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.
There is a possibility for a tweener -- simple and inexpensive...
Think of it as an ATV thumb drive for your HDTV.
The HDMI spec provides: Pin 18\t+5 V Power (max 50 mA) -- IDK if this is is enough to power an ATV dongle without any external power source (ideal).
Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.
Very good idea. But not with the current wreck that passes off for a 'tv remote.' That device has to be re-imagined before Apple would agree to go along.
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
So we get a rumour that Apple might license AirPlay. This isn’t some out of left field rumour, it’s fairly vanilla in all aspects and makes a lot of sense. Meaning, it helps promote the sales of their most profitable segments and helps solidify their growth and dominance. They also have a history of actions that support what this rumour proposes.
Yet somehow there is a jump from licensing AirPlay to vendors to this meaning they will put an AppleTV in every TV. This sounds like the thinking that made the GoogleTV the failure it turned out to be. I can see an AppleTV being possibly integrated or used an add-on component sometime in the future, but so far that hasn’t worked out so well.
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.
.
I can see Apple getting the premium brands and cheapest (store) brands on board with licensing AirPlay. That should be enough to push toward a desirable feature and then to a required feature. Holds outs (assumption: Sony) would really have no choice but to compete by including AirPlay support.
I can see Apple eventually releasing an SDK and App Store for the AppleTV to further push the AppleTV to new levels, but likely with an iDevice as the primary input for doing any complex computing for a HEC appliance.
This would allow more interconnectivity between your iDevices and your TV, but for simply streaming various types of media to a TV or projector the AirPlay option will be sufficient. It could also offer ?halo effect? to those who enjoy using AirPlay that came with their TV but want to push that experience even farther.
I curious if anyone has any idea how much of the Apple TV tech is required for AirPlay. What with the WiFi bits, necessary UI, and enough CPU/RAM to handle the streaming, I would guess most of it? That is, I doubt the Netflix and YouTube clients or iPhoto slide show effects are taking up too much silicon.
So anything that can do AirPlay is well on its way to being able to host full blown AppleTV functionality, I would think.
So that's why I wonder about "just" licensing AirPlay. You get the TV manufacturers to put the necessary hardware/software on board to handle AirPlay, you're just some code away from an AppleTV on board, which seems like a difficult proposition to resist-- for both Apple and the TV folk.
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.
Well, in defense of Ireland, he was the biggest proponent of Apple making a tablet that AI had. He may not have nailed the implementation (hell, no one did) but he saw where that puck was going...
Well, in defense of Ireland, he was the biggest proponent of Apple making a tablet that AI had. He may not have nailed the implementation (hell, no one did) but he saw where that puck was going...
I think petty much every regular on these forums (except him) said they would leverage iOS for a tablet, not Mac OS. Making the same foolish assumption that a desktop OS on designed for a mouse pointer when your fingers are the primary input is not going to where the puck will be, it?s going to where the puck had been for a very, very long time.
So we get a rumour that Apple might license AirPlay. This isn’t some out of left field rumour, it’s fairly vanilla in all aspects and makes a lot of sense. Meaning, it helps promote the sales of their most profitable segments and helps solidify their growth and dominance. They also have a history of actions that support what this rumour proposes.
Yet somehow there is a jump from licensing AirPlay to vendors to this meaning they will put an AppleTV in every TV. This sounds like the thinking that made the GoogleTV the failure it turned out to be. I can see an AppleTV being possibly integrated or used an add-on component sometime in the future, but so far that hasn’t worked out so well.
Hate to burst everyones bubble (especially mine)...
But I think that in order to do AirPlay, you need most of the bits inside the ATV 2 -- maybe not as much or as powerful bits... but most all the bits.
With a total cost of $64. There's not enough that can be removed to get to $4 a pop.
But the iPod Touch and AppleTV are pretty much the same device, too, at the core. I still wouldn?t say the iPod Touch is necessary to make an AppleTV or vice versa. At this point I think Apple wouldn?t use their AppleTV UI for any licensing of AirPlay. I think they?d use the bare minimum to let you stream from your AirPlay-compatible transmitter to an AirPlay-compatible receiver.
Unless they can get enough money to offset the profit of the AppleTV without fear of losing some stronghold further down the road I don?t see the full AppleTV interface being incorporated, but I?d love to hear an argument as to why that is how that is the case.
