Yes, I did also say Apple would make their own TV. I still believe that. It would suit them as a company. They'd make an awesome TV and people would buy it. And if you couldn't afford the Apple Branded TV you could always go for the second best option of getting an Airplay enabled TV from many-another manufacturer.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
err, lots of TVs are getting RJ-45 adaptors and USB ports with dongles for WiFi. Adding AirPlay to them will be a snap. If the total price is less than $75 more than an non-IP enabled TV, this is the 'iPad enabled' TV (vs ATV... which while nice, really is a interim product to integrate 'dumb' TVs and stereos.
AirPlay basically competes with DLNA. And Google TV. And there are more AirPlay enabled servers (every iPad and iPhone) in the living room today.... For the average consumer, the first AirPlay enabled TV under $500 will be "Game Over, Man!" for DLNA and GTV. (almost all of these deployments are high end $$$ now... and require setting up servers or make the TV a computer, and it's not a 'just works' solution like Apple has set up).
The iOS 'universal' interconnecter (half server, half remote) on the iPad, iPhone, and ATV is the final shim to make ITMS/Netflix upbiquitous.
Licensing AirPlay makes vastly more sense than building TVs.
Ditto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Given the size and cost of Apple TV, I would think someone could make an AirPlay dongle that wasn't much bigger and doesn't cost much more than an adapter. Certainly for less than Best Buy charges for a 6' HDMI cable. An easy add-on sale for any AirPlay enabled Apple devices.
One update I am hoping for is the use of an iDevice directly to an AppleTV via an a-hoc network that bypasses the need for intermediary WiFi router. This would serve a purpose in corporate and educational settings. First we need AirPlay for iWork apps so I am not holding my breath.
This setup could work for HDTVs, too, especially if Apple designs a SoC that they sell with the cost of the licensing included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Yes, I did also say Apple would make their own TV. I still believe that. It would suit them as a company. They'd make an awesome TV and people would buy it. And if you couldn't afford the Apple Branded TV you could always go for the second best option of getting an Airplay enabled TV from many-another manufacturer.
You seem make some wild claim of what will be and then later when something less monumental but more elegant comes along you claim that is what you meant.
You have yet to show any research as to the number of TV types and sizes that are sold, how much R&D it takes to get that going, what Apple’s profit would be, how these large TVs that take up vast areas of warehouse stores would work in an Apple Store, or why it’s a better move than leveraging their position to sell more Macs and iDevices by teaming up with HDTV vendors.
PS: Who are these people that scoffed at the idea of Apple working with vendors? I only recall your claims that Apple will soon be making HDTVs. It’s been a long 18 months.
Yes at this point it should just require an SOC that can decode the media and display the UI. That doesn't even require a general purpose SOC.
I think an SoC that was dedicated to an “ AirPlay” input source on the HDTV would be sufficient. This could have HDMI, USB and/or WiFi and be able to work seamlessly with AirPlay. At least, that is how I’d proceed at this point with the given information.
AFICT, presently, it takes a CPU, some RAM (buffers), power -- maybe a GPU and a codec chip to receive AirPlay streams.
....
It would be a lot cleaner and less expensive if the dongle (whatever) could get its power from the TV.
You do realize that any HDTV worth it's salt has RAM (to buffer) , a codec (for analog signals), and a basic CPU/ASIC to handle the firmware to convert signals (digital audio and video, as well as command signals), upconvert, etc.
The real addition is a network interface (11N and Gigabit wired ethernet), IP, DHCP, and an AirPlay component (session negotiation and content capture). Every TV manufacturer has thought about the networking stuff (can't do Google TV without it)... The Airplay stuff would make their TVs compatible with about 20Million US households for their 'next' TV (especially in the 'small' HDTV category... 20-40"... The Home theatre monster is too expensive to replace at this time... but the 'kids' TV will just play "Barney" over AirPlay just fine.
err, lots of TVs are getting RJ-45 adaptors and USB ports with dongles for WiFi. Adding AirPlay to them will be a snap. If the total price is less than $75 more than an non-IP enabled TV, this is the 'iPad enabled' TV (vs ATV... which while nice, really is a interim product to integrate 'dumb' TVs and stereos.
AirPlay basically competes with DLNA. And Google TV. And there are more AirPlay enabled servers (every iPad and iPhone) in the living room today.... For the average consumer, the first AirPlay enabled TV under $500 will be "Game Over, Man!" for DLNA and GTV. (almost all of these deployments are high end $$$ now... and require setting up servers or make the TV a computer, and it's not a 'just works' solution like Apple has set up).
