The only way I see an apple TV succeeding is to include full access to the iOS ecosystem. Otherwise, it is really not very different from what is in the market now coupled with a Xbox 360, PS3, Roku, or Apple TV. But if it includes iOS along with a iPad like remote control that would bring value and file a nice niche.
I just downloaded a fun little game yesterday on my iPhone based on the show, Are you smarter than a 5h grader. That is a perfect example of how an Apple TV would do well. On the small iPhone screen, it is easy to accidentally hit the wrong answer. On an Apple TV with a 55" or larger screen it would be easy to read and also answer questions on the remote. I still don't see how they could convince people to abandon satellite or cable boxes though. Americans love to channel surf, not to mention sports, news, and many other channels and shows not covered by Hulu+, Netflix, or any other alternative. I don't see them replacing boxes, and iTunes is far more expensive than Hulu or Netflix if you watch more than a few shows a month.
4. That leaves Mar/Apr as the perfect slot to release something big, like a full Apple TV set. If they announce it end of the year, and release it Mar/Apr, they have all four quarters covered, which makes perfect business sense.
Holiday season is too perfect not to have it out by then, especially since the iPad was updated in March
You know ive said it many times before, but to add my own desires into the iOS ATV speculations...I really hope to see the STB become more like a combo between the time capsule and the current ATV with a full iOS. That way, you would have a home server and relinquish the pc from managing your iTunes. Then, the pc becomes just another device to sync your media (i.e. iLife) with. Think of it as an iTunes/iLife server for your home. Had they not used the name already, a perfect name for that would be "mission control". Or even iVault. Plus then that data could additionally be sync'd with iCould.
This would make a lot of sense IMO. Heck, with the exception of personal docs other than media, this kind of device would be all one household would need to manage their photos, music, movies, TV shows and apps, maybe even documents as well. It could sync with all your devices and wirelessly transfer media back and forth. If it had streaming content via a type of TV/cable service, it could transfer that info via an ATV app for your portable iOS devices, etc. the possiblies of this would be huge, to quote the Donald...not that I like the guy, but it seem the applicable quote.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
To add to my previous post... I know what many might say about the home sever/ATV, "then buy a Mac Mini". Great idea, however the UI of OS X is not conducive to lounging on the sofa, nor is the desktop landscape something that blends well with lounging either. Additionally, a Mac mini wouldn't really seamlessly sync with all our devices as fluidly as a modified ATV-like UI would if it were developed as specifically a home server environment.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
I basically agree with you. Add another issue: I personally don't see any way that Apple can avoid infringing on someone's IP, and if it's Samsung's they probably won't say a thing about it before filing for an injunction (or exclusion order) once the product is ready to ship. The big upside that makes the likely legal problems worth the hassle to Apple by offering a standalone TV isn't really clear to me.
The more I see what nintendo has planned and what apple has planned I really think these two companies should work together. I feel they have a lot of the same philosophy when it comes to product design.
I agree in part but I think Sony is more relevant to Apple. Sony is unifying it's products and service to work with each other, i.e. Sony Entertainment Network and PlayStation, just as Apple has done. Additionally, Sony and Apple share the same design philosophy. Initially, Apple sought design inspiration from Sony and now Sony seeks design inspiration from Apple.
If they'd just open up an app store for the current Apple TV unit's they'd steal the market. No reason to build a TV, leave that to Samsung.
Agree, TV hardware is not the way to go. It is content access on demand where the revolution in TV will come, not in hardware. Apple could do something new with hardware as well but without the ability to offer control over the content there would not be a big swing towards any new hardware.
I could see Apple doing something new with screens like counter top screens or wall mounted glass screens with touch or motion interfaces but again without control of the TV content these would just be computers in a new form factor.