But the iPod Touch and AppleTV are pretty much the same device, too, at the core. I still wouldn?t say the iPod Touch is necessary to make an AppleTV or vice versa. At this point I think Apple wouldn?t use their AppleTV UI for any licensing of AirPlay. I think they?d use the bare minimum to let you stream from your AirPlay-compatible transmitter to an AirPlay-compatible receiver.
Unless they can get enough money to offset the profit of the AppleTV without fear of losing some stronghold further down the road I don?t see the full AppleTV interface being incorporated, but I?d love to hear an argument as to why that is how that is the case.
See my post above. Once you've enabled AirPlay, you're all but AppleTV ready (as far as I can make out). So the only hurdle would be Apple's willingness to sign off.
So that cuts into aTV sales, but look at the tradeoff-- a vast expansion of the iTunes ecosystem, a huge selling point for iOS devices. If Apple got enough TV manufacturers on board, and kept the add-on premium low enough (say well under $100, which, for a modern $1000 big flat screen isn't much of a deal breaker) they abruptly become a major player in the streaming media space.
That seems like a pretty good deal for Apple, to me, against some modest loss of revenue from standalone aTV sales.
I think petty much every regular on these forums (except him) said they would leverage iOS for a tablet, not Mac OS. Making the same foolish assumption that a desktop OS on designed for a mouse pointer when your fingers are the primary input is not going to where the puck will be, it?s going to where the puck had been for a very, very long time.
Ireland never ever ever said the tablet would use a desktop OS. Ever. Mouse pointer? You are mad.
See my post above. Once you've enabled AirPlay, you're all but AppleTV ready (as far as I can make out). So the only hurdle would be Apple's willingness to sign off.
So that cuts into aTV sales, but look at the tradeoff-- a vast expansion of the iTunes ecosystem, a huge selling point for iOS devices. If Apple got enough TV manufacturers on board, and kept the add-on premium low enough (say well under $100, which, for a modern $1000 big flat screen isn't much of a deal breaker) they abruptly become a major player in the streaming media space.
That seems like a pretty good deal for Apple, to me, against some modest loss of revenue from standalone aTV sales.
Apple could have licensed FairPlay years ago to vendors of all sorts of devices and get paid from each and every one of those devices that were sold. They also could have licensed their OS to other PC vendors. They don?t do it because it hurts their HW sales and weakens their brand.
I think this would be have the same taste in their mouth. The AppleTV is no longer a product, but a feature of some 3rd-party?s product. I don?t think Apple wants that.. but they do want to make money, hence licensing AirPlay to strengthen their iDevice hold and use a way to push even more people into the AppleTVs which will be even more useful once and SDK and App Store appears.
This last one might never happen, but I have to think the amount of NAND that equals the Restore Stick on a MBA for holding iOS is a bit excessive just to keep it as is. I can also see the AppleTV being updated yearly or every two years with newer HW that will take advantage of the newer HW.
Ireland never ever ever said the tablet would use a desktop OS. Ever. Mouse pointer? You are mad.
1) Talking about yourself in the 3rd person is odd.
2) Repost your mockups that copy/pasted Mac OS on your tablet and I?ll try to located all those threads where you told me I was wrong for saying it wouldn?t use Mac OS, but leverage ?iPhone OS? and how you adamnetly denied that was possible because it would then be useless.
Apple need not charge for the license -- rather, they could just source the SOC/POP -- currently the A4 CPU.
As these are currently manufactured by Sammy -- I suspect they wouldn't mind including them in New SammyTVs.
If Apple can make AirPlay ubiquitous, then all the TV mfgrs. will include it in their New HDTVs.
It is not unusual for large companies to compete at some levels, while collaborate at other levels.
.
Thanks for giving it a read. :-) In part, what Apple would be doing here is akin to what Android has done in smartphone. Target a vendor with a hardware centric view of the universe, who is only too happy to outsource the software layer to a third party. I think the difference is that if Apple does it, they are going to want a consistent user experience.
As others have noted, Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts. Hence, I think this one makes sense to the extent it really is a delivery vehicle for iTunes and a proxy connector between iOS devices and TVs.
I just can't get my head around a scenario where Apple is selling a product with a 5-10 year lifecycle that takes up massive floor space. Where's the efficiency in that? At the same time, you know in Jobs lifecycle model, living room is the 4.0 (iPod = 1.0; iPhone/iPod touch = 2.0; iPad = 3.0) so something ubiquitous has to play there.
