music and movies aren't going to buy a machine the hooks up to their television, they're going to buy a computer. Apple is in no position to enter the console gaming market, they just don't have the developer support to have a large and competitive library of games.
Apple is branching out to become a consumer electronics company. That became obvious once they had success with the iPod. They will continue to do that. I don't think they will look back.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Cider is there but their licencing is TOO expensive at this time .. sure Apple could take over some game distribution over Itunes , using the few game devs ,buy titles, make titles and port over using Cider then their own engine.
I was wondering about why it's taking so long to get Cider games out. This site is very interesting:
http://www.insidemacgames.com/featur...log.php?ID=108
It sounds great until they get to:
"TransGaming business model for Cider is one of revenue share, with no upfront fees."
"Let's say Aspyr wants to license Battlefield 2142 from Electronic Arts and use Cider to bring it to the Mac. So first Aspyr would have to pay a large chunk of money to Electronic Arts to license the game. Then once the game is available and selling, Aspyr would have to pay royalties to both Electronic Arts and TransGaming, leaving very little for Aspyr itself. Also consider that Aspyr has to front the bill for everything including the initial license, the marketing costs, build costs, distribution costs, and more."
But as they say, why not cut Aspyr out of the picture or Apple buy them out? I'm sure that Apple would readily take some of the losses involved with the use of Cider because for one thing it improves Mac sales if it makes the Mac a viable gaming platform and the marketing and distribution is taken care of with their established Apple store where people go to buy Mac stuff anyway.
Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Exactly what other content distribution plans are you talking about?
However this solution will have to go head-to-head with the game consoles for this territory. Right now the game consoles are not the one box solution and won't be for a while. Apple has an opportunity to step in a deliver an elegant and complete solution. However, Apple lacks in the gaming department.
I suggested the possibility of using remote computer power from another computer in the house. Maybe the latency would be too much of an issue. Maybe not. I know Apple's Logic can offload effects processing to remote computers. Maybe this is not Xgrid per say, but these processes are still time sensitive. Yes they have latency but they also do heavy dsp processing. I was only talking about sending the input and output remotely and technically it could be done with no extra latency with a wired solution. Of course wireless would be a big plus.
Do I think Apple is going to do this? No I don't. I think their iTV will be simple at first. I'm afraid they will not capitalize on a good opportunity to take over the living room and by the time they have a complete solution, the game consoles will have morphed into equally good solutions themselves.
Apple does need to boost their gaming. We all know it is a liability now and could be even bigger in the future. Making a console doesn't seem prudent for for Apple and they have no game titles.
They could try developing their own games but I doubt this is the right move. They could also purchase game developers but I don;t think they have to. I'm guessing that Apple needs a solution to enable PC games to run natively on a Mac. That would solve the quanity and quality of games issue.
Can this be done? In theory yes. But how about realistically? I'd love to hear opinions of those who really know the details. Could they redirect game APIs to their own OS implementations? Or something else.
If Apple could solve that half then they have to solve the other half. If one box replaced every other component in the living room, I'd guess this box could sell for $2000 or more and it would be worth every penny. By the time you add up a cable box, HD-DVD/BlueRay/DVD/CD, Amp, TiVo, VCR - most people have $2000 easy. They also have a mess of wires and remotes and a user interface/experience that sucks. Apple would bring their expertise to this mess.
As long as Apple doesn't make this box look like an average PC computer they could pull it off. Of course design like that would be so - Apple.
Since Apple is moving into the living room, I want Apple to do it right and give us a complete solution not just a piece or two. By combining all the components into one box, Apple could add gaming to this set box but it would not be a straight comparison to game consoles. Thus people would not compare the two directly. If Apple could find ways to cut costs in other components - say like by using digital amps, fewer i/o, fewer remotes, etc. - they could then add more CPU and GPU horsepower and provide a decent gaming platform.
Now is the time to introduce this elegant solution before too many people drop the money for new game consoles. If not now, then there is window but it is shrinking every day. I think Apple can do this living room solution and marketing it easily. There mindshare and their stores provide a place for people to see it all in action.
