Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly stated that it can't exist with the today's market until that is cracked. You and others seem to be defending the point that slapping an AppleTV in a TV would inherently make it great.
I've been asking since this rumour appears how they could change this tightly integrated relationships yet all I ever get is that an Apple branded TV would be awesome because it would have an Apple logo or reduce the clutter of one device. That isn't revolutionary at all and GoogleTV has shown that the networks are willing to fight swiftly and fiercely for their guaranteed revenue streams when threatened.
Where is the scenario that makes shows how Apple could possibly achieve this goal of reinventing the way content distributers, content providers, content owners, and content supporters (ad revenue) all interact with each other that a TV OEM would be able to take pole position in this business. I don't see a potential path to victory in this entire thread.
I'm asking for a potential solution. A framework. A "what if" sequence of events that, even if just on paper in a perfect world, could demonstrate how this could be tackled by a company with the resources and bargaining power of Apple. And as I've clearly stated many times, I'd love for Apple to accomplish this, so if I'm crazy for wanting this then so is everyone else.
I see the disconnect here then.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.
While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.
They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.
It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.
Most of the concepts imagined here require very little creativity or innovation. They merely "slap together" the best of "current technology." No doubt that would make a good product, but Apple has never taken that approach to new markets (iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc).
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]. But then sales will take off and every other tv maker and his ucle will be chasing Apple's new concept with their own cheap plastic immitations--a cycle we are all quite familiar with.
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
Note that pairing a remote with a device (AppleTV) does not stop that remote from controlling other devices (MacBook).
It simply stop other remotes from controlling that device.
The best option is to turn of the Infrared port on the MacBook.
They could even come in under the cost of a comparable Samsung SmartTV with the lowered R&D costs for an iOS/Apple A-chip-based system.
I can't see them getting rid of the stand alone AppleTV as it's doubtful they would meet the needs of all TV sizes, features, and designs that people have throughout their homes. People here seem to be thinking only of the HEC and only of the biggest possible sets when I think any real solution would look to put an AppleTV into every room you have a TV.
True.
Quote:
If it's going to record then 64GB NAND isn't going to cut it, and that is already a pricey option that no SmartTV I'm aware has.
If there is a built-in DVR that also gets pricey, but has integrated DVR, VCR, or DVD/BRDs ever been a hit with TVs? These seem to be updated a lot more frequently than the sets themselves and one of the biggest complaints about iMacs from desktop users is that you can't get a new computer without having to replace the perfectly fine monitor.
Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.
At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.
Quote:
If we're talking about server-side DVR that is currently available from service providers as On Demand services... and it's not good. I don't see how Apple could make it better than a cable company ting in directly to their node-accessed servers for On Demand content. It's painfully slow.
Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.
Quote:
Siri is the only good idea I've seen for making the current experience better, but that doesn't have to be a TV, that could be done from an attached device.
True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.
BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.
Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.
At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.
Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.
True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.
BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.
I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.
While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.
They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.
It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.
If the ad revenue that pays for the content…
that is owned by the networks…
that is sold directly to the service providers or sold to their affiliate stations who sell it to service providers for very large up front costs…
who (in the case of cable AT&T U-verse/DSL, or Verizon FIOS) are also supplying your internet connection…
and are so co-dependent upon one another, how do you get around all that?
Apple already had a lot of trouble with TV and movies on iTunes Store without any direct disruption to that revenue stream. They were able to get the music because that business model was already suffering greatly from illegal internet downloads.
Right now many pay for cable and internet with one bill, at least in the US. If half those TV subscribers opted out what would they do with TV costs? They could punish those that stayed with TV access, or raise internet prices for those that are now 1) not buying the TV services they paid for in bulk, and 2) are now using a lot more data than before.
I think the current model will eventually fall, I think Apple is the prime candidate to bring them down, and it will be very, very messy. It's a domino effect that could even hurt the quality of content if advertisers don't have faith in viewership. How do local and regional advertisers get their ads out if it's a homogenous internet-based system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
The latest TiVo has 4 tuners and 2 TB of storage for 300 hours of HD storage.
I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.
I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.
Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.