The iOS 'universal' interconnecter (half server, half remote) on the iPad, iPhone, and ATV is the final shim to make ITMS/Netflix upbiquitous.
AirPlay's big advantage over DLNA is ease of use and ease of access. I don't know anyone that actually uses DLNA functionality, probably because it's barely been marketed and most people don't know it exists, and you actually have to take steps to set it up. Those steps are likely to lead you into the fetid swamp of the average TV UI, which is terrible beyond all knowing.
AirPlay on Apple's iDevices are a one tap deal, and Apple is marketing that so iPad and iPhone and iPod Touch users are aware that it's there.
I would say the current state of DLNA is much like the MP3 player or smartphone markets when Apple entered them-- the functionality is there, but horribly implemented. A certain number of geeks will complain that Apple is doing nothing new, reinventing the wheel, that they already enjoy the benefits of streamed content and Apple is just going to "market" what's already there. As usual, such geeks are incapable of seeing the point.
This is in-a-way similar to them licensing Apple TV technology to be built into TV's. I suggested such a move as a good idea about 18 months ago and was scoffed at on these forums. What's new.
But it doesn't do Flash.
Not only can they license the technology but also provide the A4/A5 chips.
TV makers can't ignore the 200 million iOS devices that will exist by year end 2011.
It would be interesting to know how many US households own IOS devices.
Due to the long replacement cycles for TVs, this really wouldn't be a big direct revenue generator. However, it could incrementaly add to iOS device and Apps demand. Estimated 2012 US TV market about 45 million units according to an isuppli document I found.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
I think the options would be obvious for a person wanting Airplay.
Either buy a new HDTV spending ~$500-2000
This option would make sense if you already need a new tv or just love new tech.
Or you can purchase an ATV for $99
This option makes sense to hold you over until you need/afford a new tv or if you want to move it around your house from time to time.
To me this is a winning strategy for Apple. The thing I wonder the most would be how much, if anything, would Apple charge the third party vendors. My guess is around $50.
What do you think it would mean to a student, an artist, a coach, a teacher, a performer or a business man...
If he could carry his essay, portfolio, press, lessons, work product etc. with him, everywhere, on an iPad -- and wherever he goes, there is a large screen TV (or TVs) that he can use to "strut his stuff"
Oh, and while I have you here... let me show you the latest home movies of the kids...
.
+1 As a business person I just ordered the HDMI out cable for iPad to do exactly this. I'd LOVE it if even 25% of the locations I visited had an AirPlay-enabled large screen TV. Get it into 50% of the locations I present and I'm likely start to acting like a politician and start kissing babies and shaking hands
These devices would also have to work with the millions of televisions that don't have any networking capability built in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
You do realize that any HDTV worth it's salt has RAM (to buffer) , a codec (for analog signals), and a basic CPU/ASIC to handle the firmware to convert signals (digital audio and video, as well as command signals), upconvert, etc.
Right. Instead of partnering with an established company, Apple will start a new standard that has about as much of a chance of being adopted as Ping or pong or whatever it is.
While Apple rarely licenses technology, they actually *do* almost always try to "partner with established companies" for their initiatives. they have a long history of trying to do this actually.
The "blame" if any, goes to the companies that fail to support Apple not the other way around. For many years (and possibly still), Apple was viewed by other media, consumer, and computer companies as a sort of upstart with no market share and they were screwed around a lot as a result.
The difference now is that Apple has a bit more respect because of their sales.
Right. Instead of partnering with an established company, Apple will start a new standard that has about as much of a chance of being adopted as Ping or pong or whatever it is.
Ping is probably taking off faster that we think, in an under-the-radar way. I know its anecdotal, but my teenager just asked join because many in the social circle are on it. I noticed, for instance, that a band such as Metallica already has hundreds of thousands of followers.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
Sure, probably does. But I believe they will do both.
You seem make some wild claim of what will be and then later when something less monumental but more elegant comes along you claim that is what you meant.
I think an SoC that was dedicated to an ? AirPlay? input source on the HDTV would be sufficient. This could have HDMI, USB and/or WiFi and be able to work seamlessly with AirPlay. At least, that is how I?d proceed at this point with the given information.
Except if I was Apple I would convince the manufacturers that putting the whole Apple TV inside their set (only marginally bigger), was a better idea.
If every new TV just came with Apple TV inside, even from a single manufacturer, it would take off like a rocket.
Comments
AFICT, presently, it takes a CPU, some RAM (buffers), power -- maybe a GPU and a codec chip to receive AirPlay streams.
I bet you didn't see the iPod coming from Apple either. It makes a lot of sense.