If Apple did some other innovative stuff at the same time, like 16:9 video iPod, iPhones with iChatAV/VoIP/video phone capabilities, an iWork to rival MS Office, they would have such a compelling product line and would make MS and Sony embarassed.
Educated guesses would suggest....
* a processor. Prolly an x86.
* Some ram. Some storage - probably a small hard drive.
* A fast network connection to a Mac and then on to the internet
* a media processor / GPU possibly Nvidia based.
* a connection to a TV and sound system
And what you have there is a device which is a perfectly respectable gaming platform - which is probably equal in hardware terms to a PS2 or Xbox. But certainly inferior to PS3 or 360. But it might sit in homes where game consoles have no place.
But here is the unique feature - the Front Row interface allows you to browse the games store, preview, select and download a game without leaving the couch. A model of distribution which is quite different from the boxed-goods model favoured by MS, EA and Sony.
This would certainly not be a hardcore game platform. But it would be a way of making more money out of the iTV. And it would be an ideal platform for the casual gamer. The sort of person who would never enter a games store might think nothing of spending $9.99 on Deer Hunter: The Revenge.
Quiz games, family games, card games, adventure games, puzzles - this type of product is sneered at by the games industry. Apple could afford to offer this stuff for $9.99 and you could get it without even leaving the couch. If the iTV had a substantial user-base.
You know - despite what I said before - it might just work.
C.
I would love to see somebody do an actual latency analysis on this. What about direct connenct with an uncompressed signal over something akin to SDI? This would solve the latency compresion issues and network bandwidth issue. This could be done.
Another solution is to have another box that does the processing that connects with one data cord. It could be like a Mac mini but higher powered and not need all the io. If somebody wants games they could add it fast and easy. Thus Apple could have iTV without gaming and then a gaming add on if someone were interested. Simplicity is the key and I think Apple can come up with a solution.
One box, one remote is a powerful idea.
The real solution is much simpler -- put a CPU/GPU pair into the iTV box and do your processing locally. This is what Apple is doing, but it is unlikely to be comparable to the game consoles because they can't afford to sell it at a loss and they don't want a big noisy box.
Make it configurable via a SIMPLE interface on iTV or the mac.
Promt: Tell me what devices you have and iTV will configure the remote.
Prompt: Do you have a TV? what make and model?
Prompt: do you have a stereo/hi fi enter make and model
At the end of the install process the universal remote is totally configured for you.
and as an added bonus you can skin the remote however you like.
Or to take a leap of faith. Integrate the remote into the touch screen ipod or iphone.
This way you could download stuff onto it for when you are on the move.
Apple could even integrate voip into the itv and remote/iphone.
All in one solution. Apple + Elegant = nothing anyone has been able to do before.
Ships Feb. for Apple
Ships March for windows. win version doesn't have all of the apple features.
The biggest question in my mind is what is inside the iTV box.?
Educated guesses would suggest....
* a processor. Prolly an x86.
* Some ram. Some storage - probably a small hard drive.
* A fast network connection to a Mac and then on to the internet
* a media processor / GPU possibly Nvidia based.
* a connection to a TV and sound system
And what you have there is a device which is a perfectly respectable gaming platform - which is probably equal in hardware terms to a PS2 or Xbox. But certainly inferior to PS3 or 360. But it might sit in homes where game consoles have no place.
But here is the unique feature - the Front Row interface allows you to browse the games store, preview, select and download a game without leaving the couch. A model of distribution which is quite different from the boxed-goods model favoured by MS, EA and Sony.
This would certainly not be a hardcore game platform. But it would be a way of making more money out of the iTV. And it would be an ideal platform for the casual gamer. The sort of person who would never enter a games store might think nothing of spending $9.99 on Deer Hunter: The Revenge.
Quiz games, family games, card games, adventure games, puzzles - this type of product is sneered at by the games industry. Apple could afford to offer this stuff for $9.99 and you could get it without even leaving the couch. If the iTV had a substantial user-base.
You know - despite what I said before - it might just work.
