2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV.
It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.
Which brings me to my next point:
3) The apps are going to be AMAZING. So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.
100% agreed.
"… but you just said no apps…"
That's right. There will be Channels. But before that, there will be the mini-widgets that come on the device. Access to YouTube, Vimeo, et. al. Access to Netflix and the like.
And then we get to the content. Channels.
It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.
Apple TV development will be for "applications" created by the content owners. Meaning the show owners. Each show gets its own icon, group them in folders, go about it how you will.
So we'll have a nice Weather (name on the Springboard) Channel (name of 'app') put out by The Weather Channel that cuts out the middle man of time. See what you want WHEN you want. You're not forced to wait for the radar screen to cycle back around as elevator music plays; you can go right to it immediately.
Same with sports channels, et. al.
But the agreements to which Apple will come is the important part. For the first time, consumers will have control over the content they see, not providers. Finally the content we see will be dictated by more than the inaccurate whims of 25,000 households.
There is NO point to the device otherwise. Any Apple TV that does not completely reinvent the way television content is pushed to people is a "hobby" device and will remain as such until that time.
but in defense the picture with the pathetic caption was posted by someone who claimed they had to fast forward articles because they were so sick of a picture of Hugh... never mind
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
1) Apple doesn't need to prepare developers for the release of a TV. They need to open the API and that is all. We already have a device that can run iOS apps on our TVs.
2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV. Regardless of whether they are for the current AppleTV or some new hardware. Unleash the power of the developer just like they have on the iPhone and iPad (and iPod)
3) The apps are going to be AMAZING. So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.
4) Apple will shape the market in a way that FORCES the unholy marriage between studios/content/distribution to adapt. You're not going to win the battle today by holding off on releasing a TV until you can pry content away from the current distribution model. It will never happen unless there is a "disruptive" change in the market. Apple needs to create that change.
This is similar to the correct decision Apple made in not supporting flash. The world is now a better place for it (even though we still have a long way to go).
Back to the original point though… Apple can do this today once the API is ready. They don't need to prepare developers for the release of an actual TV. Just the presence of the API is going to get the flying into action.
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
The assumption behind the article is that the primary unique-selling-point of the iTV is 3rd party apps.
I don't read it to say that. I read the analyst to say that with iPhone and iPad, Apple gave some announced warning to allow developers to scale and test their apps for the new device and that Apple will likely do the same with an iTV.
That's a lot different than saying Apple will pre-announce the iTV because Apple is going to position apps as the killer feature.
Are you just being a jerk? Why exactly would that be funny?
The Apple TV has an interface specifically designed for iTunes content, with a few other content apps on the side. Given Apple's history of being better than any other company at designing interfaces functionally appropriate for the devices they're intended to run on, I'd have to wager they will design a new interface for a TV set.
How about the UI of my cable box that I use 99.9% of the time? How's a Apple TV set going to address that?
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
Fail.
The iPad was introduced when the most of the world was still in a recession. The iPhone was introduced one year before global financial markets imploded.
Some Apps which exist for iOS that would make the AppleTV useful:
- BBC iPlayer
- 4OD
- itvPlayer
- Catchup TV
- Crackle
- LoveFilm
et cetra...
All third party apps that could (I assume) easily be ported to iOS for TV.
Imagine a TV where each channel had its own take on a user interface.
It's a nightmare scenario. Utterly confusing for the end user - the digital equivalent of having a coffee table with ten different remote controls.
Yuck!
Now imagine a single elegant browsable hierarchy - user configured, easy to navigate - with each channel playing live content in thumbnails.
And when we click on a channel it is playing instantly. Not firing up some iOS application that then has to negotiate with a remote server.
That's what I want. Not a mess of apps.
If content providers want to augment the channel content with additional interactive apps, that's fine, but as a primary content delivery interface, the apps model would be a big step backwards.
It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.
It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.
The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV. That would drive prices up tho'
As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV.
Bluetooth controllers would be a welcome addition to the iOS API...once provided that makes the aTV a credible console, even the current single core A5 one. At much reduced cost than requiring all participants have an iPad, iPhone or iPot Touch.
The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV. That would drive prices up tho'
As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV.
AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.
The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.
Apple is likely to provide developers with a head-start to create software for its new television before it becomes available for consumers to purchase, according to a new analysis.
TV announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months?
The iPad was introduced when the most of the world was still in a recession. The iPhone was introduced one year before global financial markets imploded.
But regardless of the economy any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad. EPIC FAIL on you.
