When this article said that they got a tip from someone who is very close to Apple, and that the tipster said it was like "an iPhone without a screen", did anyone else think Kevin Rose was behind this?
It just sounds like something Kevin would say and then be completely wrong about. Kindof like when he claimed the original iPhone would have dual batteries a slide-out keyboard and start at $249. Man, what was he smoking? This leak smells like Kevin Rose.
I'm just sayin'
What?! I'm Kevin Rose and my iPhone has dual batteries and a slide-out keyboard... Does it means it's a fake?
I have to agree with this, at least considering how the story is presented. To be honest, I was scrolling through because I thought Solipsism would be the one to call foul, but it seems he's (she's?) bought in as well.
It just doesn't seem quite right. There are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this because of the limits of their internet providers, and for Apple to aim only at those who have the right services would limit their market too far.
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
Well, see JeffDM's comments regarding using local computers as the "cloud". (Or possibly local storage generally) It's a rumor, so, even if there's some degree of truth, some of the details are likely to be off at least a bit.
\ (i) So before I can point out that the iPad has a limited market reach and the reasons why, first I have to forcast sales figures and define what quantity would be a successful figure? (ii) I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was on the Piper Jaffray forum.
(iii) And why do you assume I believe the iPad's software wont advance, just because I point out what advancements would be necessary to broaden it's market?
(i) Yes. My question was simple: what is 'successful' -- 5M, 50M, 500M? (For instance, could you compare it to how many netbooks sold last year, across all makers and markets?).
(ii) No, you're not. But it would be clearer if you could back up your claims and assertions with some attempt at analysis or benchmarks (or something), or it's unclear what you mean.
(iii) As I said, it is a vacuous statement, since there is no product for which Apple has not done that. In other words, it is a moot point.
and, btw....
(iv) You did not address the second point that I made in response to your previous comment (you should not cherry-pick). Specifically, it had to do with the link of success at intro to subsequent market success (you claimed that success at intro was 'irrelevant' and I asked you for some examples).
So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?
Can you explain what IP is involved?
I know it's popular in these parts to view Google as evil and Schmidt as the devil but in this case, I fail to see what exactly Google could have gained that simply was not obvious like building an OS for cable boxes that has search built in. To me it would seem an obvious extension of Google's capabilities. They have an OS that's been slapped on to a car infotainment system. Why is it that out of the realm of possibilities to see a possible application for Android in the world of cable boxes, TVs and Blu-Ray players? Those same companies are already using the same OS to build smartphones and other devices so presumably they can understand how and where that OS can be deployed.
Can you show what's being copied other than the mere idea of a company offering its mobile operating system with some kind of device that lets you consume media on a screen? Does Apple have a patent on 'mobile operating system in a box to let you watch TV'?
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
I have an AppleTV and its HDD is not really used. All the Movies and TV shows I have bought live on my iMac (it spends most of the time asleep, automatically waking up when I want to watch something) and are streamed to the AppleTV. All the harddrive in the AppleTV does is increase the cost of the device.
For people with laptops I can understand wanting local storage but you are probably better off with an enhanced Time Capsule (preferably with multiple drives and data duplication) that can back up your computer and stream media to all the devices on your home network.
I know it's popular in these parts to view Google as evil and Schmidt as the devil but in this case, I fail to see what exactly Google could have gained that simply was not obvious like building an OS for cable boxes that has search built in. To me it would seem an obvious extension of Google's capabilities. They have an OS that's been slapped on to a car infotainment system. Why is that out of the realm to see application in the realm of cable boxes, TVs and Blu-Ray players?
Can you show what's being copied other than the mere idea of a company offering its operating system with some kind of device that lets you consume media on a screen? Does Apple have a patent on 'operating system in a box to let you watch TV'?
As indicated above, there's an ethical issue involved, even if not a legal issue. Can we expect Google to behave ethically if its leadership does not?
I am worried that it is yet another way for Apple to fight off adopting Blu-Ray. I stream Netflix on my PS3 and play Blu-Ray discs. Until Apple supports Blu-ray on its laptops (which I could then hook up to my TV---or simply watch when I am mobile), I won't nibble at Apple TV.