C.
I like the idea. I have never been a "gamer" in the traditional sense but certainly prefer the simpler, more family friendly games. I'd certainly buy and play them for my iTV.
Then you potentailly loose ease of use. The set up for a tv with cable and DVR (Tivo) is actually quite difficult. When we moved and reset up our system it took several calls to tech support before we were able to get it working again. I would like to see it all intergrated but that's me. Certainly there are arguements for keeping them seperate.
The iTv is supposed to take care of the streaming from the computer, plus other as yet unknown functions.
My DVR from Time Warner is extremely easy to use, and so far, at least, is all I need in that department.
I do my own tech set-up, so ,unless there is a hardware fault, that's not really a problem.
My concern has always been that as one component is upgraded, I can do that, without throwing out the other parts as well. The same thing is true if something breaks down.
I guess that goes back to the argument against all in one computers as well for many of us. I feel the same way about fax/copier/printer/scanner combo's. Though I do have a laser version, I only use it for faxing, and quick flatbed copying when I don't want to used my scanner (or my wife doesn't).
Then what's the point of an Apple branded TV? Really, you're just saying you want an Apple Cinema Display with an HDMI connection? How is that a particularly compelling product? It's just a bare bones TV. It's not going to dissuade anyone from stopping off at their local Walmart for the HD TV they've been itching for.
At least with an iTV integrated into it, it could do something not many other TV's could.
I'm not sure if I understand your other comment about being a component person but not liking receivers...sort of seems like an oxymoron. If you going with components, a receiver is generally an essential part of that system to get it all to tie together, unless you're just plugging it all into the TV and decided the TV's speakers are good enough for you. Which at that point, your TV is the receiver.
And I'm not saying an Apple branded TV doesn't interest me, but if it's just a TV with an Apple logo on it, big deal. I could buy a Sony TV and slap an Apple sticker on it and it would have as serve the same purpose as an Apple TV.
Then what's the point of a Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Hitachi, Mitsubushi, Hp, Sansung, or any other brand display?
Quite frankly, this is a silly argument. If people here don't know that Apple is deliberately becoming a consumer electronics company, then they aren't paying attention to what is happening. Apple is now a "hot" brand. They would be stupid to fail to take advantege of that fact.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Once Apple came out with an mp3 player, they began to branch out.
They tried in the past with consumer devices, but failed. Now it is different. Apple's name is no longer derided, just the opposite.
The iTv is branching out. Games on the iPod is branching out. Cell phones is branching out.
Having a Tv among the 30" monitors is far less of a stretch than making phones.
While a phone is not a logical extension of a current line, a Tv is.
After all, a Tv is no more than a large monitor. All of the Tv manufacturers make monitors, and visa versa.
If Apple came out with a 36" monitor with an HDMI connector, would it be a monitor, or a Tv? What about a 42" model? Or a 50" model"? Or a 60" model?
If they call it a Tv, then it has to have an HD tuner (if over 32" now, and smaller sizes later). If they call it a monitor, then it doesn't. That's the only difference. Large monitors are called "presentation" monitors, but they can be used with a computer, and EyeTv.
I see no problem here.
Apple is too concerned with their bottom line, and good name to branch out. They had their success with the iPod, but I don't see them branching out that far. To be a better consumer electronics company they *would have (*should have) taken a few steps in the right direction. If they wanted to build iTV correctly, and have a hand in the new digital age and the next digital download market they would have bought Scientific Atlanta a while back. Digital content is going to be streamed different in the near future but they should have bought a cable company like COX if they were that interested, or Sci...Atlanta who has the better box for it. Either of those options would have better positioned them in better. Apple doesn't have the capacity to do all the technical things they would need to to survive in this way in the next revolution of the digital age. iTV wont cut it, and will be phased out before it's ever in. New content distribution plans are already in place, and the Apple "download over the web" scheme is ridiculous comparatively.
Sorry, this is a second post to your post.
When SA was up for sale, there was talk of Apple being interested.
I didn't believe it, because Apple only buys small, cheap companies.
