Steve Jobs left iTunes creator in charge of connected TV initiative

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 69
    That's true and Windows 8 will make that a reality for any machines running it.
  • Reply 42 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by holy_steven View Post


    So pretty much any TV Set with XBOX360+XBOXLive+Kinect. WOW way to go. That is what Windows 8 already promised.



    Links here and here show Xbox TV deals an Kinect integration.



    First point... This is basically Microsoft admitting that the only way they are able to bring a TV solution to their ecosystem is to deal with the existing market players. I don't see this as an ideal solution (although it's worlds ahead of what we have at the moment).



    Second point... we don't know how this will work in with Windows 8. Personally I think Microsoft would be insane to not deal with Windows 8 PC's and tablets the same way they are dealing with the Xbox. However Microsoft divisions are notoriously bad at working together, so I'm not going to hold my breath.



    Final point. If Apple never did their version of products that already exist they would never release anything. Just because Microsoft are already doing a "NUI" IPTV solution doesn't mean Apple can't do one as well.



    The truth may even be the opposite in that, because Microsoft is entering this market it's a damn good reason for Apple to expedite their own plans.
  • Reply 43 of 69
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    iTV will not have FaceTime.



    you're crazy. sure it will. Apple is building FaceTime into all its hardware without any exception, clearly a long term strategy. i bet you there will be wifi FaceTime on even iPod Nanos as soon as next year (the Dick Tracy wrist TV phone at long last).



    and btw everyone, it can't be "iTV" unless Apple buys the rights from the British network that owns an uses the name. which i don't expect. maybe "iHD" - i don't see anyone else using that now.
  • Reply 44 of 69
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paxman View Post


    Unless Siri is enabled through a connected device. Not intended for use across a room but with your iPhone, iPad or iPod if you so choose.



    no, it's got to have Siri built in to the iHD too. that is part of the breakthrough idea, so no need for a physical remote control of any kind for everyday use. you'd only need an iOS device to run apps on it that need a touch UI.
  • Reply 45 of 69
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizzpooper View Post


    I know the Fanbois think AAPL invents everything, but you do know that the Fall Xbox update will make the Xbox do all of these very same things? Steve Jobs wanted to make the Xbox without games, brilliant!



    but it's still a "box." which is directly opposite the whole point of the concept of not needing a "box" anymore.



    yes, most "boxes" of all brands do mostly the same things nowadays, including Apple TV (does Mango have its version of wireless AirPlay/Screen Mirroring via XBox like iOS 5 does with ATV? oh, needs a USB cable? ... so sad).



    and XBox/WP 7 is also a totally closed and proprietary MS "walled garden" as much or more than iTunes/iOS ever was. got that Gold XBox Live account?
  • Reply 46 of 69
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    like many others, i see two huge problems in the way of a revolutionary Apple television, no matter how terrific the hardware/software might be:



    - content



    basically, Apple will have to make deals with all the medico's to have rights to the content they need to be a success. that will put them in direct competition with all the cablecos, satcos, and telcos (don't forget U-Verse) that do the same thing.



    (Google thought it could cheat everyone by just just "scraping" all this content from everybody else's web portals for Google TV without paying for it, but that got totally crushed.)



    i thought, well Apple can just buy DISH network for $10 billion to get these medico rights (and dump the retail customer part of the company to someone else - and just fold Blockbuster into iTunes). but the rights are not automatically transferable.



    and the mediacos are all scared to death of Apple (or hate it), and keep hemming and hawing ...



    - distribution



    Apple still has to depend on the ISP cablecos and telcos now to get its service to end users. and they can throttle the service and/or jack up the rates. and they will.



    i thought, well Apple can just buy DISH network to get the national trunk satellite distribution network, but it still needs local ISP's for local retail service (until the receivers can built right in to the TV's indoors). or maybe Apple can set up its own ISP business, like other independent ISP's, buying bandwidth delivery to Apple customers at low bulk rates and passing the savings along to the customers.
  • Reply 47 of 69
    I don't reply on these boards often, but this one really piqued my interest.



    First off, I don't think Apple would be crazy enough to build the TV screen. Sure, they could (to get in on that action), but the real deal is the software. It has always been about the software. Hardware is nothing more than a portal to the software. That said, I see the following happening:



    ATV 3.0 comes out. It comes out in one size (8 GB), with the option of putting an external HD to it either directly or through an AEBS or TMBS. The reason for this is simple, storage of purchased content. I don't just mean music and movies, but I mean apps as well. It will also have a A5 chip in it for two reasons: FaceTime and Siri. If you don't think that it will include Siri, you are missing the boat here. Apple is betting the farm on Siri. It makes perfect sense, especially in the home entertainment area. For instance, think of the following scenario:



    -----------------------



    Me: "Siri, record the series 'Two Broke Girls' on CBS, and set a reminder for the '60 Minutes' special about Steve Jobs"



    Siri: I have setup the recording of 'Two Broke Girls' and setup your reminder.



