IMHO the single biggest improvement that Apple can make to the AppleTV is to open it up so that you can add Hulu, Joost, Netflix and BBC players to it. It already functions as an interface between your computer and TV. The next step is to make it the interface between the net and your TV.
I agree. Boxee is great, but it's annoying to have to flip inputs to appleTV and then launch Boxee. An add-on module input -- where developers can install Hulu, etc. -- would be great. With ABC, CBS, Hulu, etc., the need for a DVR would almost be null. Of course, studios still will continue to screw consumers by limiting available online content.
IMHO the single biggest improvement that Apple can make to the AppleTV is to open it up so that you can add Hulu, Joost, Netflix and BBC players to it. It already functions as an interface between your computer and TV. The next step is to make it the interface between the net and your TV.
It doesn't matter, they won't do it. I'd be happy if they offered a subscription TV Show service. That's the best we'll get from Apple.
It doesn't matter, they won't do it. I'd be happy if they offered a subscription TV Show service. That's the best we'll get from Apple.
I'm afraid that you're right. A few years ago I would had disagreed. But looking at the current AppleTv interface it looks like Hollywood has seduced Apple away from being a hardware manufacture into a media merchant. I don't feel that is a change in Apple's best interest.
You want a one-in-all Apple TV, I am happy with a set-top-box. But for either to succeed the final device will have to be open to ALL present and future sources. People can not afford to replace their TV's each time a new service comes out. Nor will they want to clutter up their TV rooms with separate set-top-boxes for each media delivery service. The winning device will be the one that is open enough to allow the users to add or drop media delivery services as the industry changes.
The winning device will be the one that is open enough to allow the users to add or drop media delivery services as the industry changes.
I fundamentally disagree with your position on this matter. People want to be spoon-fed content, well they want a system that is so "tight" they can get what they want in a brainlessly-easy way. The only way they'll ever get this is with a closed system. The current living-room climate/situation was pretty much setup for Apple. All they have to do is their best work, and they have this one in their hands. A certain amount of luck would help too, i.e. deals with all the content producers. They will make TV's, but they'll need to continue to make the box also for the many folks who don't want or can't afford their TV.
The TV will no doubt have a few "extra" features though. To help tempted a few more into buying it. I just hope, hope they make the TV a high-end proposition. Large, Plasma, Aluminum, Thin, Sleek, Super-Contrast, the works!
If you look at the direction Apple has taken the past few years, isn't this the next logical step? They moved away from supporting the creative types and those that kept them afloat, and spent all their time dropping "computer", and "Mac" from their name, releasing the iPhone and becoming a large consumer based company.
The only thing that worries me is right now the Apple TV lacks a DVR (should of had it years ago) and TV prices have plummetted in the past few years. You can get a great TV for $1500-1800 and in the $1800 range, many come with ethernet so you can view movies downloaded onto your computer. Problem is, would a Apple device be too overpriced? $3999?
When it comes to marketing, Apple always misses the boat. Look at the first iMac keynote. Jobs clearly states that the device is for the consumer and priced accordingly. Problem was, until a few years ago, it was over priced (g4) and this resulted in the iMAC only making it into NY/LA studios, ad agencies, (data entry), education and the likes. It never became as MASS CONSUMER device like the iPhone did.
The only way Apple could make this happen (with LG) would be some sort of 40-50 iMac TV priced about $2500 and cut out application features and focus only on iLife and Television. This marketing model would work.
I fundamentally disagree with your position on this matter. People want to be spoon-fed content, well they want a system that is so "tight" they can get what they want in a brainlessly-easy way. The only way they'll ever get this is with a closed system. The current living-room climate/situation was pretty much setup for Apple. All they have to do is their best work, and they have this one in their hands. A certain amount of luck would help too, i.e. deals with all the content producers. They will make TV's, but they'll need to continue to make the box also for the many folks who don't want or can't afford their TV.
And I'm one who disagrees with your position and agrees with the response you're commenting on. Being locked into one content provider is to me the biggest problem with all the current download services. To me, that whole concept is insane. It would be like buying a DVD player from Wal-Mart and being told you could now only buy DVD's from Wal-Mart.
Your opinion seems to be that consumers are brainless zombies, but people like to get the best bargain. Especially with the current state of the economy. That is something that will obviously NOT HAPPEN if their media device only accepts content from one source. With an AppleTV, if you don't like the price of a movie that iTunes is charging you're SOL. Don't like Wal-Mart's price on a DVD, you can go to Best Buy, Target, eBay, etc.
A multi-service media device could be just as simple as a single provider device. All it has to do is aggregate the results. Search for Iron Man and it can spit back Amazon Unbox's price, iTunes' price, etc. Ironically, this is something that TiVo has already started playing with, aggregating TV listing results with the download services they're connected to.
