Apple may license AirPlay video streaming to third-party HDTV makers

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 91
    Just to be clear, AirPlay as it exists to day, may not be ideal for someone giving an interactive presentation -- as opposed to just playing a video or slide show.



    When you AirPlay something, the sender does not see what is playing on the sending display (the iPad). There is a very limited amount of interaction controlled by the iPad:

    -- flip slide

    -- Play/Pause

    -- Done





    When you attach an iPad directly to an HDTV via The HDMI adapter, you see what is playing on the iPad display, as well as on the HDTV. You have more control -- e.g. in a KeyNote Preso you can see notes and the next slides, etc., which do not appear on the HDTV.





    Erica Sadun was experimenting with AirPlay (and wrote some apps for the Mac). According to her, the [then iPad 1] hardware was not robust enough to concurrently display the content on both the Sending iPad and the Receiving ATV or Mac.



    It would be great if the iPad 2 could use AirPlay similar to a direct-connected iPad to a HDTV.





    One other thing to note: an iPad or iPhone (or a Mac) can initiate an AirPlay connection -- but, the initiating device need not participate in the connection or provide the AirPlayed content.



    For example you could have an iTunes server with all your A/V content -- an iPad or iP4 (or Mac) could initiate an iTunes Server AirPlay connection to, say, an ATV, another iPad, etc. Then, the instigator goes on to do other things while the AirPlay receiver sucks content from the AirPlay sender.



    .
  • Reply 42 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    .



    Whoa...



    This could be Huge!



    .



    I totally agree.
  • Reply 43 of 91
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Having to replace your TV isn't a choice, just a matter of time.



    Yes, but what we're talking about is adding AirPlay functionality to existing TVs as cheaply as possible. If you like, we don't have to call it a dongle, we could call it AppleTV Mini.



    Again, if the choice is between having to replace your TV to get AirPlay or being able to get a cheap add-on, I don't think most people are going to object to the add-on.
  • Reply 44 of 91
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,709member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    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.



    It makes little sense to me. I can see how it might work / look and its a sexy idea but I just don't think Apple is interested in making TV's. They are interested in connecting to TV's through something like the ATV but Apple TV sets? I'd love one, for sure but like I said, I can't see that the idea would be exciting enough for Apple to get into.



    The idea of licensing AirPlay makes good sense, however. If they do I bet ATV sales will increase dramatically, too. This is where you'd see the halo effect, for sure.
  • Reply 45 of 91
  • Reply 46 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    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.



    That was my original idea for Apple owning the HEC*, when a technology like AirPlay seemed like it was science-fiction and Apple hasn't mentioned any SoCs they've designed in-house. Now that they've done that I can see simply selling the SoC to be one dedicated input. That doesn't exclude the option for Apple to license the entire AppleTV setup as a single package I just described, but since Apple has been adamantly against livensing their OS in any way, shape or form I have to think the most likely route would be to license AirPlay, which I also assume would allow FairPlay DRM passthrough via AirPlay streaming.





    * They already own the "living room" in the more literal sense, just not the HEC portion of it.
  • Reply 47 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    There’s an App[leTV] for that.



    Wouldn't it be sweet irony if Apple provided AirPlay to HDTV through licensing, a dongle or a plug-in adapter and would thus become the high-profit component of a very low-margin industry.





    Go for it Apple! Yea!
  • Reply 48 of 91
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    We were talking about getting Airplay for existing televisions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    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.



  • Reply 49 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Wouldn't it be sweet irony if Apple provided AirPlay to HDTV through licensing, a dongle or a plug-in adapter and would thus become the high-profit component of a very low-margin industry.





    Go for it Apple! Yea!



    When Apple first premiered AirPlay I think we discussed a VGA adapter for projectors that would allow corporate and classroom use without the need of the inelegant WiFi router + full AppleTV just to get AirPlay access.



    I think this rumour holds water becuause Apple has a history of doing this sort of thing; bypassing intermediate solutions that we want now in order to setup some farsighted solution. Throw in the profit they could make from the licensing, especially if it allows FairPlay over Airplay and you not only have a good profit center, but a reinforcing of Apple's two biggest profit centers (of 2011), the iPad and iPhone.
  • Reply 50 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Bullshit.



    Were you agreeing with Solipsism by giving him a much more concise version of your actions...
  • Reply 51 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    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.



    That's the funny thing. I'm not quite sure how everyone in the tech industry knows Ping is a failure, apart from "I don't use it, therefore it has failed." I wouldn't be surprised that Ping has tens of millions of users (who aren't us) and I doubt that's a failure.
  • Reply 52 of 91
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.
  • Reply 53 of 91
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.