People need to be able to dump cable TV and subscribe to just the channels they want and watch that content on demand and watch any movie they want on demand. Then over the air broadcast HD can be worked into the mix for local channels.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
Well, to rebutt on the remote argument, let's play devils advocate and say you own an iTunes account but don't own an iOS device, like the iPad, touch or phone. If apple wants to sell an ATV STB to them, they have to include a remote. Not to mention I find the remote app more cumbersome than even the silly alum. remote. First ou have to slide to unlock and then open the app, if you haven't already. Then, when you are browsing and you are reading or not using the remote, it sleeps and you have to wake it up again. It just doesn't work as seemlessly as a dedicated remote. Even if they update the current remote with a touch enabled device, it would need to be instant on with no unlock or anything, more like touch for "on", or at least. Home button with no unlock.
I'd say if such an update occurs, it surely won't be a nearly 8" touchscreen.
I agree an all-in-one device makes little sense right now, unless Apple has the content side wrapped up pretty tightly and seemlessly. But judging by the current set of rumors about content negotiations, it say that side of the deal is pretty far off. Not to mention they have figured out how to get the device to talk with all your other HT equipment seamlessly. They have to assume at the very least that people are going to want to hook up some of their existing HT equipment. Maybe not a BD play but at the very least a receiver and surround sound speakers. Something tells me that's not quite resolved yet either.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
A box can not switch itself to be the current input source on your TV. Seems like a simple thing, but when you throw a home theatre receiver into the mix, a lot of people have trouble.
Extra for remote: hot everyone will have an iDevice to be a remote.
Apps on TV, again, not everyone owns an iDevice, or it's being used elsewhere. I'm not going to go find my iPad to look up tomorrow's weather when the TV should be able to show it to me.
Motion Control? Its the remote re-imagined. The revolutionary iCharades. You act it out - the TV delivers. Combined with a motion sensor so the minute you enter the room it turns on and when you leave it goes to sleep. No need to speak, or look for the remote - all you need to do is act.
Well, to rebutt on the remote argument, let's play devils advocate and say you own an iTunes account but don't own an iOS device, like the iPad, touch or phone. If apple wants to sell an ATV STB to them, they have to include a remote.
Absolutely! That's fine! Sure, they have to include a remote.
They already make one. It's pretty impressive, and it's darn beautiful. It's already the antithesis to all other remote controls.
Quote:
Not to mention I find the remote app more cumbersome than even the silly alum. remote. First ou have to slide to unlock and then open the app, if you haven't already. Then, when you are browsing and you are reading or not using the remote, it sleeps and you have to wake it up again. It just doesn't work as seemlessly as a dedicated remote.
Obviously there would be a considerable update to the remote software, including sleep prevention.
But that still doesn't address the issue at hand: apps. There's no explanation for why the TV hardware needs to have apps jammed on it when the apps can be on iDevices.
You mentioned 'someone with an Apple ID but no iDevices'. That's a customer. For the iDevices.
Why would Apple NOT want to sell their own hardware? Why would Apple want to provide someone with the hardware (touchscreen "remote control") for extraneous features when they could use a real remote control (cheap as peas) and then buy an iDevice and stream apps from that like they always have?
A box can not switch itself to be the current input source on your TV. Seems like a simple thing, but when you throw a home theatre receiver into the mix, a lot of people have trouble.
Extra for remote: hot everyone will have an iDevice to be a remote.
Apps on TV, again, not everyone owns an iDevice, or it's being used elsewhere. I'm not going to go find my iPad to look up tomorrow's weather when the TV should be able to show it to me.
Good points, however the iPad dropped 6 native apps from its pad-top...including the weather app. So you have to surf in the app store or a carp-tastic array of Luke-warm alternatives, that are over-complicated. I have managed to find nearly carbon copies of calculator and clock. But not for stocks or weather. I could care less about the VC and compass apps. I'm not one to carry my iPad out unless on travels abroad or national, then even it sits in the hotel room, since I have a more portable version...iPhone.
Absolutely! That's fine! Sure, they have to include a remote.
They already make one. It's pretty impressive, and it's darn beautiful. It's already the antithesis to all other remote controls.