    Me: "Siri, show me the 'Weather Channel'; I want to see the 5 Day Forecast"



    Siri: Changing the channel to "The Weather Channel". It is currently showing "Storm Chasers", do you want me to get the 5 day forecast from the internet instead?



    Me: Yes.



    Siri: Getting your local forecast right now. I will show it to you on the lower portion of the screen.



    Me: Can you put it on the upper portion instead?



    Siri: Certainly, I have put it on the upper portion right now.



    Me: "Siri, setup a FaceTime call with my Dad at home"



    Siri: Sorry, but they are not there. WOuld you like to leave a video message instead?



    Me: Yes.



    Siri: Recording Started?



    --------------------------



    This is definitely a real possibility. Plus, with the auto-focusing of today's cameras, plus the iOS software, there really is no reason why not to do this. Also, think of the one area that Apple unintentionally propelled itself into: Gaming. Everyone has been saying that since the iPhone 4, its graphics on there have been at, or just below console gaming. Now you have a dedicated device that can do just that, and allow your iPhones/iPods/iPads act as controllers for it.



    Yes, this is a bit of a jump, but it is nothing that a little bit of logic can't take you down to.
  • Reply 48 of 69
    The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.



    All I'd really like to see is a TV with an easy to use interface, good image calibration settings, low input lag and no extra processing things to turn off.



    If it has support for things like apps and whatnot that would be nice, provided there's a software that allows you to stream video in any container or format similar to what I can do with PS3 Media Server on my PS3. I really don't care about having Facebook on my TV - I want to see how and if Apple can make it better for watching movies and TV.
  • Reply 49 of 69
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    I don't reply on these boards often, but this one really piqued my interest.



    First off, I don't think Apple would be crazy enough to build the TV screen. Sure, they could (to get in on that action), but the real deal is the software.



    I would submit that they'd be crazy not to do this. And an all-in-one TV from Apple fills me up with a sort of feeling of living room utopia. Apple's strength here is that TV companies are not software companies, this is why Apple could come in and steal the show. Not to mention, but Apple strength is not software per se, but the way they marry software and hardware, and by building a TV they reduce complexity, reduce the number of remotes per living room to one, and they fully control they end to end expierience just like they do with iPods and iPads. If they can get the TV show content an Apple television is a no-brainier. And would give them an iPod/iTunes position in the living room. Not market share wise, but expierience wise. And that's a winning strategy.
  • Reply 50 of 69
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    The inference in the article's title is that Steve controls who does what after he is gone. It is up to Tim to decide now, unless he is going to be running Apple from a list of 'to dos' SJ left him. I am sure Tim is in charge and there is no such situation.
  • Reply 51 of 69
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,492member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    Yes, this is a bit of a jump, but it is nothing that a little bit of logic can't take you down to.



    Partial Quote:



    I agree.
  • Reply 52 of 69
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kasakka View Post


    If it has support for things like apps and whatnot that would be nice, provided there's a software that allows you to stream video in any container or format similar to what I can do with PS3 Media Server on my PS3. I really don't care about having Facebook on my TV - I want to see how and if Apple can make it better for watching movies and TV.



    Who said Facebook? I think you're thinking about the wrong style of apps that store may be known for. And I totally agree with you about the streaming container thing, but given that those apps are available on the App Store I see no reason why they don't exist for iTV too.
  • Reply 53 of 69
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mike Eggleston View Post


    Me: "Siri, record the series 'Two Broke Girls' on CBS, and set a reminder for the '60 Minutes' special about Steve Jobs"



    Recording on demand IPTV is like recording a permalink.
  • Reply 54 of 69
    jonoromjonorom Posts: 293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    I am not sure about that.



    The iPhone, Macbook or iMac are natural devices for FaceTime style video chatting, because you're the right distance from the camera. The TV? Not so much, IMO. Where would you sit? Close to the TV? Far away?



    I think that facial recognition and an 8 mp camera, in combination with auto digital zoom to the face (like the auto-cropping Apple now uses for video stabilization) could work to address that problem. There is an interface issue for sure, so that the camera isn't zooming on the portrait on your wall, or to allow group FaceTimes, but that should be manageable.



    I think people will really want this. Imagine group FaceTime for family holidays....
  • Reply 55 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kasakka View Post


    The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.