If Apple actually makes a true HDTV that is relatively straightforward in design, I expect ultra-competitive price-points. You're talking about 1080P LED-Backlit LCD screens offered in 40", 46" and 55" sizes most likely. Then you take the guts of an Apple TV set-top box essentially, add more internal storage, HDMI inputs and revised software. This is a lot less expensive to manufacture than you may think. 1080P panels come down in price every day and are a lot more straightforward to manufacturer than a retina display iPhone screen.
If they really wanted to be competitive, I could see them putting out a 40" version at $799 and still making a healthy profit. Jump up to a 46" version for $899 or go for a 55" version at $999. I think at most you'll see a 40" version starting at $999 and jumping up by $100 for each size increase.
There's absolutely no way Apple will put out an Apple HDTV that starts at $1999 or even $1499. The market for such TV's is far too small and it's backwards from Apple's current path. Remember, as far as internal storage and processors go, Apple will still have the benefit of high-volume purchasing power as the same parts are used across the entire iOS device family. And again, LED-backlit 1080P displays drop in price everyday.
Bottom line: expect nothing less than breakthrough pricing for yet another device that will revolutionize an industry. They are more than smart enough to know that a $1999 Apple HDTV will flop, and they're smart enough to know that there's absolutely no good reason to charge such a price for an Apple iOS product in 2011. Volume is everything.
If Apple does come out with a TV that's similar in concept to our current TV, I think it will be a flop. It will have to be dramatically different from what we call TV right now for it to be able to stand out in market place.
Also, don't expect Apple to compete with cable companies too much at first. The cable companies still hold too many cards considering they are the providers of the critical internet connections Apple would need to transmit data. Not only that, if certain people watched as much HDTV-content via the internet as they do on broadcast TV, they would easily run up against their monthly bandwidth limits. Expect deals with the major cable players like Comcast at first. Have any of you used their iOS app? It's rather outstanding considering it's coming from Comcast. Further integration of that basic control and guide premise into an Apple HDTV should give you an idea of what will come of it. I'm not expecting them to be able to eliminate the cable box from the equation yet either, though who knows if they strike up a good partnership. What might be more likely is Comcast issuing new boxes that would communicate with an Apple HDTV and stream content to it over a wifi network to avoid the need for an HDMI connection.
Yeah, that's what I figured. That's insane overkill brought on by spec inflation and cheap drives. Who in their right mind wants to store 300 hours of HD video on a fragile, slow HD?
And if the idea is to use your DVR as some kind of archival storage, well, that's a really bad idea. I'm willing to bet that the average user never watches DVRed content more than once, twice at the most, and all that room just ends up getting filled with old episodes of shows you no longer care about, slowing down performance and complicating access.
Quote:
I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.
Right, and just to be thorough lets also consider that 240GB SS drives are retailing for around $400 at the moment. Apple could obviously get them for far less, but that's still a big expense if your just making a DVR. But as part of a $2000 TV? Seems doable.
At any rate, I think 50 hours or so of HD video would be a reasonable amount. Enough to record even the most avid viewers stuff during a weeks vacation. If Apple could do 50 hours of decent quality HD on a SS drive I think it would be well worth the additional expense, particularly when people get a look at the speed and fluidity that brings to the whole process.
Why not a "whole-home" system like DirecTV has for DVR and such?
One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?
If this has been mentioned before, I apologize, but I do want to share with all of you the direction I hope that Apple takes this.
They need to find a way to integrate an "a la carte" sort of cable. So if I want to pay for everything that the Discovery Channel plays, then I pay for that one channel. It is the actual live broadcast of the Discovery Channel, not tape delayed or inferior in any way. The same can be done with any broadcast station, including channels normally only broadcast in Asia or Europe or what have you.
Although this idea is incredibly intuitive, its very difficult for most companies to deal with the cable companies and their incredibly sweet deals that they have with their networks. Apple is certainly a company that could shake that up, much like they shook up the music industry and phone market. As someone who does not want to pay $70 / month for about 10 desired channels, I cannot express how much I would love this set up.
Outside of that, I would expect all of the expected features, such as YouTube integration, DVR included in the actual TV, search features, no cable box required (everything ought to be built in, so no requirement for attachments or cables)... Include this sort of service and I will guarantee a purchase no matter how expensive!