Apple could have licensed FairPlay years ago to vendors of all sorts of devices and get paid from each and every one of those devices that were sold. They also could have licensed their OS to other PC vendors. They don’t do it because it hurts their HW sales and weakens their brand.
I think this would be have the same taste in their mouth. The AppleTV is no longer a product, but a feature of some 3rd-party’s product. I don’t think Apple wants that.. but they do want to make money, hence licensing AirPlay to strengthen their iDevice hold and use a way to push even more people into the AppleTVs which will be even more useful once and SDK and App Store appears.
This last one might never happen, but I have to think the amount of NAND that equals the Restore Stick on a MBA for holding iOS is a bit excessive just to keep it as is. I can also see the AppleTV being updated yearly or every two years with newer HW that will take advantage of the newer HW.
iPods and computers, however, are entirely self-contained experiences. Apple doesn't license the software for those because they want to control the experience.
AppleTV is a different beast, in that it must rely on a third party TV to function. It's already an accessory to someone else's hardware, and therefore unlike anything else Apple makes. Putting the aTV into the set doesn't really change anything, it just makes widespread uptake that much more likely.
And there's no reason for a licensed aTV function to dilute the Apple brand-- once you're in aTV, you're in Apple's hands. It's like an Apple channel on your set. For the user there would be absolutely no difference from switching to the appropriate HDMI input as they do now and switching to a dedicated AppleTV menu item. Apple could of course set hardware requirements as part of the licensing deal to make sure they didn't get crappy versions out there.
iPods and computers, however, are entirely self-contained experiences. Apple doesn't license the software for those because they want to control the experience.
AppleTV is a different beast, in that it must rely on a third party TV to function. It's already an accessory to someone else's hardware, and therefore unlike anything else Apple makes. Putting the aTV into the set doesn't really change anything, it just makes widespread uptake that much more likely.
And there's no reason for a licensed aTV function to dilute the Apple brand-- once you're in aTV, you're in Apple's hands. It's like an Apple channel on your set. For the user there would be absolutely no difference from switching to the appropriate HDMI input as they do now and switching to a dedicated AppleTV menu item. Apple could of course set hardware requirements as part of the licensing deal to make sure they didn't get crappy versions out there.
I understand your position and you make a great case, as usual, I just can?t shake the idea of Apple giving up that much of the AppleTV experience to license to 3rd-parties. To quote hypermark, ?Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts.?
The only unknown here (and possibly still unknown to Apple) is how to finally capture the HEC. So far no one has done it except for the cable and sat companies but Jobs convinced me that making their own cable/sat box wasn?t an option do to inconsistencies with network designs. The network shunning GoogleTV seems to make it even harder for Apple to get in bed with cable/sat setup box makers (though I don?t think anyone even mentioned that as an option).
I understand your position and you make a great case, as usual, I just can?t shake the idea of Apple giving up that much of the AppleTV experience to license to 3rd-parties. To quote hypermark, ?Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts.?
The only unknown here (and possibly still unknown to Apple) is how to finally capture the HEC. So far no one has done it except for the cable and sat companies but Jobs convinced me that making their own cable/sat box wasn?t an option do to inconsistencies with network designs. The network shunning GoogleTV seems to make it even harder for Apple to get in bed with cable/sat setup box makers (though I don?t think anyone even mentioned that as an option).
Yeah, I'm just kind of taking a position and running with it, but I can't disagree that such a move would run counter to Apple's history.
I guess I just personally feel that Apple could do itself a lot of good by allowing aTV to start showing up in new OEM sets. It would go a long way as legitimatizing them as "the" media hub, much as Netflix clients have made Netflix the de facto streaming movie service.
I mean, just imagine if most new sets came with aTV built in. And you realized that if you had an iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch, sharing content suddenly becomes vastly easier. And your iTunes library is suddenly liberated. And if you're not using iTunes, you really have to consider it. It would just be such a huge win.
Comments
Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.
Now there's an original idea.
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.
There is a possibility for a tweener -- simple and inexpensive...
Think of it as an ATV thumb drive for your HDTV.
The HDMI spec provides: Pin 18\t+5 V Power (max 50 mA) -- IDK if this is is enough to power an ATV dongle without any external power source (ideal).