Yes, I did also say Apple would make their own TV. I still believe that. It would suit them as a company. They'd make an awesome TV and people would buy it. And if you couldn't afford the Apple Branded TV you could always go for the second best option of getting an Airplay enabled TV from many-another manufacturer.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
AirPlay basically competes with DLNA. And Google TV. And there are more AirPlay enabled servers (every iPad and iPhone) in the living room today.... For the average consumer, the first AirPlay enabled TV under $500 will be "Game Over, Man!" for DLNA and GTV. (almost all of these deployments are high end $$$ now... and require setting up servers or make the TV a computer, and it's not a 'just works' solution like Apple has set up).
The iOS 'universal' interconnecter (half server, half remote) on the iPad, iPhone, and ATV is the final shim to make ITMS/Netflix upbiquitous.
Licensing AirPlay makes vastly more sense than building TVs.
Ditto.
Given the size and cost of Apple TV, I would think someone could make an AirPlay dongle that wasn't much bigger and doesn't cost much more than an adapter. Certainly for less than Best Buy charges for a 6' HDMI cable. An easy add-on sale for any AirPlay enabled Apple devices.
One update I am hoping for is the use of an iDevice directly to an AppleTV via an a-hoc network that bypasses the need for intermediary WiFi router. This would serve a purpose in corporate and educational settings. First we need AirPlay for iWork apps so I am not holding my breath.
This setup could work for HDTVs, too, especially if Apple designs a SoC that they sell with the cost of the licensing included.
Yes, I did also say Apple would make their own TV. I still believe that. It would suit them as a company. They'd make an awesome TV and people would buy it. And if you couldn't afford the Apple Branded TV you could always go for the second best option of getting an Airplay enabled TV from many-another manufacturer.
You seem make some wild claim of what will be and then later when something less monumental but more elegant comes along you claim that is what you meant.
You have yet to show any research as to the number of TV types and sizes that are sold, how much R&D it takes to get that going, what Apple’s profit would be, how these large TVs that take up vast areas of warehouse stores would work in an Apple Store, or why it’s a better move than leveraging their position to sell more Macs and iDevices by teaming up with HDTV vendors.
PS: Who are these people that scoffed at the idea of Apple working with vendors? I only recall your claims that Apple will soon be making HDTVs. It’s been a long 18 months.
Yes at this point it should just require an SOC that can decode the media and display the UI. That doesn't even require a general purpose SOC.
I think an SoC that was dedicated to an “ AirPlay” input source on the HDTV would be sufficient. This could have HDMI, USB and/or WiFi and be able to work seamlessly with AirPlay. At least, that is how I’d proceed at this point with the given information.
AFICT, presently, it takes a CPU, some RAM (buffers), power -- maybe a GPU and a codec chip to receive AirPlay streams.
....
It would be a lot cleaner and less expensive if the dongle (whatever) could get its power from the TV.
You do realize that any HDTV worth it's salt has RAM (to buffer) , a codec (for analog signals), and a basic CPU/ASIC to handle the firmware to convert signals (digital audio and video, as well as command signals), upconvert, etc.
The real addition is a network interface (11N and Gigabit wired ethernet), IP, DHCP, and an AirPlay component (session negotiation and content capture). Every TV manufacturer has thought about the networking stuff (can't do Google TV without it)... The Airplay stuff would make their TVs compatible with about 20Million US households for their 'next' TV (especially in the 'small' HDTV category... 20-40"... The Home theatre monster is too expensive to replace at this time... but the 'kids' TV will just play "Barney" over AirPlay just fine.
err, lots of TVs are getting RJ-45 adaptors and USB ports with dongles for WiFi. Adding AirPlay to them will be a snap. If the total price is less than $75 more than an non-IP enabled TV, this is the 'iPad enabled' TV (vs ATV... which while nice, really is a interim product to integrate 'dumb' TVs and stereos.
AirPlay basically competes with DLNA. And Google TV. And there are more AirPlay enabled servers (every iPad and iPhone) in the living room today.... For the average consumer, the first AirPlay enabled TV under $500 will be "Game Over, Man!" for DLNA and GTV. (almost all of these deployments are high end $$$ now... and require setting up servers or make the TV a computer, and it's not a 'just works' solution like Apple has set up).
The iOS 'universal' interconnecter (half server, half remote) on the iPad, iPhone, and ATV is the final shim to make ITMS/Netflix upbiquitous.
AirPlay's big advantage over DLNA is ease of use and ease of access. I don't know anyone that actually uses DLNA functionality, probably because it's barely been marketed and most people don't know it exists, and you actually have to take steps to set it up. Those steps are likely to lead you into the fetid swamp of the average TV UI, which is terrible beyond all knowing.
