Maybe they have plans to lick the storage problem in another manner. That can't be the cloud though, the bandwidth isn't there for some of us.
Dave
I think that the cable companies will quickly build out there bandwidth to compete with Apple TV.
And besides, most Apple customers are hip urban people who have broadband already. I think that apple will adopt the cloud, and revolutionize it with there new facility that they are building in South Carolina.
If this really, really hits big, people might move to places with adequate bandwidth to use it. It certainly has that potential. People didn't live in the deep south until air conditioning was invented, for example.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
I disagree with his iPadTV idea, I expect the iTV will have pretty similar guts to an iPad, but different formfactor. Maybe one of the newer dual-core ARM processors.
1) The screen is a large chunk of the current iPad cost, you can remove that completely and insert the cost for whatever body they use for the iTV, likely something similar to the MacMini.
I think it would be best if it only played the codecs that Steve gives us in the iTunes store. Otherwise, it is needlessly complex with no real benefit to the vast majority of users.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
That is the beauty of it. Nice. Simple. You can rest assured that your 4 year old will not see anything racy.
And your 4 year old will actually be able to use it. Not like a DVR!!
After using the ATV for over an hour a day since its first launch, these would be my reccomendations:
- Be able to "email" YouTube videos to friends.
- Be able to recomend shows, movies, and podcasts to friends who have an iProduct.
- Be able to read reviews for Movies, TV Shows, and YouTube videos instead of only being restricted to the star-ratings.
- Be able to write a review and post star-ratings right from the iTV (Movies, TV Shows, Podcasts, and YouTube).
- External USB storage to extend the storage capacity of the iTV instead of using your PC's drive.
- Be able to buy a movie or show at a discounted rate after you've just rented it.
- Membership program for TV-Shows and Movies.
- Be able to share a movie (Purchased ones only) with a friend who has an iProduct. Otherwise, the movie prices should be considerably less than their DVD counterparts.
- Add a custom category system to Podcasts, so you can categorize your Faivorites.
- Have a counter icons on Podcast and TV-Show to indicate if there are any new shows.
- App Store would be great!!
- *I know this would be unlikely* A BlueRay/DVD player would be a big plus! And the ability to store those movies on the iTV thus becoming a jukebox.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
On the other hand, the current Apple TV can be controled through the remote App on the iPad/iPhone/iPad touch, or by the included remote. I'd expect the same to apply for the new Apple TV, with possibly increased interactivity like the things you suggested.
I agree with you on #1--hadn't considered that.
On #2: wires? As you say, you can get apps on the store right now that allow you to use your iPhone or iPad as a wireless remote.
I am suggesting that Apple roll the device and the remote into one. Seems like a very Apple-like thing to do: consolidate and simplify.
The money thing is the real problem as you point out.
The iPadTV would be wi-fi only--using your home network to access content. That would save a few bucks from the iPad 3G model. Maybe some kind of subscription is still in the works that would underwrite hardware cost. That would save a few bucks more. Even if it did cost more, you're getting a lot more. All the functionality and services of an iPad along with iTV. For those who haven't already gotten an iPad, this could make it even more compelling to own.
Just thinking out loud here for fun. No need for anyone to call me an idiot.
I disagree with his iPadTV idea, I expect the iTV pretty with have pretty similar guts to an iPad, but different formfactor. Maybe one of the newer dual-core ARM processors.
1) The screen is a large chunk of the current iPad cost, you can remove that completely and insert the cost for whatever body they use for the iTV, likely something similar to the MacMini.
2) Bluetooth. Who needs wires?
I?d like to see Cortex A9 if they do offer an App Store and SDK. If it isn?t expected to be a huge seller they might be able to pull off production and test the A4 successor. But if they are really going with 720p then I would doubt it as it?s surely not designed for your main widescreen TV or to be future forward.
I?d also like to see the end of IR. It?s still the most power efficient method for transmitting small amounts of intermittent but I think newer BT standards and chips allow for a ?good enough? experience. If they do go this route then Marvin?s (I think it was him) idea of an TV that is similar to the AirPort Express would be viable.
I still think two TV models are needed to make this work well but I doubt we?ll get that next month.
... Wu also said that ... Like the iPad, the new Apple TV could have access to the iPhone App Store ...