Apple should license the entire guts of Apple TV and make it standard in every HDTV.
Very good idea. But not with the current wreck that passes off for a 'tv remote.' That device has to be re-imagined before Apple would agree to go along.
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
Good read, Mark!
There are some interesting possibilities here.
Apple need not charge for the license -- rather, they could just source the SOC/POP -- currently the A4 CPU.
As these are currently manufactured by Sammy -- I suspect they wouldn't mind including them in New SammyTVs.
If Apple can make AirPlay ubiquitous, then all the TV mfgrs. will include it in their New HDTVs.
It is not unusual for large companies to compete at some levels, while collaborate at other levels.
.
Yet somehow there is a jump from licensing AirPlay to vendors to this meaning they will put an AppleTV in every TV. This sounds like the thinking that made the GoogleTV the failure it turned out to be. I can see an AppleTV being possibly integrated or used an add-on component sometime in the future, but so far that hasn’t worked out so well.
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.
.
I can see Apple getting the premium brands and cheapest (store) brands on board with licensing AirPlay. That should be enough to push toward a desirable feature and then to a required feature. Holds outs (assumption: Sony) would really have no choice but to compete by including AirPlay support.
I can see Apple eventually releasing an SDK and App Store for the AppleTV to further push the AppleTV to new levels, but likely with an iDevice as the primary input for doing any complex computing for a HEC appliance.
This would allow more interconnectivity between your iDevices and your TV, but for simply streaming various types of media to a TV or projector the AirPlay option will be sufficient. It could also offer ?halo effect? to those who enjoy using AirPlay that came with their TV but want to push that experience even farther.
So anything that can do AirPlay is well on its way to being able to host full blown AppleTV functionality, I would think.
So that's why I wonder about "just" licensing AirPlay. You get the TV manufacturers to put the necessary hardware/software on board to handle AirPlay, you're just some code away from an AppleTV on board, which seems like a difficult proposition to resist-- for both Apple and the TV folk.
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.
Well, in defense of Ireland, he was the biggest proponent of Apple making a tablet that AI had. He may not have nailed the implementation (hell, no one did) but he saw where that puck was going...
Well, in defense of Ireland, he was the biggest proponent of Apple making a tablet that AI had. He may not have nailed the implementation (hell, no one did) but he saw where that puck was going...
I think petty much every regular on these forums (except him) said they would leverage iOS for a tablet, not Mac OS. Making the same foolish assumption that a desktop OS on designed for a mouse pointer when your fingers are the primary input is not going to where the puck will be, it?s going to where the puck had been for a very, very long time.
So we get a rumour that Apple might license AirPlay. This isn’t some out of left field rumour, it’s fairly vanilla in all aspects and makes a lot of sense. Meaning, it helps promote the sales of their most profitable segments and helps solidify their growth and dominance. They also have a history of actions that support what this rumour proposes.
Yet somehow there is a jump from licensing AirPlay to vendors to this meaning they will put an AppleTV in every TV. This sounds like the thinking that made the GoogleTV the failure it turned out to be. I can see an AppleTV being possibly integrated or used an add-on component sometime in the future, but so far that hasn’t worked out so well.
Hate to burst everyones bubble (especially mine)...
But I think that in order to do AirPlay, you need most of the bits inside the ATV 2 -- maybe not as much or as powerful bits... but most all the bits.
Here is a list of the parts cost of the ATV 2:
iSuppli Teardown Reveals Apple TV’s Inner iPad
With a total cost of $64. There's not enough that can be removed to get to $4 a pop.
Hate to burst everyones bubble (especially mine)...
But I think that in order to do AirPlay, you need most of the bits inside the ATV 2 -- maybe not as much or as powerful bits... but most all the bits.
Here is a list of the parts cost of the ATV 2:
iSuppli Teardown Reveals Apple TV?s Inner iPad
With a total cost of $64. There's not enough that can be removed to get to $4 a pop.
But the iPod Touch and AppleTV are pretty much the same device, too, at the core. I still wouldn?t say the iPod Touch is necessary to make an AppleTV or vice versa. At this point I think Apple wouldn?t use their AppleTV UI for any licensing of AirPlay. I think they?d use the bare minimum to let you stream from your AirPlay-compatible transmitter to an AirPlay-compatible receiver.
