Frankly, I'd be more interested in an App Store for OS X - something like Ubuntu's (and every other linux distro, ever) repositories.
As for an Apple TV App store... I guess I would be less than surprised if when it got an update, it gained compatiability with existing iPhone apps in a similar way the iPad does, with the ability to use the iPad/iPhone/iTouch/Any other gyro enabled apple product as a remote control.
Could be serious competition for the wii - game on your tv, game on your phone, game on your pad, saved content syncs across all three for a practically seamless gaming experience.
An App Store for Apple TV. We all know it's coming, but when?
We do? Based on what? What would be the point? I know that a lot of high end TVs are adding widgets, but the point of those is to be able to use them without leaving the show you're watching. Having to switch inputs to another box just to check the weather would defeat the point.
You can watch video on it, right? You can stream video to it? You can internet on it? And you can game on it? And you can app on it... Why do I want an Apple TV again?
Then it is a simple matter of running a faster A4 or follow on chip. IPhone OS is a good fit for a TV appliance. That would then mean a head start on apps for the device. Besides an A4 type chip would mean that Apple TV becomes a very low power device.
Hmmm. Yes. I would have thought Apple TV would have been aligned by now with the pod and phone and pad. It makes sense? Plonk an a4 chip in and boom, 200k apps. A nice casual gaming console amongst other things.
I would have thought it would be a golden opportunity for Apple to link in sales of iPhones/touches/pads to sales of the Apple TV. Bemused at why Apple hasn't seen this. I'm sure they know something I don't.
Then it is a simple matter of running a faster A4 or follow on chip. IPhone OS is a good fit for a TV appliance. That would then mean a head start on apps for the device. Besides an A4 type chip would mean that Apple TV becomes a very low power device.
Dave
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it? You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it? You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
I think you're right on the application side. A lot of iPhone apps don't even work on the iPad and have to be redone. I can't think of many apps that will work on a TV and games would need custom controls. But, the architecture is still perfect for the device. Think of the size of the iPod Touch motherboard compared to the ATV. Power consumption vs an old Pentium will be so much better and the form factor will shrink by a huge amount. Software of some sort will have to tag along. Apple will declare it as a new gold-rush of course so developers have to redo games for the sofa and charge even more money (bigger screen = mo' money).
Out of all of that, you just need the HDD, a motherboard that's 1/5th? the size, no 48W PSU internally - it'll run off an iPhone charging plug or it could be a tiny internal PSU - so it'll be way smaller, cooler and hopefully a bit cheaper too.
They will need supplies for the upcoming iPhone so it won't be soon but it needs to happen. I wonder if they have an inventory backlog they need to shift first.
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it?
Really I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to post if I didn't think about it. There are several reasons for this approach to be viable.
For one you don't need to run multiple apps on a TV being used as an enertainment device. The games are a real part of the equation. Further as Apple expands support for other input devices in OS 4.0 Apple can innovate input devices.
Quote:
You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
There in we see your problem, you can't imagine alternative input devices. Nitendo for one saw the wisdom in innovating input devices. Apple could easily do the same.
As to the value of cell phone apps on a TV that arguement makes little sense. Many had to be reworked just to run on the tablet. The point is reworked, if Apples developer guidlines are followed closely the effort is minimal. Even then I would imagine many iPad apps being perfectly usable. Further Apple could supply some if the base apps that currently come with iPhone OS such as Safari and YouTube already to run on the wide screen.
Really the only limitation I see is in A4s ability to drive a 1080P screen which any new AppleTV needs. That is why I suspect a need for a higher performance variant of A4. Then again the public knows so little about A4 that is a guess, the chip might already have what it needs to do the job. Nobody knows right now.
What is really attractive is that we might get better than current Apple TV performance at under five watts power depending upon the storage configuration.
Besides all of that App Store is a perfect fit for a smart desktop box.
First off I think that having an iPhone OS Apple TV make a whole lot of sense.
It's a no brainer what the appeal is going to be. Games.
Apple added Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL to iPhone OS 4. Why would they add
GCD to the OS when the iPhone and iPad are both single core processing cores?
It's because they will either deliver an A4 based Apple TV successor or they may even deliver
a Intrinisty hardened ARM A9 MP core with a beefier PowerVR VSD decoder for 1080P support.