"Our sources indicate there is some debate within Apple whether to allow this or not, or to have it run only Apple TV-specific apps," Wu said. "We believe the ability to run the same apps makes a lot of sense and believe this feature could be enough to drive significantly more volume for Apple TV. ...
I think he's wrong on this, but Wu has been wrong on many many things so that's par for the course I guess.
If the Apple TV runs all the iPhone apps, then the one's that don't work on the new setup (and there will be lots and lots), will simply be considered "broken" by the end user.
It seems to me that it would be far better to go with a few apps that *work* and that are related to, you know ... TV sets, (Hulu, etc.), than to just throw everything at it and have most of it not work properly.
A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?
If you want to look at the whole picture, it would be Hulu, Netflix, and other apps supplemented by $0.99 rentals in iTunes. $0.99 rentals would not be the primary way of watching TV for most people.
I think he's wrong on this, but Wu has been wrong on many many things so that's par for the course I guess.
If the Apple TV runs all the iPhone apps, then the one's that don't work on the new setup (and there will be lots and lots), will simply be considered "broken" by the end user.
It seems to me that it would be far better to go with a few apps that *work* and that are related to, you know ... TV sets, (Hulu, etc.), than to just throw everything at it and have most of it not work properly.
The only way I can see the quoted line you bolded as being true is for simpler iPhone and iPad apps that could be made Universal to run natively on the TV with little effort from the developer. But I doubt Wu?s limited thought process was conceiving that option.
On #2: wires? As you say, you can get apps on the store right now that allow you to use your iPhone or iPad as a wireless remote.
I am suggesting that Apple roll the device and the remote into one. Seems like a very Apple-like thing to do: consolidate and simplify.
The money thing is the real problem as you point out.
The iPadTV would be wi-fi only--using your home network to access content. That would save a few bucks from the iPad 3G model. Maybe some kind of subscription is still in the works that would underwrite hardware cost. That would save a few bucks more. Even if it did cost more, you're getting a lot more. All the functionality and services of an iPad along with iTV. For those who haven't already gotten an iPad, this could make it even more compelling to own.
Just thinking out loud here for fun. No need for anyone to call me an idiot.
Wires are needed to output video to your TV. If your iPadTV is the source of the video, it will need wires running from it to your TV. You can actually do that right now from any iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch.
It's simpler to connect a cheap box to your TV and wirelessly control it with an iPad (or other device).
How hard or expensive would it be for Apple to add a MiFi chip in this thing. I have a two year old Pre with this
thing. And it's a great way to run anything with WiFi. I'm thinking
any Touch or WiFi only iPad, could be used to play with the iTV.
Or even when Apple includes FaceTime with the new Touch, presto
video phone for the kids to talk to friends at no cost.
MiFi doesn't make sense for a home-based device like the Apple TV/iTV since it's assumed there is a broadband Internet connection already (and thus the availability of local WiFi network).
From a manufacturing standpoint, MiFi in a TV set-top box makes even less sense since it's tied to a carrier. From a worldwide marketplace perspective, putting in Sprint-compatible MiFi chip makes no sense when >90% of the rest of the world uses different 3G data technology. Apple's cost savings for the iDevices arrive when they ship millions of units, not small production runs of tens of thousands.
That is the beauty of it. Nice. Simple. You can rest assured that your 4 year old will not see anything racy.
And your 4 year old will actually be able to use it. Not like a DVR!!
My 4 year old can operate Netflix on the Wii as well as our DVD player. Knows how to switch modes on the TV for cable or DVD/Wii as well. We're covered
Comments
Maybe they have plans to lick the storage problem in another manner. That can't be the cloud though, the bandwidth isn't there for some of us.
Dave
I think that the cable companies will quickly build out there bandwidth to compete with Apple TV.
And besides, most Apple customers are hip urban people who have broadband already. I think that apple will adopt the cloud, and revolutionize it with there new facility that they are building in South Carolina.
If this really, really hits big, people might move to places with adequate bandwidth to use it. It certainly has that potential. People didn't live in the deep south until air conditioning was invented, for example.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
I disagree with his iPadTV idea, I expect the iTV will have pretty similar guts to an iPad, but different formfactor. Maybe one of the newer dual-core ARM processors.
1) The screen is a large chunk of the current iPad cost, you can remove that completely and insert the cost for whatever body they use for the iTV, likely something similar to the MacMini.
2) Bluetooth. Who needs wires?