Unless they can get enough money to offset the profit of the AppleTV without fear of losing some stronghold further down the road I don?t see the full AppleTV interface being incorporated, but I?d love to hear an argument as to why that is how that is the case.
But the iPod Touch and AppleTV are pretty much the same device, too, at the core. I still wouldn?t say the iPod Touch is necessary to make an AppleTV or vice versa. At this point I think Apple wouldn?t use their AppleTV UI for any licensing of AirPlay. I think they?d use the bare minimum to let you stream from your AirPlay-compatible transmitter to an AirPlay-compatible receiver.
Unless they can get enough money to offset the profit of the AppleTV without fear of losing some stronghold further down the road I don?t see the full AppleTV interface being incorporated, but I?d love to hear an argument as to why that is how that is the case.
See my post above. Once you've enabled AirPlay, you're all but AppleTV ready (as far as I can make out). So the only hurdle would be Apple's willingness to sign off.
So that cuts into aTV sales, but look at the tradeoff-- a vast expansion of the iTunes ecosystem, a huge selling point for iOS devices. If Apple got enough TV manufacturers on board, and kept the add-on premium low enough (say well under $100, which, for a modern $1000 big flat screen isn't much of a deal breaker) they abruptly become a major player in the streaming media space.
That seems like a pretty good deal for Apple, to me, against some modest loss of revenue from standalone aTV sales.
I think petty much every regular on these forums (except him) said they would leverage iOS for a tablet, not Mac OS. Making the same foolish assumption that a desktop OS on designed for a mouse pointer when your fingers are the primary input is not going to where the puck will be, it?s going to where the puck had been for a very, very long time.
Ireland never ever ever said the tablet would use a desktop OS. Ever. Mouse pointer? You are mad.
See my post above. Once you've enabled AirPlay, you're all but AppleTV ready (as far as I can make out). So the only hurdle would be Apple's willingness to sign off.
So that cuts into aTV sales, but look at the tradeoff-- a vast expansion of the iTunes ecosystem, a huge selling point for iOS devices. If Apple got enough TV manufacturers on board, and kept the add-on premium low enough (say well under $100, which, for a modern $1000 big flat screen isn't much of a deal breaker) they abruptly become a major player in the streaming media space.
That seems like a pretty good deal for Apple, to me, against some modest loss of revenue from standalone aTV sales.
Apple could have licensed FairPlay years ago to vendors of all sorts of devices and get paid from each and every one of those devices that were sold. They also could have licensed their OS to other PC vendors. They don?t do it because it hurts their HW sales and weakens their brand.
I think this would be have the same taste in their mouth. The AppleTV is no longer a product, but a feature of some 3rd-party?s product. I don?t think Apple wants that.. but they do want to make money, hence licensing AirPlay to strengthen their iDevice hold and use a way to push even more people into the AppleTVs which will be even more useful once and SDK and App Store appears.
This last one might never happen, but I have to think the amount of NAND that equals the Restore Stick on a MBA for holding iOS is a bit excessive just to keep it as is. I can also see the AppleTV being updated yearly or every two years with newer HW that will take advantage of the newer HW.
Ireland never ever ever said the tablet would use a desktop OS. Ever. Mouse pointer? You are mad.
1) Talking about yourself in the 3rd person is odd.
2) Repost your mockups that copy/pasted Mac OS on your tablet and I?ll try to located all those threads where you told me I was wrong for saying it wouldn?t use Mac OS, but leverage ?iPhone OS? and how you adamnetly denied that was possible because it would then be useless.
Good read, Mark!
There are some interesting possibilities here.
Apple need not charge for the license -- rather, they could just source the SOC/POP -- currently the A4 CPU.
As these are currently manufactured by Sammy -- I suspect they wouldn't mind including them in New SammyTVs.
If Apple can make AirPlay ubiquitous, then all the TV mfgrs. will include it in their New HDTVs.
It is not unusual for large companies to compete at some levels, while collaborate at other levels.
.
Thanks for giving it a read. :-) In part, what Apple would be doing here is akin to what Android has done in smartphone. Target a vendor with a hardware centric view of the universe, who is only too happy to outsource the software layer to a third party. I think the difference is that if Apple does it, they are going to want a consistent user experience.
As others have noted, Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts. Hence, I think this one makes sense to the extent it really is a delivery vehicle for iTunes and a proxy connector between iOS devices and TVs.