The next battle would be to create controllers that can mimic the controls needed to play games on the iPad. Obviously games that require finger touch input would be the most difficult but no problem is truly insurmountable.
Nintendo understands. They see Apple deliver the new Game Center API and they realize that Apple's serious about leveraging Games on their mobile platforms which by extension empowers any potential home initiative.
Next you have beefed up AV capabilities in the AV Foundation frameworks in iPhone OS 4. Improved ability to record and edit could have some exciting ramifications on a future Apple TV.
I would not be surprised to see Apple deliver the successor to Apple TV next january at CES or E3. It would be the coming out party and set the trend for 2011. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a name change. Apple's mistake was to put "TV" in the devices name. They thought they'd be able to work with the movie producers and broadcasters much the same way they purloined good deals with the music industry. Didn't happen and likely won't happen with Hulu and other streaming options.
It's time to rebrand the Apple TV into what's more compelling to many people. A fun gaming box that does a whole bunch of other things. Imagine playing Words With Friends or We Rule on a 50" HDTV or the plethora of racing games.
This benefits Apple and developers who see their market for games increase or at the least the justification for charging more of a premium is there when their game is suitable for playing across multiple devices.
In the gaming space an A4 or the current Intel processor would get laughed out of the market. The Wii did well because of the input devices, Nintendo's games... and because its not HD. If it were HD it would need to be at least 4x more powerful, and its already as powerful as the A4. MacOSX would be a better choice for an STB (hence AppleTV's current design), and it would need stronger hardware -- enough to compete with Microsoft and Sony.
I am waiting for years that Apple offers a low power AppleTV.
The infrastructure built up for the iPhone and iPad are a tight fit for the next gen AppleTV.
As hmurchison said it is about time to rebrand this product. Content doesn't embrace AppleTV, so why bother with them. Open the flood gates for the most common video codecs and let people watch whatever they want.
Make the hardware powerful enough to surpass the Wii but Apple doesn't need to compete with Microsoft or Sony hardware wise. More important: bring on games for the whole family.
Using a touch screen optimized OS on a console device makes no sense to me...at all.
I think people get confused about a touch screen optimized OS. It's not just about being able to touch a target because if that was the case the current efforts to modify Windows to make it touch enabled would not have failed. The touch screen OS is as much about the redesign of software as it is about touch. It's about eschewing contextual menus and for pop overs and making sure they're not hidden.
What makes the iPhone OS 4 a great candidate for the Apple TV is its small footprint and the touch is still there because I could easily see the basic remote coming with it for control but most people using a iPhone/iPad Universal app for control.
Using a touch screen optimized OS on a console device makes no sense to me...at all.
In addition to the above, the icons would be large and easy to hit by waving a Wii-mote type remote. If you've seen the iPad demo with the mouse, you can see how fast it is to navigate. On a page, you'd just click and swish up with the remote to move down. Hold another button and swish up to zoom in, swish down to zoom out.
It could even be a little touch pad and you do the gestures on it. Think of a laptop hooked up to a big TV and using the trackpad and just replace the laptop with the ATV.
One finger taps, two fingers do a movement and pinch zoom. If they made the wireless keyboard with a giant trackpad on the side of it, it would work very well.
Frankly, I'd be more interested in an App Store for OS X - something like Ubuntu's (and every other linux distro, ever) repositories.
A App Store for OS X would be a horrible thing in my opinion.
Linux is about being open and provides those repositories to promote open source software.
Apple is about being closed and controlling, they provide only limited information and sources to suit their goals.
Search Apple´s third party software and see if you can find SnapZPro X, KisMAC, Carbon Copy Cloner, Handbrake or LittleSnitch.
Apple´s OS X App Store would suck up 90% of the programs out there that they approve of and deny OS X users the ability to install software from any other source. At the least it would suck the life out of sites like Versiontracker and Macupdate and reduce them to ¨unauthorized¨ status.
Now that Google will have their Google TV, Apple will want to come out with a feature rich Apple TV and one of the feature will be an App Store and the recording stuff. I'm very happy that Google fights against Apple on different markets because Microsoft had never been a competitor for innovation. Now Apple need to accelerate innovation and Apple TV will be the next big thing. Google will have a set top box and TV's with integrated hardware. Apple too. I think that they have no choice. They need to do that sooner than later. It will happen this summer or fall. Steve Jobs said that they had big things coming. The Mac,iPhone are only evolution. iPad is out. The next big thing will be Apple TV and TVs.