AirPlay on Apple's iDevices are a one tap deal, and Apple is marketing that so iPad and iPhone and iPod Touch users are aware that it's there.
I would say the current state of DLNA is much like the MP3 player or smartphone markets when Apple entered them-- the functionality is there, but horribly implemented. A certain number of geeks will complain that Apple is doing nothing new, reinventing the wheel, that they already enjoy the benefits of streamed content and Apple is just going to "market" what's already there. As usual, such geeks are incapable of seeing the point.
This is in-a-way similar to them licensing Apple TV technology to be built into TV's. I suggested such a move as a good idea about 18 months ago and was scoffed at on these forums. What's new.
But it doesn't do Flash.
Not only can they license the technology but also provide the A4/A5 chips.
TV makers can't ignore the 200 million iOS devices that will exist by year end 2011.
It would be interesting to know how many US households own IOS devices.
Due to the long replacement cycles for TVs, this really wouldn't be a big direct revenue generator. However, it could incrementaly add to iOS device and Apps demand. Estimated 2012 US TV market about 45 million units according to an isuppli document I found.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
I think the options would be obvious for a person wanting Airplay.
Either buy a new HDTV spending ~$500-2000
This option would make sense if you already need a new tv or just love new tech.
Or you can purchase an ATV for $99
This option makes sense to hold you over until you need/afford a new tv or if you want to move it around your house from time to time.
To me this is a winning strategy for Apple. The thing I wonder the most would be how much, if anything, would Apple charge the third party vendors. My guess is around $50.
Have you used AirPlay?
What do you think it would mean to a student, an artist, a coach, a teacher, a performer or a business man...
If he could carry his essay, portfolio, press, lessons, work product etc. with him, everywhere, on an iPad -- and wherever he goes, there is a large screen TV (or TVs) that he can use to "strut his stuff"
Oh, and while I have you here... let me show you the latest home movies of the kids...
.
+1 As a business person I just ordered the HDMI out cable for iPad to do exactly this. I'd LOVE it if even 25% of the locations I visited had an AirPlay-enabled large screen TV. Get it into 50% of the locations I present and I'm likely start to acting like a politician and start kissing babies and shaking hands
You do realize that any HDTV worth it's salt has RAM (to buffer) , a codec (for analog signals), and a basic CPU/ASIC to handle the firmware to convert signals (digital audio and video, as well as command signals), upconvert, etc.
These devices would also have to work with the millions of televisions that don't have any networking capability built in.
There?s an App[leTV] for that.
Right. Instead of partnering with an established company, Apple will start a new standard that has about as much of a chance of being adopted as Ping or pong or whatever it is.
While Apple rarely licenses technology, they actually *do* almost always try to "partner with established companies" for their initiatives. they have a long history of trying to do this actually.
The "blame" if any, goes to the companies that fail to support Apple not the other way around. For many years (and possibly still), Apple was viewed by other media, consumer, and computer companies as a sort of upstart with no market share and they were screwed around a lot as a result.
The difference now is that Apple has a bit more respect because of their sales.
They like it better than having to replace their TV.
Having to replace your TV isn't a choice, just a matter of time.
mp3 player was an entirely new market. Not a completely saturated commodity market like televisions.
Or phones, yeah.
Right. Instead of partnering with an established company, Apple will start a new standard that has about as much of a chance of being adopted as Ping or pong or whatever it is.
Ping is probably taking off faster that we think, in an under-the-radar way. I know its anecdotal, but my teenager just asked join because many in the social circle are on it. I noticed, for instance, that a band such as Metallica already has hundreds of thousands of followers.
If Apple asked me to choose between a strategy of using on Apple branded TVs or AirPlay enabled TVs from a variety of manufacturers, I would suggest they persue the latter. However, if you think they could get both going, well, I guess that would be fine! But I believe the former has a better chance of having a big impact.
Sure, probably does. But I believe they will do both.
You seem make some wild claim of what will be and then later when something less monumental but more elegant comes along you claim that is what you meant.
Bullshit.
I think an SoC that was dedicated to an ? AirPlay? input source on the HDTV would be sufficient. This could have HDMI, USB and/or WiFi and be able to work seamlessly with AirPlay. At least, that is how I?d proceed at this point with the given information.
Except if I was Apple I would convince the manufacturers that putting the whole Apple TV inside their set (only marginally bigger), was a better idea.
If every new TV just came with Apple TV inside, even from a single manufacturer, it would take off like a rocket.