Really the only issue I have with all of this is that nearly every single game isn't going to work for anything on this.
Gaming is going to change forever once this is introduced. You heard it hear first.
But can I watch pr0n on it?
I hope Steve finds a way to get rid of all that stuff.
I think it would be best if it only played the codecs that Steve gives us in the iTunes store. Otherwise, it is needlessly complex with no real benefit to the vast majority of users.
You're just begging to be reamed by Apple.
Even with it running iOS, it will still just be an extension of iTunes. Can't playback any disc format, 1080p, or any format that iTunes doesn't support.
That is the beauty of it. Nice. Simple. You can rest assured that your 4 year old will not see anything racy.
And your 4 year old will actually be able to use it. Not like a DVR!!
- Be able to "email" YouTube videos to friends.
- Be able to recomend shows, movies, and podcasts to friends who have an iProduct.
- Be able to read reviews for Movies, TV Shows, and YouTube videos instead of only being restricted to the star-ratings.
- Be able to write a review and post star-ratings right from the iTV (Movies, TV Shows, Podcasts, and YouTube).
- External USB storage to extend the storage capacity of the iTV instead of using your PC's drive.
- Be able to buy a movie or show at a discounted rate after you've just rented it.
- Membership program for TV-Shows and Movies.
- Be able to share a movie (Purchased ones only) with a friend who has an iProduct. Otherwise, the movie prices should be considerably less than their DVD counterparts.
- Add a custom category system to Podcasts, so you can categorize your Faivorites.
- Have a counter icons on Podcast and TV-Show to indicate if there are any new shows.
- App Store would be great!!
- *I know this would be unlikely* A BlueRay/DVD player would be a big plus! And the ability to store those movies on the iTV thus becoming a jukebox.
- A better remote!
- Major bug fixes.
Most people are not assuming it will be the same box with new guts. Most people are assuming it will be a much smaller box with new guts.
An iPadTV make no sense for two reasons:
1. It would cost more than the current Apple Tv.
2. Who'd want wires extending from their TV to their controlling device?
On the other hand, the current Apple TV can be controled through the remote App on the iPad/iPhone/iPad touch, or by the included remote. I'd expect the same to apply for the new Apple TV, with possibly increased interactivity like the things you suggested.
I agree with you on #1--hadn't considered that.
On #2: wires? As you say, you can get apps on the store right now that allow you to use your iPhone or iPad as a wireless remote.
I am suggesting that Apple roll the device and the remote into one. Seems like a very Apple-like thing to do: consolidate and simplify.
The money thing is the real problem as you point out.
The iPadTV would be wi-fi only--using your home network to access content. That would save a few bucks from the iPad 3G model. Maybe some kind of subscription is still in the works that would underwrite hardware cost. That would save a few bucks more. Even if it did cost more, you're getting a lot more. All the functionality and services of an iPad along with iTV. For those who haven't already gotten an iPad, this could make it even more compelling to own.
Just thinking out loud here for fun. No need for anyone to call me an idiot.
I disagree with his iPadTV idea, I expect the iTV pretty with have pretty similar guts to an iPad, but different formfactor. Maybe one of the newer dual-core ARM processors.
1) The screen is a large chunk of the current iPad cost, you can remove that completely and insert the cost for whatever body they use for the iTV, likely something similar to the MacMini.
2) Bluetooth. Who needs wires?
I?d like to see Cortex A9 if they do offer an App Store and SDK. If it isn?t expected to be a huge seller they might be able to pull off production and test the A4 successor. But if they are really going with 720p then I would doubt it as it?s surely not designed for your main widescreen TV or to be future forward.
I?d also like to see the end of IR. It?s still the most power efficient method for transmitting small amounts of intermittent but I think newer BT standards and chips allow for a ?good enough? experience. If they do go this route then Marvin?s (I think it was him) idea of an TV that is similar to the AirPort Express would be viable.
I still think two TV models are needed to make this work well but I doubt we?ll get that next month.
Okay, if screen size cost is a big issue for iPadTV, maybe an iPodTouchTV?
Wow.
Just plug it in, run one wire to the TV.
Install the App, and suddenly, anybody with an iOS device can buy stuff from the iTunes Store and watch it on TV.
That would be GREAT!
Looks like a product a lot of people have been waiting for.
thing. And it's a great way to run anything with WiFi. I'm thinking
any Touch or WiFi only iPad, could be used to play with the iTV.