Then you might as well just jump ship and move to a different platform becasue it AIN'T gonna happen. In fact, if this rumor is true, I would expect another Steve Jobs manifesto to appear shortly, declaring the death of Blu-ray at the hands of the the cloud. Declaring you won't buy an Apple TV or Laptop without Blu-ray is using exactly the same reason people gave for declaring they wouldn't buy the first iMac because it didn't have a floppy disk drive. What was that new USB gizmo for anyway?
not if google v. viacom is any indication. a guaranteed $500 million couldn't buy google/youtube the content it wanted. content owners are *very* wary of Apple at the moment, and have been since the inception of the iTunes Music Store.
Yea... I can see their point better to keep locked up aging episodes of MASH, Seinfeld and such then to make a deal with Apple to offer their content to people WILLING to pay them. Yea maybe its better that those otherwise willing to pay customers to one day stumble onto a never ending fountain of no-cost full quality versions of EVERYTHING hollywood has ever done AND even some stuff that isn't even in the theaters yet.
Yea, I can see that... The 'per episode' price of MASH is gonna SKYROCKET one day... just you wait and see!
As indicated above, there's an ethical issue involved, even if not a legal issue. Can we expect Google to behave ethically if its leadership does not?
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
Then you might as well just jump ship and move to a different platform becasue it AIN'T gonna happen. In fact, if this rumor is true, I would expect another Steve Jobs manifesto to appear shortly, declaring the death of Blu-ray at the hands of the the cloud. Declaring you won't buy an Apple TV or Laptop without Blu-ray is using exactly the same reason people gave for declaring they wouldn't buy the first iMac because it didn't have a floppy disk drive. What was that new USB gizmo for anyway?
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
not if google v. viacom is any indication. a guaranteed $500 million couldn't buy google/youtube the content it wanted.
content owners are *very* wary of Apple at the moment, and have been since the inception of the iTunes Music Store.
The only reason they are weary is because they saw Apple strongarm the music studios into the .99 pricing model.
Everybody's got a price. If Apple shows the contents owners that Apple can make them more money they'll cave. What that price is, we don't know. Obviously, even 500 million was too low for Viacom. Maybe they should have offered a billion?
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
Do you realize how much more a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading Blu-ray drive would cost? Apple isn't a "me too" company so adding it just to claim they have it knowing that adoption would slim is pointless.
The adoption and use of Blu-ray in PCs is already low enough for machines that use the cheap full-size tray-loading BRDs. Then there are all other drawbacks to optical media in general and Apple's focus on streaming that tells me that Apple has no intention of pushing this great for the HEC but awful for the PC media format to their notebooks. It does nothing but hold Apple back.
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
I'd be fine with them ditching the optical drive completely, especially on laptops.
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
Already spelled out for you previously:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
... But, I think it's naive to think that he wasn't taking Apple ideas and plans back to Google and setting teams to work on parallel projects. Even if it wasn't illegal or actionable, it's certainly unethical behavior.
The only reason they are weary is because they saw Apple strongarm the music studios into the .99 pricing model.
Everybody's got a price. If Apple shows the contents owners that Apple can make them more money they'll cave. What that price is, we don't know. Obviously, even 500 million was too low for Viacom. Maybe they should have offered a billion?
Apple already lost the first big battle with the living room against the content holders. just look at the unusual TV history. A lot has changed on every front since Autumn 2006. They have a lot more than the Disney umbrella in the iTS. I don't think Apple would be releasing another TV unless they have sufficiently made the proper deals.
Agreed. I think, the obvious answer though, is iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad.
This is the answer I often hear; but I am not convinced that an iPod touch/iPhone would make a good controller for Apps running on the AppleTV.
The iPod touch/iPhone has no buttons. There is no tactile feed back. You'd have to look away from the TV and focus on your iPod touch/iPhone to see what you are about to select. For example, imagine an action game on your AppleTV where every time a bad guy comes along you need to look down to make certain you hit Shoot instead of Jump. It would be a poor experience.