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
The TV business is quite broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. The fact that TV shows aren't widely torrented surprises me. (By widely torrented, I mean I could find the two shows I want to see that way without much hassle.) It will come for a number of simple reasons: The 2/3 content to commercial ratio of modern TV results in too much wasted time; 1000 channels of crap is still just a lot of crap; the "channel" mindset has been broken for nearly a decade with the DVR.
Basically, the trend will be to eliminate middlemen. If the university conferences bypass the NCAA for TV rights, what is to keep them from ultimately bypassing the TV stations for direct access to the viewers? Eliminating the artificial scarcity of the broadcasters necessitates fundamental change in approach.
Skil's comment about channels is about as far off as I can imagine. That is effectively what they have today with the AppleTV, and it is a mess. Shows are grossly over priced on iTunes, and it just takes a little to break the existing cartel arrangement. Once a 1-hour (ok, 40 minute) TV show without ads goes for $0.99 and everything is available, market forces will take over.
Any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad.
You say that... but....
The idea would be to create a publishing platform which works for the content owners.
These owners have always had options about how to best monetize their content.
The iTV would be just another option. They could easily elect to publish nationally or internationally.
What will influence their decision will simply be which of their many options gives them the best return.
With the iTV platform all they need to do is press a button and then sit back to collect the subscription revenue. My guess is that a lot of content owners will be attracted by a business model which allows them to keep the lion's share of the subscription and advertising revenue - rather than sharing it with an inefficient network. They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
If the model works - they will line-up to put content into the platform, just like developers lined up for the iPhone.
There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.
Someone still needs to answer me what content I will get on this Apple HDTV that will not be provided to me on my current 3rd generation Apple TV. And the true videophiles care more about picture quality than whatever brand sells the TV. No new content deals, specifically subscriptions = flop.
I forwarded this post to Apple and they have scrapped their Apple TV plans entirely. They said, "Dagamer34, thanks for the keen insight. That is the direction we were going, but have now reconsidered based on this prophetic post. Big ups to you."
The TV business is quite broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. The fact that TV shows aren't widely torrented surprises me. (By widely torrented, I mean I could find the two shows I want to see that way without much hassle.) It will come for a number of simple reasons: The 2/3 content to commercial ratio of modern TV results in too much wasted time; 1000 channels of crap is still just a lot of crap; the "channel" mindset has been broken for nearly a decade with the DVR.
Basically, the trend will be to eliminate middlemen. If the university conferences bypass the NCAA for TV rights, what is to keep them from ultimately bypassing the TV stations for direct access to the viewers? Eliminating the artificial scarcity of the broadcasters necessitates fundamental change in approach.
Skil's comment about channels is about as far off as I can imagine. That is effectively what they have today with the AppleTV, and it is a mess. Shows are grossly over priced on iTunes, and it just takes a little to break the existing cartel arrangement. Once a 1-hour (ok, 40 minute) TV show without ads goes for $0.99 and everything is available, market forces will take over.
TV shows aren't widely torrented because 1. Most people dont know how to, 2. Its easy to catch a show on a networks website, on demand, DVR, on iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, etc... A TV show is not like music, a song will be heard over and over but a TV will be watched once maybe twice. Good luck getting anyone to agree with selling shows for $.99. Advertising pays for TV shows unlike music where the consumer does.
AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.
The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.
There is 8GB of flash storage on the aTV. The aTV is probably more capable a console as-is in comparison to the Wii if it had controllers.
Porting many existing iOS games wouldn't be hard. Shooters and RPGs for example.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobringer
2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV.
It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.
Which brings me to my next point:
3) The apps are going to be AMAZING. So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.
100% agreed.
"… but you just said no apps…"
That's right. There will be Channels. But before that, there will be the mini-widgets that come on the device. Access to YouTube, Vimeo, et. al. Access to Netflix and the like.
And then we get to the content. Channels.
It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.
Apple TV development will be for "applications" created by the content owners. Meaning the show owners. Each show gets its own icon, group them in folders, go about it how you will.
So we'll have a nice Weather (name on the Springboard) Channel (name of 'app') put out by The Weather Channel that cuts out the middle man of time. See what you want WHEN you want. You're not forced to wait for the radar screen to cycle back around as elevator music plays; you can go right to it immediately.
Same with sports channels, et. al.
But the agreements to which Apple will come is the important part. For the first time, consumers will have control over the content they see, not providers. Finally the content we see will be dictated by more than the inaccurate whims of 25,000 households.
There is NO point to the device otherwise. Any Apple TV that does not completely reinvent the way television content is pushed to people is a "hobby" device and will remain as such until that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Hugh Laurie is English (born Oxford, UK in 1959), not Australian.
but in defense the picture with the pathetic caption was posted by someone who claimed they had to fast forward articles because they were so sick of a picture of Hugh... never mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
Europe... Stable?!!!...