Apple has a lot of patent for input: multitouch, wii-mote like , ...
A App Store for OS X would be a horrible thing in my opinion.
Given the right implementation it would be a huge advantage to the small time developer and to the users. In fact I can't imagine that Apple doesn't think about this at least a little bit.
Quote:
Linux is about being open and provides those repositories to promote open source software.
That really doesn't matter the goal is to leverage the good aspects of App Store on Mac OS/X. As can be seen with iPad and the other Touch devices there are a number of advantages to App Store for both the user and the developer.
Quote:
Apple is about being closed and controlling, they provide only limited information and sources to suit their goals.
Obviously you are not a developer. Apple has an excellent online source for developers. Further they are at the heart of a number of open source projects.
Quote:
Search Apple´s third party software and see if you can find SnapZPro X, KisMAC, Carbon Copy Cloner, Handbrake or LittleSnitch.
As long as the Mac App Store isn't the only way to install software who cares? Really all this wringing of hands is stupid, we aren't asking for an IPad like system that locks out other software. What we want is an App store that provides for one of several ways to install software on a Mac. That doesn't mean that open source software suddenly stops working or that the Sparkle Framework stops working. It just means there is a place to go to for the majority of the software that you need on the platform for both installation and updates.
Quote:
Apple´s OS X App Store would suck up 90% of the programs out there that they approve of and deny OS X users the ability to install software from any other source.
No body is asking for that, though it always comes up in the context of this suggestion. I'm not sure what the problem is and why people can't mentally wrap their heads around this idea.
Frankly this isn't any different than a Linux distro where you can find 90% of the software you want in the distro's repository. You may have to install stuff from other sources from time to time but in the norm you go to the disto's repository first. Likewise with a Mac App Store the first place you would look for software is in the Mac App Store. That doesn't preclude shopping else where.
Quote:
At the least it would suck the life out of sites like Versiontracker and Macupdate and reduce them to ¨unauthorized¨ status.
No more so than a Linux repository drying up alternative sources for binaries.
Quote:
Beware of what you ask for.
There has been a lot of thought put into this, we are asking for something that would allow for an explosion in Mac software development. App Store on the iPhone product line has shown that it is possible to distribute profitable titles that wouldn't be otherwise. It enables small time developers to be successful with titles while not having to handle distribution themselves. On the flip side it makes available more software, at very reasonable prices, for the device owners.
I'm not sure what you are arguing against as the model has been proven to work in both the IPhone world and the Linux world. No one is asking for a closed system here just a commercial repository.
Comments
As for an Apple TV App store... I guess I would be less than surprised if when it got an update, it gained compatiability with existing iPhone apps in a similar way the iPad does, with the ability to use the iPad/iPhone/iTouch/Any other gyro enabled apple product as a remote control.
Could be serious competition for the wii - game on your tv, game on your phone, game on your pad, saved content syncs across all three for a practically seamless gaming experience.
An App Store for Apple TV. We all know it's coming, but when?
We do? Based on what? What would be the point? I know that a lot of high end TVs are adding widgets, but the point of those is to be able to use them without leaving the show you're watching. Having to switch inputs to another box just to check the weather would defeat the point.
You can watch video on it, right? You can stream video to it? You can internet on it? And you can game on it? And you can app on it... Why do I want an Apple TV again?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Dave
I would have thought it would be a golden opportunity for Apple to link in sales of iPhones/touches/pads to sales of the Apple TV. Bemused at why Apple hasn't seen this. I'm sure they know something I don't.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Then it is a simple matter of running a faster A4 or follow on chip. IPhone OS is a good fit for a TV appliance. That would then mean a head start on apps for the device. Besides an A4 type chip would mean that Apple TV becomes a very low power device.
Dave
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it? You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it? You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
I think you're right on the application side. A lot of iPhone apps don't even work on the iPad and have to be redone. I can't think of many apps that will work on a TV and games would need custom controls. But, the architecture is still perfect for the device. Think of the size of the iPod Touch motherboard compared to the ATV. Power consumption vs an old Pentium will be so much better and the form factor will shrink by a huge amount. Software of some sort will have to tag along. Apple will declare it as a new gold-rush of course so developers have to redo games for the sofa and charge even more money (bigger screen = mo' money).