And that's just a very reaching guess. Again I ask. If Android is being slapped onto everything from refigerators to smart phones to cars, why is it suddenly an unobvious idea that got copied from Apple, to put it on to TVs? And this is even assuming that he was vaguely aware that a revamped Apple TV was in the works. You have zero proof that such an assertion was true.
And by the way if he was taking Apple's plans and ideas back to Google and getting his minions to work on them, that would just be unethical. It would be illegal and I am fairly sure Apple would have sent out its full legal team after him.
I have an AppleTV and its HDD is not really used. All the Movies and TV shows I have bought live on my iMac (it spends most of the time asleep, automatically waking up when I want to watch something) and are streamed to the AppleTV. All the harddrive in the AppleTV does is increase the cost of the device.
For people with laptops I can understand wanting local storage but you are probably better off with an enhanced Time Capsule (preferably with multiple drives and data duplication) that can back up your computer and stream media to all the devices on your home network.
Really? And you find your router to be fast enough to keep the stream at high quality? Do you think it would keep up to 1080p, while someone else in the house is using the internet, etc.? Hmm... I certainly wouldn't mind being proven wrong here.
Apple already lost the first big battle with the living room against the content holders. just look at the unusual TV history. A lot has changed on every front since Autumn 2006. They have a lot more than the Disney umbrella in the iTS. I don't think Apple would be releasing another TV unless they have sufficiently made the proper deals.
And that's what I'm waiting for. I can't see it being a huge hit, regardless of the price, without some kind of new content deal. But if they have say a subscription deal, then wow.....
Comments
When this article said that they got a tip from someone who is very close to Apple, and that the tipster said it was like "an iPhone without a screen", did anyone else think Kevin Rose was behind this?
It just sounds like something Kevin would say and then be completely wrong about. Kindof like when he claimed the original iPhone would have dual batteries a slide-out keyboard and start at $249. Man, what was he smoking? This leak smells like Kevin Rose.
I'm just sayin'
What?! I'm Kevin Rose and my iPhone has dual batteries and a slide-out keyboard... Does it means it's a fake?
I have to agree with this, at least considering how the story is presented. To be honest, I was scrolling through because I thought Solipsism would be the one to call foul, but it seems he's (she's?) bought in as well.
It just doesn't seem quite right. There are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to take advantage of this because of the limits of their internet providers, and for Apple to aim only at those who have the right services would limit their market too far.
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
Well, see JeffDM's comments regarding using local computers as the "cloud". (Or possibly local storage generally) It's a rumor, so, even if there's some degree of truth, some of the details are likely to be off at least a bit.
(iii) And why do you assume I believe the iPad's software wont advance, just because I point out what advancements would be necessary to broaden it's market?
(i) Yes. My question was simple: what is 'successful' -- 5M, 50M, 500M? (For instance, could you compare it to how many netbooks sold last year, across all makers and markets?).
(ii) No, you're not. But it would be clearer if you could back up your claims and assertions with some attempt at analysis or benchmarks (or something), or it's unclear what you mean.
(iii) As I said, it is a vacuous statement, since there is no product for which Apple has not done that. In other words, it is a moot point.
and, btw....
(iv) You did not address the second point that I made in response to your previous comment (you should not cherry-pick). Specifically, it had to do with the link of success at intro to subsequent market success (you claimed that success at intro was 'irrelevant' and I asked you for some examples).
So, here's my question of the day... If Eric Schmidt had used his inside knowledge of Apple's plans as a former Apple board member to pass onto Google for a competitive advantage, couldn't he face an IP theft lawsuit?
Can you explain what IP is involved?
I know it's popular in these parts to view Google as evil and Schmidt as the devil but in this case, I fail to see what exactly Google could have gained that simply was not obvious like building an OS for cable boxes that has search built in. To me it would seem an obvious extension of Google's capabilities. They have an OS that's been slapped on to a car infotainment system. Why is it that out of the realm of possibilities to see a possible application for Android in the world of cable boxes, TVs and Blu-Ray players? Those same companies are already using the same OS to build smartphones and other devices so presumably they can understand how and where that OS can be deployed.