The cable companies will be the FIRST casualties after Apple releases their 'non-hobby' Apple TV.
Whose monthly bandwidth limits? There's no monthly bandwidth limit on TV, and home ISPs who don't deserve to be pooped on don't cap home Internet.
I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place. You really think the ISP's will give up without a fight? No way, no how. I don't like it and nobody at Apple likes it, but again, Apple's smart enough to know exactly what will happen if they try to compete directly. They're also smart enough and big enough to bring the negotiating power to the table that will make partnerships between TV/internet providers and Apple work out best for the consumer.
On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's. Too many people have multiple television sets that won't all get the Apple HDTV treatment due to countless variables such as cost and size. And even if you were to suggest that the current Apple TV would bridge that gap, you still have bandwidth concerns if multiple people are trying to stream HD content all at once. Many people don't have the connection speed to properly stream 1 HD stream well let alone 2-3.
Do I really need to go on? I'm all for the streaming revolution, believe me, and I can't stand the cable companies, but objectively, there's just going to be no getting around them for some time. But again, Apple knows how to deal with the "orifices" better than anyone, so we're in good hands. And chances are a partnership would only lead to better access to TV-based media on the iPhone and iPad.
Why not a "whole-home" system like DirecTV has for DVR and such?
One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?
I thought about something like that as well. What if an Apple HDTV was more like an AirPlay monitor with only a power cord? Meanwhile, a connectivity box could allow other for other input sources that could then be available on multiple screens throughout the house, perhaps even iPhone, iPad and computers. I'm not sure how elegant of a solution that is to Apple though.
What I think is more likely is streamed content comparable to that possible with the Apple TV and partnerships with cable providers who will offer cable boxes that communicate with the Apple HDTV software and wirelessly stream, via AirPlay or otherwise, cable TV content to the TV. I struggle to imagine Apple putting out an HDTV that requires 2 pieces. It's possible and makes sense in many ways (LG is already doing something like this), but I think it's generally unlikely.
I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place.
Except they can't do that legally. The court battle will last two years, Apple will win, and it will be illegal to put bandwidth caps on ANYONE'S Internet use.
The end.
Quote:
On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's.
You're absolutely right. Which is why Apple will never release an HDTV, they'll perfect the Apple TV.
Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.
Yep, I agree with that. Giving people a legit search of content seamlessly in a fairly affordable appliance looks viable to me. If Apple did actually enter this market, I definitely think that it would take a little time though to reach profitability (through hardware sales and not revenue from content).
Comments
Yet I'm the one who has repeatedly stated that it can't exist with the today's market until that is cracked. You and others seem to be defending the point that slapping an AppleTV in a TV would inherently make it great.
I've been asking since this rumour appears how they could change this tightly integrated relationships yet all I ever get is that an Apple branded TV would be awesome because it would have an Apple logo or reduce the clutter of one device. That isn't revolutionary at all and GoogleTV has shown that the networks are willing to fight swiftly and fiercely for their guaranteed revenue streams when threatened.
Where is the scenario that makes shows how Apple could possibly achieve this goal of reinventing the way content distributers, content providers, content owners, and content supporters (ad revenue) all interact with each other that a TV OEM would be able to take pole position in this business. I don't see a potential path to victory in this entire thread.
I'm asking for a potential solution. A framework. A "what if" sequence of events that, even if just on paper in a perfect world, could demonstrate how this could be tackled by a company with the resources and bargaining power of Apple. And as I've clearly stated many times, I'd love for Apple to accomplish this, so if I'm crazy for wanting this then so is everyone else.
I see the disconnect here then.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.
While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.
They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.
It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.
I'll bet you almost anything that when Apple annouces their first television, the reaction will be extremely negative because it will do away with the current concept of a television altogether. It will be labeled a complete failure [by most of you]. But then sales will take off and every other tv maker and his ucle will be chasing Apple's new concept with their own cheap plastic immitations--a cycle we are all quite familiar with.
Yes, you need to 'pair' the remote to your Apple TV to avoid confusing your MBP, if you keep it close by. Go into Apple TV settings and down to 'remotes'.
Note that pairing a remote with a device (AppleTV) does not stop that remote from controlling other devices (MacBook).
It simply stop other remotes from controlling that device.