My remote, which came with my cable box, controls both the TV and the cable box station selection as well as the signal inputs so I can easily switch to my aTV or my over the air signal. And I don't have to look at it since I know where all the buttons are by feel. If had to use my iPhone as a remote, I would have to put on my glasses, unlock the screen, launch an app, navigate to some onscreen button to simply change the volume slightly. Antithesis indeed!.
My remote, which came with my cable box, controls both the TV and the cable box station selection as well as the signal inputs so I can easily switch to my aTV or my over the air signal.
What about HDMI 1.5? Where a remote can control all connected devices?
I see motion control and a 7.85" 4:3 remote control tablet as cracking up not cracking it. Siri would make a lot more sense for rapid setup and access than waving your arms around. or using a remote you can't easily hold in one hand.
Motion Control? Its the remote re-imagined. The revolutionary iCharades. You act it out - the TV delivers. Combined with a motion sensor so the minute you enter the room it turns on and when you leave it goes to sleep. No need to speak, or look for the remote - all you need to do is act.
That sounds a lot like what Ray Bradbury imagined in Fahrenheit 451.
What about HDMI 1.5? Where a remote can control all connected devices?
Or was that just a theory…
I have no idea, I'm not an expert in emerging tech only pointing out that I do not want an iPhone app as the means to do simple things quickly like mute, pause, change the channel, adjust the volume etc. I like having a dedicated remote with real tactile buttons. My iPhone is usually in my pocket or on the nightstand in my bedroom. Neither place is very convenient for controlling the TV in addition to my preference for the tactile part. The TV remote stays on the coffee table and even the housekeeper knows how to operate it so she can watch/listen to her soaps (while working) when I am at the office with my iPhone. In that scenario we would need two different remotes anyway. iPhone just makes zero sense as a TV remote for my typical usage.
But that still doesn't address the issue at hand: apps. There's no explanation for why the TV hardware needs to have apps jammed on it when the apps can be on iDevices.
You mentioned 'someone with an Apple ID but no iDevices'. That's a customer. For the iDevices.
Why would Apple NOT want to sell their own hardware? Why would Apple want to provide someone with the hardware (touchscreen "remote control") for extraneous features when they could use a real remote control (cheap as peas) and then buy an iDevice and stream apps from that like they always have?
Here's one explanation, and this works the same for a STB or a full TV:
What if you looked at the ATV as just one more device in the iOS line-up? Just like the iPad, iPhone/Touch, even the iPod nano, they all have certain specific apps that are custom build for that one particular device. Many people claimed (including myself) that the iPad is just a bigger iPod touch. Well, we are all eating our words after the amazing success and actually experiencing the device first-hand, with apps specifically made for the large screen real estate. What makes the scenario of the 40"-55" Screen size any different? Just think of the massive amounts of game apps, informational apps, media apps, etc. That could be developed to work only on a TV-sized screen...
Sure some apps could cross-over devices, but maybe not all. Some media companies might just negotiate that their app only work on the ATV, for whatever reason.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I was secondly thinking Nintendo. I was firstly thinking this was horse-shit which just magically happens to come up the day of WWDC.
Or maybe an MX Air like control, we have one at work and this works quite well.
The only way I see an apple TV succeeding is to include full access to the iOS ecosystem. Otherwise, it is really not very different from what is in the market now coupled with a Xbox 360, PS3, Roku, or Apple TV. But if it includes iOS along with a iPad like remote control that would bring value and file a nice niche.
I just downloaded a fun little game yesterday on my iPhone based on the show, Are you smarter than a 5h grader. That is a perfect example of how an Apple TV would do well. On the small iPhone screen, it is easy to accidentally hit the wrong answer. On an Apple TV with a 55" or larger screen it would be easy to read and also answer questions on the remote. I still don't see how they could convince people to abandon satellite or cable boxes though. Americans love to channel surf, not to mention sports, news, and many other channels and shows not covered by Hulu+, Netflix, or any other alternative. I don't see them replacing boxes, and iTunes is far more expensive than Hulu or Netflix if you watch more than a few shows a month.