Look at the insides of the ATV:
http://images.appleinsider.com/appletv-inside-1.jpg
Out of all of that, you just need the HDD, a motherboard that's 1/5th? the size, no 48W PSU internally - it'll run off an iPhone charging plug or it could be a tiny internal PSU - so it'll be way smaller, cooler and hopefully a bit cheaper too.
They will need supplies for the upcoming iPhone so it won't be soon but it needs to happen. I wonder if they have an inventory backlog they need to shift first.
That sounds awful. Did you even think about the ramifications of what you just said before you said it?
Really I wouldn't have gone to the trouble to post if I didn't think about it. There are several reasons for this approach to be viable.
For one you don't need to run multiple apps on a TV being used as an enertainment device. The games are a real part of the equation. Further as Apple expands support for other input devices in OS 4.0 Apple can innovate input devices.
You're taking about taking apps designed for a cell phone or tablet multitouch interface and putting them on a big screen on a device designed to be used with a 6 button remote control.
There in we see your problem, you can't imagine alternative input devices. Nitendo for one saw the wisdom in innovating input devices. Apple could easily do the same.
As to the value of cell phone apps on a TV that arguement makes little sense. Many had to be reworked just to run on the tablet. The point is reworked, if Apples developer guidlines are followed closely the effort is minimal. Even then I would imagine many iPad apps being perfectly usable. Further Apple could supply some if the base apps that currently come with iPhone OS such as Safari and YouTube already to run on the wide screen.
Really the only limitation I see is in A4s ability to drive a 1080P screen which any new AppleTV needs. That is why I suspect a need for a higher performance variant of A4. Then again the public knows so little about A4 that is a guess, the chip might already have what it needs to do the job. Nobody knows right now.
What is really attractive is that we might get better than current Apple TV performance at under five watts power depending upon the storage configuration.
Besides all of that App Store is a perfect fit for a smart desktop box.
Dave
It's a no brainer what the appeal is going to be. Games.
Apple added Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL to iPhone OS 4. Why would they add
GCD to the OS when the iPhone and iPad are both single core processing cores?
It's because they will either deliver an A4 based Apple TV successor or they may even deliver
a Intrinisty hardened ARM A9 MP core with a beefier PowerVR VSD decoder for 1080P support.
The next battle would be to create controllers that can mimic the controls needed to play games on the iPad. Obviously games that require finger touch input would be the most difficult but no problem is truly insurmountable.
Nintendo understands. They see Apple deliver the new Game Center API and they realize that Apple's serious about leveraging Games on their mobile platforms which by extension empowers any potential home initiative.
Next you have beefed up AV capabilities in the AV Foundation frameworks in iPhone OS 4. Improved ability to record and edit could have some exciting ramifications on a future Apple TV.
I would not be surprised to see Apple deliver the successor to Apple TV next january at CES or E3. It would be the coming out party and set the trend for 2011. I wouldn't even be surprised to see a name change. Apple's mistake was to put "TV" in the devices name. They thought they'd be able to work with the movie producers and broadcasters much the same way they purloined good deals with the music industry. Didn't happen and likely won't happen with Hulu and other streaming options.
It's time to rebrand the Apple TV into what's more compelling to many people. A fun gaming box that does a whole bunch of other things. Imagine playing Words With Friends or We Rule on a 50" HDTV or the plethora of racing games.
This benefits Apple and developers who see their market for games increase or at the least the justification for charging more of a premium is there when their game is suitable for playing across multiple devices.
This is damn near a can't lose for Apple.
I am waiting for years that Apple offers a low power AppleTV.
The infrastructure built up for the iPhone and iPad are a tight fit for the next gen AppleTV.
As hmurchison said it is about time to rebrand this product. Content doesn't embrace AppleTV, so why bother with them. Open the flood gates for the most common video codecs and let people watch whatever they want.
Make the hardware powerful enough to surpass the Wii but Apple doesn't need to compete with Microsoft or Sony hardware wise. More important: bring on games for the whole family.
First off I think that having an iPhone OS Apple TV make a whole lot of sense.
Seconded. iPhone OS in every new device could become the new Apple mantra.
First off I think that having an iPhone OS Apple TV make a whole lot of sense...
Using a touch screen optimized OS on a console device makes no sense to me...at all.
Using a touch screen optimized OS on a console device makes no sense to me...at all.