The best option is to turn of the Infrared port on the MacBook.
https://discussions.apple.com/servle...t+23.56.10.png
They could even come in under the cost of a comparable Samsung SmartTV with the lowered R&D costs for an iOS/Apple A-chip-based system.
I can't see them getting rid of the stand alone AppleTV as it's doubtful they would meet the needs of all TV sizes, features, and designs that people have throughout their homes. People here seem to be thinking only of the HEC and only of the biggest possible sets when I think any real solution would look to put an AppleTV into every room you have a TV.
True.
If it's going to record then 64GB NAND isn't going to cut it, and that is already a pricey option that no SmartTV I'm aware has.
If there is a built-in DVR that also gets pricey, but has integrated DVR, VCR, or DVD/BRDs ever been a hit with TVs? These seem to be updated a lot more frequently than the sets themselves and one of the biggest complaints about iMacs from desktop users is that you can't get a new computer without having to replace the perfectly fine monitor.
Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.
At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.
If we're talking about server-side DVR that is currently available from service providers as On Demand services... and it's not good. I don't see how Apple could make it better than a cable company ting in directly to their node-accessed servers for On Demand content. It's painfully slow.
Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.
Siri is the only good idea I've seen for making the current experience better, but that doesn't have to be a TV, that could be done from an attached device.
True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.
BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.
True.
Maybe they skip the DVR due to cost considerations, or maybe they go with a hard drive (although I don't think Apple would do that at this point). Maybe Apple's economics of scale would allow them to put a big flash drive in there and still come in at competitive price point.
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
Maybe 128GB is a bit on the paltry side for a DVR, but against that consider the big performance leaps and instant access over platter based solutions. I would think that would be a big selling point.
At any rate, I don't think the separate, replaceable thing really pertains. After all, all a DVR is I/O, a disc, and software. The software is upgradable, the I/O is part of the set, and if they wanted to (not that Apple typically does this) they could make the flash drive upgradable. I mean, that's all a "built in" DVR would be-- the memory itself. Everything else is iOS or part of the TV.
Yeah, can't see that happening-- in addition to performance issues, that gets you into a different area of rights of reproduction, and that's the kind of thing that sank Google TV. Content providers aren't going to want to have people moving their stuff around in the cloud.
True, but if Apple took over the whole widget they could Apple-fy all the functions, from channel switching to UI overlays to to settings. One of the down sides of a TV bristling with inputs is having to go through a probably not very good UI to move among them-- Apple could do something to enhance the sense that all content was under the same umbrella-- from the latest episode of CSI to your beach videos to the iTunes movie rental.
BTW, I should say that I doubt Apple will try to do the "get me all the episodes of X show", as that again is how Google TV pissed off the content providers. Were they to do any of this, I'm pretty sure they'd steer you to iTunes (or possible Netflix streaming) for such requests, having worked out appropriate deals. If Apple wants to try this, Google did them a huge favor by going cowboy with Google TV, since it can only make Apple seem like the reasonable adult offering a deal that makes sense.
I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.
I see the disconnect here then.
Others, (myself included) are arguing that cable is already passé, but you are arguing that it, (or some alternate solution for the exact same content), is definitely required.
While I don't think that just because it has an Apple logo on it, that "slapping the Apple TV inside an HDTV" will work. I do think it will work because relatively little of the content on regular cable TV is relevant anymore and because the majority of the content you can get on cable can already be obtained on Apple TV. In other words I see this "missing content" as largely available on Apple TV and the part that is "missing" as mostly undesirable anyway.
They would eventually have to make a few breakthrough deals with some content suppliers but yes, a lot of us feel that the solution is already here to the extent that we are already happy with the content provided by AppleTV and Netflix etc. already.
It strikes me that sports is one category missing (it took me a while to see this since I don't really understand why anyone would actually like watching sports), but sports networks are possibly the easiest entities to deal with.
If the ad revenue that pays for the content…
that is owned by the networks…
that is sold directly to the service providers or sold to their affiliate stations who sell it to service providers for very large up front costs…
who (in the case of cable AT&T U-verse/DSL, or Verizon FIOS) are also supplying your internet connection…
and are so co-dependent upon one another, how do you get around all that?