Holiday season is too perfect not to have it out by then, especially since the iPad was updated in March
Oh and no on the plastic. This isn't Dell.
Yea ok, and no one else had the motion control idea before Apple. Remember Apple excels at what already exists and making it better.
This would make a lot of sense IMO. Heck, with the exception of personal docs other than media, this kind of device would be all one household would need to manage their photos, music, movies, TV shows and apps, maybe even documents as well. It could sync with all your devices and wirelessly transfer media back and forth. If it had streaming content via a type of TV/cable service, it could transfer that info via an ATV app for your portable iOS devices, etc. the possiblies of this would be huge, to quote the Donald...not that I like the guy, but it seem the applicable quote.
Heres to wishful thinking, eh?
This is just so much crap.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
I know what many might say about the home sever/ATV, "then buy a Mac Mini".
Great idea, however the UI of OS X is not conducive to lounging on the sofa, nor is the desktop landscape something that blends well with lounging either. Additionally, a Mac mini wouldn't really seamlessly sync with all our devices as fluidly as a modified ATV-like UI would if it were developed as specifically a home server environment.
Just thought I'd add that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is just so much crap.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
I basically agree with you. Add another issue: I personally don't see any way that Apple can avoid infringing on someone's IP, and if it's Samsung's they probably won't say a thing about it before filing for an injunction (or exclusion order) once the product is ready to ship. The big upside that makes the likely legal problems worth the hassle to Apple by offering a standalone TV isn't really clear to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majortom1981
The more I see what nintendo has planned and what apple has planned I really think these two companies should work together. I feel they have a lot of the same philosophy when it comes to product design.
I agree in part but I think Sony is more relevant to Apple. Sony is unifying it's products and service to work with each other, i.e. Sony Entertainment Network and PlayStation, just as Apple has done. Additionally, Sony and Apple share the same design philosophy. Initially, Apple sought design inspiration from Sony and now Sony seeks design inspiration from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
If they'd just open up an app store for the current Apple TV unit's they'd steal the market. No reason to build a TV, leave that to Samsung.
Agree, TV hardware is not the way to go. It is content access on demand where the revolution in TV will come, not in hardware. Apple could do something new with hardware as well but without the ability to offer control over the content there would not be a big swing towards any new hardware.
I could see Apple doing something new with screens like counter top screens or wall mounted glass screens with touch or motion interfaces but again without control of the TV content these would just be computers in a new form factor.
People need to be able to dump cable TV and subscribe to just the channels they want and watch that content on demand and watch any movie they want on demand. Then over the air broadcast HD can be worked into the mix for local channels.
I'd say if such an update occurs, it surely won't be a nearly 8" touchscreen.
I agree an all-in-one device makes little sense right now, unless Apple has the content side wrapped up pretty tightly and seemlessly. But judging by the current set of rumors about content negotiations, it say that side of the deal is pretty far off. Not to mention they have figured out how to get the device to talk with all your other HT equipment seamlessly. They have to assume at the very least that people are going to want to hook up some of their existing HT equipment. Maybe not a BD play but at the very least a receiver and surround sound speakers. Something tells me that's not quite resolved yet either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This is just so much crap.
There's still no explanation for what a TV can do that a box cannot in ANY regard.
There is still no explanation for why we'd waste an extra $100 on the REMOTE when we can just use our existing iDevices for ANY extra possible control.
There is still no explanation for why apps have any right to be on the TV's hardware when AirPlay exists.
A box can not switch itself to be the current input source on your TV. Seems like a simple thing, but when you throw a home theatre receiver into the mix, a lot of people have trouble.
Extra for remote: hot everyone will have an iDevice to be a remote.
Apps on TV, again, not everyone owns an iDevice, or it's being used elsewhere. I'm not going to go find my iPad to look up tomorrow's weather when the TV should be able to show it to me.