It might have been a good idea if they did get it. It has put a great deal of power into Cisco's hands.
But, consumer electronics companies, as a rule, do not make set-top boxes, except for Pioneer. So, I wouldn't say that the failure to purchase SA is any indication that Apple is not going in the direction of a more balanced company.
I see just the opposite.
I know this terrifies many Mac users, but it's true nevertheless.
Apple doesn't have to go the route of the set-top box. That requires that they bow to the wishes of the cable, and soon, the phone companies. They couldn't add any features that those companies wouldn't want them to add. This is Tivo's problem as well.
I've gotta agree with Ireland here. While it might not happen overnight this is the direction several companies are heading. The main goal is to obtain control of the living room basically by controlling multimedia content. While it is years down the road, I've read similar remarks to Irelands on other news stories and or forums.
Think about all of your electronics in your house and even how you obtain your content ( cable, satelite, IP, etc etc ) Now imagine one device to control them all. ( oops! LOTR ref there LOL! )
But seriously, I don't think this idea is too far fetched. However I don't think we'll start to see any of it for another ten years as technologies change, productions costs drop etc etc.
I feel that eventually we'll pick and choose what we want to watch when we want to watch it. Imagine everything on demand in a sense, (a la carte) IP driven with bandwidth and clarity like we've never imagined.
I look back to 1996 when I bought my first Mac. It was a performa 6300, running on a PPC chip at 100mghtz, with a HUGE 1.2 gig HD, an insane 16 MB of Ram, a 15" CRT monitor. Oh yeah I got a printer too, all for the price of around $3,000.
Look at where we are now. Faster, smaller, more efficient, cheaper etc etc.
You've got to really be open minded and think why not? I mean Apple is known for innovation and if anyone can pull it off, I'd pick them above all else.
Apple is the innovator, MS the immitator ;-) (ZUNE anyone? -yuk!)
As for gaming... I'd hope to god that Apple is not following in the tracks of Sony, Nintendo and MS, but at the same time they need to be capable of providing the same content with their set top iTV box coming out soon, again leading the way for masses. Once they do, we'll see MS, Sony & Nintendo follow up with add ons or similar devices built into their next gen systems that will come in another few years.
Hell, I'm excited with all the buzz around Apple! I'd rather have this to discuss than poor sales or tech issues with products, or how low the stock is, but everything seems to be pointing to a brighter future for Apple and that we should be thankful for!
I say bring it all on, I can't wait!
I've said this a few times now, but I'll say it again.
When apple eventually ups the quality on the video to basic HD, that's when we'll see the Apple (Black) TV, iTV READY (i.e. iTV inside) Cool (slightly bigger) remote with a few more than six buttons (eg 8 buttons), it will have a hard drive too (possibly), and a DVD drive (that playes everything).
1. Ditch your VCR
2. Dicth your DVD player
3. Ditch your cable box
4. Buy an Apple TV
5. Sign up to Apple's IPTV service.
6. Finally you have one remote, where you can play basic games downloaded from iTunes through your iTV ready Apple TV, and you can buy movies, songs, and every other type of digital media. No more cluttler around your TV, just a simple, powerful, minimal HDTV from Apple.
However if you want more powerful games, you buy and Xbox 360, a PS3, or a Wii (or the next generation of consoles if Apple takes thier time, though I think they'll move fast on this). It's that simple.
They'll start into the TV space with 2 or 3 sizes, and without the IPTV sevice.
1. 32", 40" & 50"
or
2. 32" & 40"
The 360 isn't that big of a success. Sony has sold more PS2s since the 360 came out than MS has sold 360s.
Depends on our definition of success. The Xbox should have 10 million consoles sold by years end (source TeamXbox)
The PS2 is going to sell well because it's a hundred bucks nows and cheap and plentiful trumps almost all.
One thing Sony is not prepared for is the online stuff. Xbox Live and soon with Xbox Anywhere (Vista) coming I think Microsoft is well poised to do well against the PS3. I have to admit that MS has really executed well here.
The Xbox 360 even supports the Mac well enough to warrant a purchase.