Can you show what's being copied other than the mere idea of a company offering its mobile operating system with some kind of device that lets you consume media on a screen? Does Apple have a patent on 'mobile operating system in a box to let you watch TV'?
I could see them adding streaming video to AppleTV and possibly including apps, but I think they have to keep the syncing and local storage as well. If they did that, and kept the HD size at least at the previous 40GB minimum, I'll be looking at one when I upgrade to an HDTV. Otherwise, I think the streaming will be too slow or not actually high quality, or we'll constantly be running out of monthly bandwidth and paying excessive fees.
I have an AppleTV and its HDD is not really used. All the Movies and TV shows I have bought live on my iMac (it spends most of the time asleep, automatically waking up when I want to watch something) and are streamed to the AppleTV. All the harddrive in the AppleTV does is increase the cost of the device.
For people with laptops I can understand wanting local storage but you are probably better off with an enhanced Time Capsule (preferably with multiple drives and data duplication) that can back up your computer and stream media to all the devices on your home network.
Waited for this device for 2 years.
Can you explain what IP is involved?
I know it's popular in these parts to view Google as evil and Schmidt as the devil but in this case, I fail to see what exactly Google could have gained that simply was not obvious like building an OS for cable boxes that has search built in. To me it would seem an obvious extension of Google's capabilities. They have an OS that's been slapped on to a car infotainment system. Why is that out of the realm to see application in the realm of cable boxes, TVs and Blu-Ray players?
Can you show what's being copied other than the mere idea of a company offering its operating system with some kind of device that lets you consume media on a screen? Does Apple have a patent on 'operating system in a box to let you watch TV'?
As indicated above, there's an ethical issue involved, even if not a legal issue. Can we expect Google to behave ethically if its leadership does not?
I am worried that it is yet another way for Apple to fight off adopting Blu-Ray. I stream Netflix on my PS3 and play Blu-Ray discs. Until Apple supports Blu-ray on its laptops (which I could then hook up to my TV---or simply watch when I am mobile), I won't nibble at Apple TV.
Then you might as well just jump ship and move to a different platform becasue it AIN'T gonna happen. In fact, if this rumor is true, I would expect another Steve Jobs manifesto to appear shortly, declaring the death of Blu-ray at the hands of the the cloud. Declaring you won't buy an Apple TV or Laptop without Blu-ray is using exactly the same reason people gave for declaring they wouldn't buy the first iMac because it didn't have a floppy disk drive. What was that new USB gizmo for anyway?
not if google v. viacom is any indication. a guaranteed $500 million couldn't buy google/youtube the content it wanted. content owners are *very* wary of Apple at the moment, and have been since the inception of the iTunes Music Store.
Yea... I can see their point better to keep locked up aging episodes of MASH, Seinfeld and such then to make a deal with Apple to offer their content to people WILLING to pay them. Yea maybe its better that those otherwise willing to pay customers to one day stumble onto a never ending fountain of no-cost full quality versions of EVERYTHING hollywood has ever done AND even some stuff that isn't even in the theaters yet.
Yea, I can see that... The 'per episode' price of MASH is gonna SKYROCKET one day... just you wait and see!
As indicated above, there's an ethical issue involved, even if not a legal issue. Can we expect Google to behave ethically if its leadership does not?
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
Then you might as well just jump ship and move to a different platform becasue it AIN'T gonna happen. In fact, if this rumor is true, I would expect another Steve Jobs manifesto to appear shortly, declaring the death of Blu-ray at the hands of the the cloud. Declaring you won't buy an Apple TV or Laptop without Blu-ray is using exactly the same reason people gave for declaring they wouldn't buy the first iMac because it didn't have a floppy disk drive. What was that new USB gizmo for anyway?
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
not if google v. viacom is any indication. a guaranteed $500 million couldn't buy google/youtube the content it wanted.
content owners are *very* wary of Apple at the moment, and have been since the inception of the iTunes Music Store.
The only reason they are weary is because they saw Apple strongarm the music studios into the .99 pricing model.