I just can't get my head around a scenario where Apple is selling a product with a 5-10 year lifecycle that takes up massive floor space. Where's the efficiency in that? At the same time, you know in Jobs lifecycle model, living room is the 4.0 (iPod = 1.0; iPhone/iPod touch = 2.0; iPad = 3.0) so something ubiquitous has to play there.
Apple could have licensed FairPlay years ago to vendors of all sorts of devices and get paid from each and every one of those devices that were sold. They also could have licensed their OS to other PC vendors. They don’t do it because it hurts their HW sales and weakens their brand.
I think this would be have the same taste in their mouth. The AppleTV is no longer a product, but a feature of some 3rd-party’s product. I don’t think Apple wants that.. but they do want to make money, hence licensing AirPlay to strengthen their iDevice hold and use a way to push even more people into the AppleTVs which will be even more useful once and SDK and App Store appears.
This last one might never happen, but I have to think the amount of NAND that equals the Restore Stick on a MBA for holding iOS is a bit excessive just to keep it as is. I can also see the AppleTV being updated yearly or every two years with newer HW that will take advantage of the newer HW.
iPods and computers, however, are entirely self-contained experiences. Apple doesn't license the software for those because they want to control the experience.
AppleTV is a different beast, in that it must rely on a third party TV to function. It's already an accessory to someone else's hardware, and therefore unlike anything else Apple makes. Putting the aTV into the set doesn't really change anything, it just makes widespread uptake that much more likely.
And there's no reason for a licensed aTV function to dilute the Apple brand-- once you're in aTV, you're in Apple's hands. It's like an Apple channel on your set. For the user there would be absolutely no difference from switching to the appropriate HDMI input as they do now and switching to a dedicated AppleTV menu item. Apple could of course set hardware requirements as part of the licensing deal to make sure they didn't get crappy versions out there.
iPods and computers, however, are entirely self-contained experiences. Apple doesn't license the software for those because they want to control the experience.
AppleTV is a different beast, in that it must rely on a third party TV to function. It's already an accessory to someone else's hardware, and therefore unlike anything else Apple makes. Putting the aTV into the set doesn't really change anything, it just makes widespread uptake that much more likely.
And there's no reason for a licensed aTV function to dilute the Apple brand-- once you're in aTV, you're in Apple's hands. It's like an Apple channel on your set. For the user there would be absolutely no difference from switching to the appropriate HDMI input as they do now and switching to a dedicated AppleTV menu item. Apple could of course set hardware requirements as part of the licensing deal to make sure they didn't get crappy versions out there.
I understand your position and you make a great case, as usual, I just can?t shake the idea of Apple giving up that much of the AppleTV experience to license to 3rd-parties. To quote hypermark, ?Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts.?
The only unknown here (and possibly still unknown to Apple) is how to finally capture the HEC. So far no one has done it except for the cable and sat companies but Jobs convinced me that making their own cable/sat box wasn?t an option do to inconsistencies with network designs. The network shunning GoogleTV seems to make it even harder for Apple to get in bed with cable/sat setup box makers (though I don?t think anyone even mentioned that as an option).
1) Talking about yourself in the 3rd person is odd.
There are no rules.
I understand your position and you make a great case, as usual, I just can?t shake the idea of Apple giving up that much of the AppleTV experience to license to 3rd-parties. To quote hypermark, ?Apple has a religious aversion to OEM'ing its technology. They sell whole, living, breathing chickens -- not random chicken parts.?
The only unknown here (and possibly still unknown to Apple) is how to finally capture the HEC. So far no one has done it except for the cable and sat companies but Jobs convinced me that making their own cable/sat box wasn?t an option do to inconsistencies with network designs. The network shunning GoogleTV seems to make it even harder for Apple to get in bed with cable/sat setup box makers (though I don?t think anyone even mentioned that as an option).
Yeah, I'm just kind of taking a position and running with it, but I can't disagree that such a move would run counter to Apple's history.
I guess I just personally feel that Apple could do itself a lot of good by allowing aTV to start showing up in new OEM sets. It would go a long way as legitimatizing them as "the" media hub, much as Netflix clients have made Netflix the de facto streaming movie service.
I mean, just imagine if most new sets came with aTV built in. And you realized that if you had an iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch, sharing content suddenly becomes vastly easier. And your iTunes library is suddenly liberated. And if you're not using iTunes, you really have to consider it. It would just be such a huge win.