Or even when Apple includes FaceTime with the new Touch, presto
video phone for the kids to talk to friends at no cost.
... Wu also said that ... Like the iPad, the new Apple TV could have access to the iPhone App Store ...
"Our sources indicate there is some debate within Apple whether to allow this or not, or to have it run only Apple TV-specific apps," Wu said. "We believe the ability to run the same apps makes a lot of sense and believe this feature could be enough to drive significantly more volume for Apple TV. ...
I think he's wrong on this, but Wu has been wrong on many many things so that's par for the course I guess.
If the Apple TV runs all the iPhone apps, then the one's that don't work on the new setup (and there will be lots and lots), will simply be considered "broken" by the end user.
It seems to me that it would be far better to go with a few apps that *work* and that are related to, you know ... TV sets, (Hulu, etc.), than to just throw everything at it and have most of it not work properly.
A subscription option is a must. I don't think a majority of people are hip to renting a show for .99. This can get really expensive, really quick and I don't believe the people that are saying that this is cheaper than, or about the same price as, cable. If my kid watches two hours of tv a day, with her 30min shows, thats 4 shows for 30 days which is 4*30=120 *.99=$118.80, now tell me who pays this to their cable company for 60 hrs of tv a month?
If you want to look at the whole picture, it would be Hulu, Netflix, and other apps supplemented by $0.99 rentals in iTunes. $0.99 rentals would not be the primary way of watching TV for most people.
I think he's wrong on this, but Wu has been wrong on many many things so that's par for the course I guess.
If the Apple TV runs all the iPhone apps, then the one's that don't work on the new setup (and there will be lots and lots), will simply be considered "broken" by the end user.
It seems to me that it would be far better to go with a few apps that *work* and that are related to, you know ... TV sets, (Hulu, etc.), than to just throw everything at it and have most of it not work properly.
The only way I can see the quoted line you bolded as being true is for simpler iPhone and iPad apps that could be made Universal to run natively on the TV with little effort from the developer. But I doubt Wu?s limited thought process was conceiving that option.
I agree with you on #1--hadn't considered that.
On #2: wires? As you say, you can get apps on the store right now that allow you to use your iPhone or iPad as a wireless remote.
I am suggesting that Apple roll the device and the remote into one. Seems like a very Apple-like thing to do: consolidate and simplify.
The money thing is the real problem as you point out.
The iPadTV would be wi-fi only--using your home network to access content. That would save a few bucks from the iPad 3G model. Maybe some kind of subscription is still in the works that would underwrite hardware cost. That would save a few bucks more. Even if it did cost more, you're getting a lot more. All the functionality and services of an iPad along with iTV. For those who haven't already gotten an iPad, this could make it even more compelling to own.
Just thinking out loud here for fun. No need for anyone to call me an idiot.
Wires are needed to output video to your TV. If your iPadTV is the source of the video, it will need wires running from it to your TV. You can actually do that right now from any iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch.
It's simpler to connect a cheap box to your TV and wirelessly control it with an iPad (or other device).
How hard or expensive would it be for Apple to add a MiFi chip in this thing. I have a two year old Pre with this
thing. And it's a great way to run anything with WiFi. I'm thinking
any Touch or WiFi only iPad, could be used to play with the iTV.
Or even when Apple includes FaceTime with the new Touch, presto
video phone for the kids to talk to friends at no cost.
MiFi doesn't make sense for a home-based device like the Apple TV/iTV since it's assumed there is a broadband Internet connection already (and thus the availability of local WiFi network).
From a manufacturing standpoint, MiFi in a TV set-top box makes even less sense since it's tied to a carrier. From a worldwide marketplace perspective, putting in Sprint-compatible MiFi chip makes no sense when >90% of the rest of the world uses different 3G data technology. Apple's cost savings for the iDevices arrive when they ship millions of units, not small production runs of tens of thousands.
That is the beauty of it. Nice. Simple. You can rest assured that your 4 year old will not see anything racy.
And your 4 year old will actually be able to use it. Not like a DVR!!
My 4 year old can operate Netflix on the Wii as well as our DVD player. Knows how to switch modes on the TV for cable or DVD/Wii as well. We're covered
Okay, if screen size cost is a big issue for iPadTV, maybe an iPodTouchTV?
Or just create a free App Store app that you download to your existing iDevice to handle all this. No special version needed