Everybody's got a price. If Apple shows the contents owners that Apple can make them more money they'll cave. What that price is, we don't know. Obviously, even 500 million was too low for Viacom. Maybe they should have offered a billion?
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
Do you realize how much more a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading Blu-ray drive would cost? Apple isn't a "me too" company so adding it just to claim they have it knowing that adoption would slim is pointless.
The adoption and use of Blu-ray in PCs is already low enough for machines that use the cheap full-size tray-loading BRDs. Then there are all other drawbacks to optical media in general and Apple's focus on streaming that tells me that Apple has no intention of pushing this great for the HEC but awful for the PC media format to their notebooks. It does nothing but hold Apple back.
Except that Blu-Ray on laptops makes sense because the slot is already there. This is just DVD 2.0. If Apple's going to have the a DVD drive on there anyway, why not offer Blu-Ray?
I'd be fine with them ditching the optical drive completely, especially on laptops.
SpamSandwich was talking about legal action, not just the ethics of the situation. And pray tell what's the ethical issue? Do you have evidence that the Apple board was discussing Apple TV and Schmidt didn't excuse himself from those discussions?...well that would be a legal issue too. But what's the ethical issue here (especially as pertains to next gen Apple TV)? Spell it out for me, please.
Already spelled out for you previously:
... But, I think it's naive to think that he wasn't taking Apple ideas and plans back to Google and setting teams to work on parallel projects. Even if it wasn't illegal or actionable, it's certainly unethical behavior.
The only reason they are weary is because they saw Apple strongarm the music studios into the .99 pricing model.
Everybody's got a price. If Apple shows the contents owners that Apple can make them more money they'll cave. What that price is, we don't know. Obviously, even 500 million was too low for Viacom. Maybe they should have offered a billion?
Apple already lost the first big battle with the living room against the content holders. just look at the unusual TV history. A lot has changed on every front since Autumn 2006. They have a lot more than the Disney umbrella in the iTS. I don't think Apple would be releasing another TV unless they have sufficiently made the proper deals.
Agreed. I think, the obvious answer though, is iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad.
This is the answer I often hear; but I am not convinced that an iPod touch/iPhone would make a good controller for Apps running on the AppleTV.
The iPod touch/iPhone has no buttons. There is no tactile feed back. You'd have to look away from the TV and focus on your iPod touch/iPhone to see what you are about to select. For example, imagine an action game on your AppleTV where every time a bad guy comes along you need to look down to make certain you hit Shoot instead of Jump. It would be a poor experience.
Already spelled out for you previously:
And that's just a very reaching guess. Again I ask. If Android is being slapped onto everything from refigerators to smart phones to cars, why is it suddenly an unobvious idea that got copied from Apple, to put it on to TVs? And this is even assuming that he was vaguely aware that a revamped Apple TV was in the works. You have zero proof that such an assertion was true.
And by the way if he was taking Apple's plans and ideas back to Google and getting his minions to work on them, that would just be unethical. It would be illegal and I am fairly sure Apple would have sent out its full legal team after him.
I have an AppleTV and its HDD is not really used. All the Movies and TV shows I have bought live on my iMac (it spends most of the time asleep, automatically waking up when I want to watch something) and are streamed to the AppleTV. All the harddrive in the AppleTV does is increase the cost of the device.
For people with laptops I can understand wanting local storage but you are probably better off with an enhanced Time Capsule (preferably with multiple drives and data duplication) that can back up your computer and stream media to all the devices on your home network.
Really? And you find your router to be fast enough to keep the stream at high quality? Do you think it would keep up to 1080p, while someone else in the house is using the internet, etc.? Hmm... I certainly wouldn't mind being proven wrong here.
Apple already lost the first big battle with the living room against the content holders. just look at the unusual TV history. A lot has changed on every front since Autumn 2006. They have a lot more than the Disney umbrella in the iTS. I don't think Apple would be releasing another TV unless they have sufficiently made the proper deals.
And that's what I'm waiting for. I can't see it being a huge hit, regardless of the price, without some kind of new content deal. But if they have say a subscription deal, then wow.....