Apple already had a lot of trouble with TV and movies on iTunes Store without any direct disruption to that revenue stream. They were able to get the music because that business model was already suffering greatly from illegal internet downloads.
Right now many pay for cable and internet with one bill, at least in the US. If half those TV subscribers opted out what would they do with TV costs? They could punish those that stayed with TV access, or raise internet prices for those that are now 1) not buying the TV services they paid for in bulk, and 2) are now using a lot more data than before.
I think the current model will eventually fall, I think Apple is the prime candidate to bring them down, and it will be very, very messy. It's a domino effect that could even hurt the quality of content if advertisers don't have faith in viewership. How do local and regional advertisers get their ads out if it's a homogenous internet-based system?
I don't really use a DVR, how much storage does it need? I mean realistically, not just "you can record everything you ever watch for a year in HD because TB drives are dirt cheap." We've seen what a solid state drive can do for performance in the Air, and they manage to get 128GB in that for just a few hundred bucks over the 64GB, and we know Apple's markup on memory is steep.
The latest TiVo has 4 tuners and 2 TB of storage for 300 hours of HD storage.I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.
holy crap, and to think I've been called a fanboy - I hope you're never allowed into the wild.
No, you're just an idiot to think that something like that won't be sorted.
I agree with everything you said except the last paragraph. Google got in trouble because if you searched for all episodes of a show, it would give you websites (from the network, Hulu, etc.) and the networks didn't like that. I think that the rumored Apple HDTV would scan regular programming, iTunes and Netflix who all have licenses to play said content on the television.
Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.
If they really wanted to be competitive, I could see them putting out a 40" version at $799 and still making a healthy profit. Jump up to a 46" version for $899 or go for a 55" version at $999. I think at most you'll see a 40" version starting at $999 and jumping up by $100 for each size increase.
There's absolutely no way Apple will put out an Apple HDTV that starts at $1999 or even $1499. The market for such TV's is far too small and it's backwards from Apple's current path. Remember, as far as internal storage and processors go, Apple will still have the benefit of high-volume purchasing power as the same parts are used across the entire iOS device family. And again, LED-backlit 1080P displays drop in price everyday.
Bottom line: expect nothing less than breakthrough pricing for yet another device that will revolutionize an industry. They are more than smart enough to know that a $1999 Apple HDTV will flop, and they're smart enough to know that there's absolutely no good reason to charge such a price for an Apple iOS product in 2011. Volume is everything.
The latest TiVo has 4 tuners and 2 TB of storage for 300 hours of HD storage.
Yeah, that's what I figured. That's insane overkill brought on by spec inflation and cheap drives. Who in their right mind wants to store 300 hours of HD video on a fragile, slow HD?
And if the idea is to use your DVR as some kind of archival storage, well, that's a really bad idea. I'm willing to bet that the average user never watches DVRed content more than once, twice at the most, and all that room just ends up getting filled with old episodes of shows you no longer care about, slowing down performance and complicating access.
I think most, if not all, cable and say companies in the US push MPEG-2 video which you surely know isn't nearly as compact as the MPEG-4 (H.264) video. This does require less powerful processor for decompressing but that's obviously not an issue these days so Apple could store quite a bit more in the same space for a given quality if they could by pass the standard distribution methods.
Right, and just to be thorough lets also consider that 240GB SS drives are retailing for around $400 at the moment. Apple could obviously get them for far less, but that's still a big expense if your just making a DVR. But as part of a $2000 TV? Seems doable.
At any rate, I think 50 hours or so of HD video would be a reasonable amount. Enough to record even the most avid viewers stuff during a weeks vacation. If Apple could do 50 hours of decent quality HD on a SS drive I think it would be well worth the additional expense, particularly when people get a look at the speed and fluidity that brings to the whole process.
Also, don't expect Apple to compete with cable companies too much at first.
The cable companies will be the FIRST casualties after Apple releases their 'non-hobby' Apple TV.
monthly bandwidth limits.
Whose monthly bandwidth limits? There's no monthly bandwidth limit on TV, and home ISPs who don't deserve to be pooped on don't cap home Internet.
One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?