    Same.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    but it's still a "box." which is directly opposite the whole point of the concept of not needing a "box" anymore.



    yes, most "boxes" of all brands do mostly the same things nowadays, including Apple TV (does Mango have its version of wireless AirPlay/Screen Mirroring via XBox like iOS 5 does with ATV? oh, needs a USB cable? ... so sad).



    The point of a "box" is that it is cheap and can be upgraded every 2 or 3 years, whilst a TV should last 10+ years. Build it all-in-one and you lose that significant upgrade advantage.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post


    and XBox/WP 7 is also a totally closed and proprietary MS "walled garden" as much or more than iTunes/iOS ever was. got that Gold XBox Live account?



    You say that like it's a bad thing?
  • Reply 56 of 69
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Why must we assume it's an all-or-nothing thing? That it's either an all-in-one OR a set top box? Are they really mutually exclusive?



    Apple doesn't only make one computer. They make the all-in-one iMac, but they also make the standalone Mini and Pro.



    Apple could release a 32", 37", and 42" AppleTV, alongside a set top box that connects to any display. Apple could even have a "Made for AppleTV" program.





    Also, I wonder if Apple's secretive multi-billion dollar strategic investment has anything to do with this. Netflix just increased their investment in content rights to about $1.5B. Could Apple, with it's $80B in cash finally pay enough money to get the content holders to finally get out of the way of progress? Everything is for sale right? It might not be immediate, as existing deals with HBO are halting some things, but maybe 2013?
  • Reply 57 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by willb2064 View Post


    The point of a "box" is that it is cheap and can be upgraded every 2 or 3 years, whilst a TV should last 10+ years. Build it all-in-one and you lose that significant upgrade



    Well, we used to replace our phono turntables once every 10 years or so. Now I buy a new music player (iPod or iPhone) every couple of years.



    Not quite the same I know, but technological change can radically change behaviors and buying habits. When big smart TVs drop below $1000, why would we not replace them with the same kind of frequency as our computers?



    The only reason we upgraded our TVs so infrequently is that the technology improved on that kind of cycle. Not true with computers and other computationally-based equipment.
  • Reply 58 of 69
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kasakka View Post


    The fact that someone responsible for the POS that iTunes (and Mac App Store) is does not give me much confidence in the Apple TV.



    iTunes and its App Store are very sophisticated and powerful software that changed everything. they obviously still satisfy many, if not you. every media software like it has its pros and cons. just dismissing it all as a "POS" is a childish rant.
  • Reply 59 of 69
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPedro View Post


    That would make no sense in the context of Steve's revelation in the book. He wants it to be as simple as possible. He talks about controlling the entire user experience just like Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. You can't control the ENTIRE user experience if you have to deal with other manufacturer's televisions. When he said that the cable companies' grasp on the industry couldn't be solved by selling people an add on box because they still had to pay for it when cable companies' were giving their boxes away for free, it was true. Saying that he cracked it, means that Apple would have to have the user in their hands the second they walk out of an Apple Store with one of their TVs. You get home, plug it in, sign in with your Apple ID and it already has your iCloud content already on the TV and new content ready to be purchased and watched without involving cable companies.

    ...



    It's ridiculous to say one can't control the ENTIRE user experience if Apple TV has to output image to other manufacturer's TV. After all, it's just a display. I use a samsung monitor with my Mac mini, and I don't find the user experience limited at all compared to my iMac. I would probably find the experience similar if I use my Sony TV as the display head.



    What you are describing here can easily be accomplished by a more beefy AppleTV hardware wise, probably not even have to beef it up. The quality of this service is entirely dependent on the software. Which could easily mean the new Apple TV is a brand new type of TV service that integrate very closely with some/all Apple devices.
  • Reply 60 of 69
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post


    Well, we used to replace our phono turntables once every 10 years or so. Now I buy a new music player (iPod or iPhone) every couple of years.



    Not quite the same I know, but technological change can radically change behaviors and buying habits. When big smart TVs drop below $1000, why would we not replace them with the same kind of frequency as our computers?



    The only reason we upgraded our TVs so infrequently is that the technology improved on that kind of cycle. Not true with computers and other computationally-based equipment.





    If you computer cost more than $1000, you would not be replacing it entirely every couple years. At least normal people wouldn't. Even then, it's really the software requirements that pushes people to upgrade. Furthermore, it's really the CPU, memory, hard drive, display card etc. that gets upgraded. The monitors go on a much slower cycle.



    TV is essentially a monitor with built in TV signal processing hardware. By integrating additional hardware into it and essentially force people to replace a large monitor on a short cycle would almost ensure it to be a niche product.
Sign In or Register to comment.