And really, to me the AppleTV is already outdated technology. It can't process 1080 content, so why would I want to settle for being limited to 720p when something better already exists?
Comments
IMHO the single biggest improvement that Apple can make to the AppleTV is to open it up so that you can add Hulu, Joost, Netflix and BBC players to it. It already functions as an interface between your computer and TV. The next step is to make it the interface between the net and your TV.
I agree. Boxee is great, but it's annoying to have to flip inputs to appleTV and then launch Boxee. An add-on module input -- where developers can install Hulu, etc. -- would be great. With ABC, CBS, Hulu, etc., the need for a DVR would almost be null. Of course, studios still will continue to screw consumers by limiting available online content.
IMHO the single biggest improvement that Apple can make to the AppleTV is to open it up so that you can add Hulu, Joost, Netflix and BBC players to it. It already functions as an interface between your computer and TV. The next step is to make it the interface between the net and your TV.
It doesn't matter, they won't do it. I'd be happy if they offered a subscription TV Show service. That's the best we'll get from Apple.
It doesn't matter, they won't do it. I'd be happy if they offered a subscription TV Show service. That's the best we'll get from Apple.
I'm afraid that you're right. A few years ago I would had disagreed. But looking at the current AppleTv interface it looks like Hollywood has seduced Apple away from being a hardware manufacture into a media merchant. I don't feel that is a change in Apple's best interest.
You want a one-in-all Apple TV, I am happy with a set-top-box. But for either to succeed the final device will have to be open to ALL present and future sources. People can not afford to replace their TV's each time a new service comes out. Nor will they want to clutter up their TV rooms with separate set-top-boxes for each media delivery service. The winning device will be the one that is open enough to allow the users to add or drop media delivery services as the industry changes.
The winning device will be the one that is open enough to allow the users to add or drop media delivery services as the industry changes.
I fundamentally disagree with your position on this matter. People want to be spoon-fed content, well they want a system that is so "tight" they can get what they want in a brainlessly-easy way. The only way they'll ever get this is with a closed system. The current living-room climate/situation was pretty much setup for Apple. All they have to do is their best work, and they have this one in their hands. A certain amount of luck would help too, i.e. deals with all the content producers. They will make TV's, but they'll need to continue to make the box also for the many folks who don't want or can't afford their TV.
The TV will no doubt have a few "extra" features though. To help tempted a few more into buying it. I just hope, hope they make the TV a high-end proposition. Large, Plasma, Aluminum, Thin, Sleek, Super-Contrast, the works!
The only thing that worries me is right now the Apple TV lacks a DVR (should of had it years ago) and TV prices have plummetted in the past few years. You can get a great TV for $1500-1800 and in the $1800 range, many come with ethernet so you can view movies downloaded onto your computer. Problem is, would a Apple device be too overpriced? $3999?
When it comes to marketing, Apple always misses the boat. Look at the first iMac keynote. Jobs clearly states that the device is for the consumer and priced accordingly. Problem was, until a few years ago, it was over priced (g4) and this resulted in the iMAC only making it into NY/LA studios, ad agencies, (data entry), education and the likes. It never became as MASS CONSUMER device like the iPhone did.
The only way Apple could make this happen (with LG) would be some sort of 40-50 iMac TV priced about $2500 and cut out application features and focus only on iLife and Television. This marketing model would work.
I fundamentally disagree with your position on this matter. People want to be spoon-fed content, well they want a system that is so "tight" they can get what they want in a brainlessly-easy way. The only way they'll ever get this is with a closed system. The current living-room climate/situation was pretty much setup for Apple. All they have to do is their best work, and they have this one in their hands. A certain amount of luck would help too, i.e. deals with all the content producers. They will make TV's, but they'll need to continue to make the box also for the many folks who don't want or can't afford their TV.
And I'm one who disagrees with your position and agrees with the response you're commenting on. Being locked into one content provider is to me the biggest problem with all the current download services. To me, that whole concept is insane. It would be like buying a DVD player from Wal-Mart and being told you could now only buy DVD's from Wal-Mart.
Your opinion seems to be that consumers are brainless zombies, but people like to get the best bargain. Especially with the current state of the economy. That is something that will obviously NOT HAPPEN if their media device only accepts content from one source. With an AppleTV, if you don't like the price of a movie that iTunes is charging you're SOL. Don't like Wal-Mart's price on a DVD, you can go to Best Buy, Target, eBay, etc.
A multi-service media device could be just as simple as a single provider device. All it has to do is aggregate the results. Search for Iron Man and it can spit back Amazon Unbox's price, iTunes' price, etc. Ironically, this is something that TiVo has already started playing with, aggregating TV listing results with the download services they're connected to.
And really, to me the AppleTV is already outdated technology. It can't process 1080 content, so why would I want to settle for being limited to 720p when something better already exists?