I think people get confused about a touch screen optimized OS. It's not just about being able to touch a target because if that was the case the current efforts to modify Windows to make it touch enabled would not have failed. The touch screen OS is as much about the redesign of software as it is about touch. It's about eschewing contextual menus and for pop overs and making sure they're not hidden.
What makes the iPhone OS 4 a great candidate for the Apple TV is its small footprint and the touch is still there because I could easily see the basic remote coming with it for control but most people using a iPhone/iPad Universal app for control.
It's a no brainer.
Using a touch screen optimized OS on a console device makes no sense to me...at all.
In addition to the above, the icons would be large and easy to hit by waving a Wii-mote type remote. If you've seen the iPad demo with the mouse, you can see how fast it is to navigate. On a page, you'd just click and swish up with the remote to move down. Hold another button and swish up to zoom in, swish down to zoom out.
It could even be a little touch pad and you do the gestures on it. Think of a laptop hooked up to a big TV and using the trackpad and just replace the laptop with the ATV.
One finger taps, two fingers do a movement and pinch zoom. If they made the wireless keyboard with a giant trackpad on the side of it, it would work very well.
Frankly, I'd be more interested in an App Store for OS X - something like Ubuntu's (and every other linux distro, ever) repositories.
A App Store for OS X would be a horrible thing in my opinion.
Linux is about being open and provides those repositories to promote open source software.
Apple is about being closed and controlling, they provide only limited information and sources to suit their goals.
Search Apple´s third party software and see if you can find SnapZPro X, KisMAC, Carbon Copy Cloner, Handbrake or LittleSnitch.
Apple´s OS X App Store would suck up 90% of the programs out there that they approve of and deny OS X users the ability to install software from any other source. At the least it would suck the life out of sites like Versiontracker and Macupdate and reduce them to ¨unauthorized¨ status.
Beware of what you ask for.
It's a no brainer.
LOL! You can say that again.
Apple has a lot of patent for input: multitouch, wii-mote like , ...
They have a lot of possibilities.
A App Store for OS X would be a horrible thing in my opinion.
Given the right implementation it would be a huge advantage to the small time developer and to the users. In fact I can't imagine that Apple doesn't think about this at least a little bit.
Linux is about being open and provides those repositories to promote open source software.
That really doesn't matter the goal is to leverage the good aspects of App Store on Mac OS/X. As can be seen with iPad and the other Touch devices there are a number of advantages to App Store for both the user and the developer.
Apple is about being closed and controlling, they provide only limited information and sources to suit their goals.
Obviously you are not a developer. Apple has an excellent online source for developers. Further they are at the heart of a number of open source projects.
Search Apple´s third party software and see if you can find SnapZPro X, KisMAC, Carbon Copy Cloner, Handbrake or LittleSnitch.
As long as the Mac App Store isn't the only way to install software who cares? Really all this wringing of hands is stupid, we aren't asking for an IPad like system that locks out other software. What we want is an App store that provides for one of several ways to install software on a Mac. That doesn't mean that open source software suddenly stops working or that the Sparkle Framework stops working. It just means there is a place to go to for the majority of the software that you need on the platform for both installation and updates.
Apple´s OS X App Store would suck up 90% of the programs out there that they approve of and deny OS X users the ability to install software from any other source.
No body is asking for that, though it always comes up in the context of this suggestion. I'm not sure what the problem is and why people can't mentally wrap their heads around this idea.
Frankly this isn't any different than a Linux distro where you can find 90% of the software you want in the distro's repository. You may have to install stuff from other sources from time to time but in the norm you go to the disto's repository first. Likewise with a Mac App Store the first place you would look for software is in the Mac App Store. That doesn't preclude shopping else where.
At the least it would suck the life out of sites like Versiontracker and Macupdate and reduce them to ¨unauthorized¨ status.
No more so than a Linux repository drying up alternative sources for binaries.
Beware of what you ask for.
There has been a lot of thought put into this, we are asking for something that would allow for an explosion in Mac software development. App Store on the iPhone product line has shown that it is possible to distribute profitable titles that wouldn't be otherwise. It enables small time developers to be successful with titles while not having to handle distribution themselves. On the flip side it makes available more software, at very reasonable prices, for the device owners.
I'm not sure what you are arguing against as the model has been proven to work in both the IPhone world and the Linux world. No one is asking for a closed system here just a commercial repository.
Dave