Motion Control? Its the remote re-imagined. The revolutionary iCharades. You act it out - the TV delivers. Combined with a motion sensor so the minute you enter the room it turns on and when you leave it goes to sleep. No need to speak, or look for the remote - all you need to do is act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
Well, to rebutt on the remote argument, let's play devils advocate and say you own an iTunes account but don't own an iOS device, like the iPad, touch or phone. If apple wants to sell an ATV STB to them, they have to include a remote.
Absolutely! That's fine! Sure, they have to include a remote.
They already make one. It's pretty impressive, and it's darn beautiful. It's already the antithesis to all other remote controls.
Quote:
Not to mention I find the remote app more cumbersome than even the silly alum. remote. First ou have to slide to unlock and then open the app, if you haven't already. Then, when you are browsing and you are reading or not using the remote, it sleeps and you have to wake it up again. It just doesn't work as seemlessly as a dedicated remote.
Obviously there would be a considerable update to the remote software, including sleep prevention.
But that still doesn't address the issue at hand: apps. There's no explanation for why the TV hardware needs to have apps jammed on it when the apps can be on iDevices.
You mentioned 'someone with an Apple ID but no iDevices'. That's a customer. For the iDevices.
Why would Apple NOT want to sell their own hardware? Why would Apple want to provide someone with the hardware (touchscreen "remote control") for extraneous features when they could use a real remote control (cheap as peas) and then buy an iDevice and stream apps from that like they always have?
Good points, however the iPad dropped 6 native apps from its pad-top...including the weather app. So you have to surf in the app store or a carp-tastic array of Luke-warm alternatives, that are over-complicated. I have managed to find nearly carbon copies of calculator and clock. But not for stocks or weather. I could care less about the VC and compass apps. I'm not one to carry my iPad out unless on travels abroad or national, then even it sits in the hotel room, since I have a more portable version...iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Absolutely! That's fine! Sure, they have to include a remote.
They already make one. It's pretty impressive, and it's darn beautiful. It's already the antithesis to all other remote controls.
My remote, which came with my cable box, controls both the TV and the cable box station selection as well as the signal inputs so I can easily switch to my aTV or my over the air signal. And I don't have to look at it since I know where all the buttons are by feel. If had to use my iPhone as a remote, I would have to put on my glasses, unlock the screen, launch an app, navigate to some onscreen button to simply change the volume slightly. Antithesis indeed!.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
My remote, which came with my cable box, controls both the TV and the cable box station selection as well as the signal inputs so I can easily switch to my aTV or my over the air signal.
What about HDMI 1.5? Where a remote can control all connected devices?
Or was that just a theory…
That sounds a lot like what Ray Bradbury imagined in Fahrenheit 451.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What about HDMI 1.5? Where a remote can control all connected devices?
Or was that just a theory…
I have no idea, I'm not an expert in emerging tech only pointing out that I do not want an iPhone app as the means to do simple things quickly like mute, pause, change the channel, adjust the volume etc. I like having a dedicated remote with real tactile buttons. My iPhone is usually in my pocket or on the nightstand in my bedroom. Neither place is very convenient for controlling the TV in addition to my preference for the tactile part. The TV remote stays on the coffee table and even the housekeeper knows how to operate it so she can watch/listen to her soaps (while working) when I am at the office with my iPhone. In that scenario we would need two different remotes anyway. iPhone just makes zero sense as a TV remote for my typical usage.
Here's one explanation, and this works the same for a STB or a full TV:
What if you looked at the ATV as just one more device in the iOS line-up? Just like the iPad, iPhone/Touch, even the iPod nano, they all have certain specific apps that are custom build for that one particular device. Many people claimed (including myself) that the iPad is just a bigger iPod touch. Well, we are all eating our words after the amazing success and actually experiencing the device first-hand, with apps specifically made for the large screen real estate. What makes the scenario of the 40"-55" Screen size any different? Just think of the massive amounts of game apps, informational apps, media apps, etc. That could be developed to work only on a TV-sized screen...
Sure some apps could cross-over devices, but maybe not all. Some media companies might just negotiate that their app only work on the ATV, for whatever reason.