They need to find a way to integrate an "a la carte" sort of cable. So if I want to pay for everything that the Discovery Channel plays, then I pay for that one channel. It is the actual live broadcast of the Discovery Channel, not tape delayed or inferior in any way. The same can be done with any broadcast station, including channels normally only broadcast in Asia or Europe or what have you.
Although this idea is incredibly intuitive, its very difficult for most companies to deal with the cable companies and their incredibly sweet deals that they have with their networks. Apple is certainly a company that could shake that up, much like they shook up the music industry and phone market. As someone who does not want to pay $70 / month for about 10 desired channels, I cannot express how much I would love this set up.
Outside of that, I would expect all of the expected features, such as YouTube integration, DVR included in the actual TV, search features, no cable box required (everything ought to be built in, so no requirement for attachments or cables)... Include this sort of service and I will guarantee a purchase no matter how expensive!
no but a remoteless TV with Siri is.
wow you are dolt. You think a TV like this would not come up Siri.
Apple modernized and popularized input devices, and now they are taking them away.
The cable companies will be the FIRST casualties after Apple releases their 'non-hobby' Apple TV.
Whose monthly bandwidth limits? There's no monthly bandwidth limit on TV, and home ISPs who don't deserve to be pooped on don't cap home Internet.
I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place. You really think the ISP's will give up without a fight? No way, no how. I don't like it and nobody at Apple likes it, but again, Apple's smart enough to know exactly what will happen if they try to compete directly. They're also smart enough and big enough to bring the negotiating power to the table that will make partnerships between TV/internet providers and Apple work out best for the consumer.
On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's. Too many people have multiple television sets that won't all get the Apple HDTV treatment due to countless variables such as cost and size. And even if you were to suggest that the current Apple TV would bridge that gap, you still have bandwidth concerns if multiple people are trying to stream HD content all at once. Many people don't have the connection speed to properly stream 1 HD stream well let alone 2-3.
Do I really need to go on? I'm all for the streaming revolution, believe me, and I can't stand the cable companies, but objectively, there's just going to be no getting around them for some time. But again, Apple knows how to deal with the "orifices" better than anyone, so we're in good hands. And chances are a partnership would only lead to better access to TV-based media on the iPhone and iPad.
Why not a "whole-home" system like DirecTV has for DVR and such?
One larger main Apple TV box (or an Apple HDTV) in room you want for most of your viewing, with small set-top boxes for all the other televisions in the house that "borrow" content from the main box/hdtv via the home network?
I thought about something like that as well. What if an Apple HDTV was more like an AirPlay monitor with only a power cord? Meanwhile, a connectivity box could allow other for other input sources that could then be available on multiple screens throughout the house, perhaps even iPhone, iPad and computers. I'm not sure how elegant of a solution that is to Apple though.
What I think is more likely is streamed content comparable to that possible with the Apple TV and partnerships with cable providers who will offer cable boxes that communicate with the Apple HDTV software and wirelessly stream, via AirPlay or otherwise, cable TV content to the TV. I struggle to imagine Apple putting out an HDTV that requires 2 pieces. It's possible and makes sense in many ways (LG is already doing something like this), but I think it's generally unlikely.
I guarantee you that without fail, should Apple try to compete with them initially, every ISP in America that also offers TV service will put bandwidth limits in place.
Except they can't do that legally. The court battle will last two years, Apple will win, and it will be illegal to put bandwidth caps on ANYONE'S Internet use.
The end.
On top of that, it's simply not logical to imagine people abandoning TV service and replace all of their TV's with Apple HDTV's.
You're absolutely right. Which is why Apple will never release an HDTV, they'll perfect the Apple TV.
Right, I should have been more specific. I think search via Siri for legit versions of programming-- either currently or soon to be airing, or duly licensed subscription, purchase or rental copies-- would of course be part of the deal. But we can definitely rule out the Google TV style web dredge, which, in addition to making the content providers less tractable, needlessly complicates and defocuses the service. People watching TV are in a passive, show it to me mood. Google thinks they're in the same mood as when browsing, and I think that's wrong.
Yep, I agree with that. Giving people a legit search of content seamlessly in a fairly affordable appliance looks viable to me. If Apple did actually enter this market, I definitely think that it would take a little time though to reach profitability (through hardware sales and not revenue from content).