Now's as good of time as any for a Europe launch.
/
/
/
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
The assumption behind the article is that the primary unique-selling-point of the iTV is 3rd party apps.
I don't read it to say that. I read the analyst to say that with iPhone and iPad, Apple gave some announced warning to allow developers to scale and test their apps for the new device and that Apple will likely do the same with an iTV.
That's a lot different than saying Apple will pre-announce the iTV because Apple is going to position apps as the killer feature.
How about the UI of my cable box that I use 99.9% of the time? How's a Apple TV set going to address that?
Well there goes my "clever" contribution for the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
Fail.
The iPad was introduced when the most of the world was still in a recession. The iPhone was introduced one year before global financial markets imploded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes
Some Apps which exist for iOS that would make the AppleTV useful:
- BBC iPlayer
- 4OD
- itvPlayer
- Catchup TV
- Crackle
- LoveFilm
et cetra...
All third party apps that could (I assume) easily be ported to iOS for TV.
Imagine a TV where each channel had its own take on a user interface.
It's a nightmare scenario. Utterly confusing for the end user - the digital equivalent of having a coffee table with ten different remote controls.
Yuck!
Now imagine a single elegant browsable hierarchy - user configured, easy to navigate - with each channel playing live content in thumbnails.
And when we click on a channel it is playing instantly. Not firing up some iOS application that then has to negotiate with a remote server.
That's what I want. Not a mess of apps.
If content providers want to augment the channel content with additional interactive apps, that's fine, but as a primary content delivery interface, the apps model would be a big step backwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.
It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.
The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV. That would drive prices up tho'
As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV.
Bluetooth controllers would be a welcome addition to the iOS API...once provided that makes the aTV a credible console, even the current single core A5 one. At much reduced cost than requiring all participants have an iPad, iPhone or iPot Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV. That would drive prices up tho'
As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV.
AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.
The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple is likely to provide developers with a head-start to create software for its new television before it becomes available for consumers to purchase, according to a new analysis.
TV announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months?
Then it will be 2-6 months before never.
But regardless of the economy any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad. EPIC FAIL on you.
Same here, couldn't agree more.
The TV business is quite broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. The fact that TV shows aren't widely torrented surprises me. (By widely torrented, I mean I could find the two shows I want to see that way without much hassle.) It will come for a number of simple reasons: The 2/3 content to commercial ratio of modern TV results in too much wasted time; 1000 channels of crap is still just a lot of crap; the "channel" mindset has been broken for nearly a decade with the DVR.
Basically, the trend will be to eliminate middlemen. If the university conferences bypass the NCAA for TV rights, what is to keep them from ultimately bypassing the TV stations for direct access to the viewers? Eliminating the artificial scarcity of the broadcasters necessitates fundamental change in approach.
Skil's comment about channels is about as far off as I can imagine. That is effectively what they have today with the AppleTV, and it is a mess. Shows are grossly over priced on iTunes, and it just takes a little to break the existing cartel arrangement. Once a 1-hour (ok, 40 minute) TV show without ads goes for $0.99 and everything is available, market forces will take over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad.
You say that... but....
The idea would be to create a publishing platform which works for the content owners.
These owners have always had options about how to best monetize their content.
The iTV would be just another option. They could easily elect to publish nationally or internationally.
What will influence their decision will simply be which of their many options gives them the best return.
With the iTV platform all they need to do is press a button and then sit back to collect the subscription revenue. My guess is that a lot of content owners will be attracted by a business model which allows them to keep the lion's share of the subscription and advertising revenue - rather than sharing it with an inefficient network. They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
If the model works - they will line-up to put content into the platform, just like developers lined up for the iPhone.
There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
Someone still needs to answer me what content I will get on this Apple HDTV that will not be provided to me on my current 3rd generation Apple TV. And the true videophiles care more about picture quality than whatever brand sells the TV. No new content deals, specifically subscriptions = flop.
I forwarded this post to Apple and they have scrapped their Apple TV plans entirely. They said, "Dagamer34, thanks for the keen insight. That is the direction we were going, but have now reconsidered based on this prophetic post. Big ups to you."
TV shows aren't widely torrented because 1. Most people dont know how to, 2. Its easy to catch a show on a networks website, on demand, DVR, on iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, etc... A TV show is not like music, a song will be heard over and over but a TV will be watched once maybe twice. Good luck getting anyone to agree with selling shows for $.99. Advertising pays for TV shows unlike music where the consumer does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.
The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.
There is 8GB of flash storage on the aTV. The aTV is probably more capable a console as-is in comparison to the Wii if it had controllers.
Porting many existing iOS games wouldn't be hard. Shooters and RPGs for example.