    I agree that would be ideal, although of course it would be up to the set manufacturers to actually take Apple up on the licensing.



    And the biggest of them, Samsung, apparently has plans of its own for digital future, so it might be tough to get them to go along.



    On the other hand, if Panasonic or LG or some of the cheaper brands (I'm leaving out Sony because, well, you know, they're Sony) were to offer Apple TV functionality at not much of a premium over their existing sets (and I would think getting rid of the case and power supply and ports would shave some off the cost) and that proved to be hugely popular and a reason to buy something other than a Samsung set, that might be a strong incentive for Samsung to get on board.



    Really, I think the rapidly expanding ubiquity of iOS devices would make a licensed baked-in Apple TV a huge advantage for TV manufacturers. I know Android/Google TV wants in on this, but they're going way overboard with complexity and cost. This would be a great time for Apple to start cutting some deals and becoming firmly entrenched in the fabled living room.
  • Reply 54 of 91
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I don't think Sony or Samsung are motivated to directly assist in the dominance of iTunes.



    Airplay is an easier sell because anyone can use it.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.



  • Reply 55 of 91
    cmf2cmf2 Posts: 1,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.



    They are more likely to stick a dock connector on Apple TV than license out the guts.
  • Reply 56 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.



    Yeah!



    I wonder how much cost is in the case, power supply/cord, packaging, etc.





    ... Then, there is the other shoe-- not only can the ATV-enabled-HDTV AirPlay content from millions of iDevices, but it will be able to play apps and games on the HDTV with the iDevice as the game controller.



    I can envision multiplayer games, educational and collaboration apps running on the ATV/HDTV and the iDevices providing the play -- including 3rd-party devices like the WII-mote.
  • Reply 57 of 91
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Licensing AirPlay makes vastly more sense than building TVs.



    Agreed not that I ever thought Apple would as I'm sure you didn't either.
  • Reply 58 of 91
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I agree that would be ideal, although of course it would be up to the set manufacturers to actually take Apple up on the licensing.



    And the biggest of them, Samsung, apparently has plans of its own for digital future, so it might be tough to get them to go along.



    On the other hand, if Panasonic or LG or some of the cheaper brands (I'm leaving out Sony because, well, you know, they're Sony) were to offer Apple TV functionality at not much of a premium over their existing sets (and I would think getting rid of the case and power supply and ports would shave some off the cost) and that proved to be hugely popular and a reason to buy something other than a Samsung set, that might be a strong incentive for Samsung to get on board.



    Really, I think the rapidly expanding ubiquity of iOS devices would make a licensed baked-in Apple TV a huge advantage for TV manufacturers. I know Android/Google TV wants in on this, but they're going way overboard with complexity and cost. This would be a great time for Apple to start cutting some deals and becoming firmly entrenched in the fabled living room.



    You hit on the nut of it... The user does not want to surf the Internet on the HDTV -- Rather he wants to surf the internet on his iPad.



    Then, when he finds something of interest (to all) -- he wants to AirPlay it from the Internet, through the iPad to the AHDTV.





    See, how I did that -- coined a new acronym Apple HDTV.



    .
  • Reply 59 of 91
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Yes, but what we're talking about is adding AirPlay functionality to existing TVs as cheaply as possible. If you like, we don't have to call it a dongle, we could call it AppleTV Mini.



    That world you are describing is the world we are already living in. And the add-on is called the Apple TV.



    The whole point of building it in at $4 a pop is all new TV's end up having it by default. You don't even need to understand how it works. You don't have to buy anything and still, it just works. Yes you have to buy a new TV, but I prefer that clean-cut scenario. That way "everyone" has it, eventually. An Apple Television is a slightly different matter and would be a product category onto itself, at least for a while.
  • Reply 60 of 91
    hypermarkhypermark Posts: 152member
    My thesis on this rumor is that it's the beginning of an Apple Inside strategy, whereby Apple licenses the skin, bones and brain of Apple TV to TV set makers as part of their ubiquity play in the living room.



    Why? The alternative for Apple is building their own TV, which has lots of downside; namely, a commodity product in an entrenched ecosystem (cable/sat, set-top box, broadcast, HBO, movies, CE) on a device that lacks the product obsolescence lifecycle that Apple tunes its R&D for (i.e., people keep TVs 10+ years).



    At the same time, Apple can not NOT own the living room, given the piece parts they have assembled to fuel the digital media lifestyle. It's too strategic for them.



    I ruminate on this topic further here:



    The Magic Adapter: Apple TV and the Battle for the Living Room

    http://oreil.ly/gIShlK



    Check it out, if interested.



    Best,



    Mark
Sign In or Register to comment.