Tivo has Tivo-desktop for the Mac. It is a download that appears in your system folder in OS X. You can download it from Apple's site. The features with this software allow you to pull pictures, movies and songs to your tivo and thus tv. It is a response to the Windows Media Edition OS from MicroSoft.
Connecting the TV (largest screen in most households) to the computer is making the TV a more active device isnt it? You could play games or watch Quicktime trailers and other content on a 27"+ Screen instead on a 15-19" monitor. I think these screen sizes are realistic. 27" TV's are cheep and 20" + monitors are expensive. It also could make Apple LOTS of money, similar to the iTunes music store applied to Video, everything from Movies to syndicated TV shows. Having an external device like TiVo may not be Steves preference, but it makes sense to take a modular approach that can be upgraded over time and keep individual component cost down. It also keeps the Computer a central Hub networked to devices which do the "work" for their specific task instead of draining resources from the CPU....
Correct. He's actually talked publicly about this before -- something about using the computer and the digital hub being "active" and watching TV being "passive".
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
After all, the TV and telephone have the greatest penetration of all consumer (digital, we're not counting beds here) products. Anything that ties to either of those two products and demonstrates an "I must have it quality" could rival the success of the iPod.
--edit, let me add one thing: as I realized that Steve's comment may have been taken out of context; if he realizes the importance of the TV in the market, and is open to ideas that could capitilize on it (assuming there was a good product fit) then I don't think he is a moron. However, if he would totally ignore a good idea that his people come up with because of his personal dislike for the TV, then my original opinion (in my own mind) stands.
Thank you. That's exactly the quote I was trying to think of.
I think Jobs said this in order to crush rumors about an Apple settop box that would allow a user to surf the net and perform other computing tasks (brainy stuff) on a TV. But watching videos, iMovies or iPhoto albums (non-brainy stuff) on your TV via Tivo and your Mac is a different idea. So the mentioned quote does not apply to what could become another link on Apple's Digital Hub strategy.
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
Having a vision for a piece of technology means that you see it filling a particular role, and that means that you see it not filling another role. I know that marketers are incapable of understanding that marketing is not the only metric by which all endeavours should be measured, but it's true. Steve is not stupid to stick to what he has a passion for, because his passion is what drives Apple's legendary ease of use and attention to detail.
Apples have always been pitched at sparking or enabling creativity. That's why Apple has always been keen for the educational market. TV is passive in every sense, and while its penetration into American households is amazing, that doesn't mean there's much you can do with it. Except for HDTV, which is still catching on, TV has poor resolution and poor fidelity regardless of screen size (which is why a 20" monitor is so much more expensive than a 20" TV), and it's not geared to do anything other than show you given images in rapid succession.
Calling Steve an idiot for not piggybacking on television is like calling him an idiot for not piggybacking on radio, or newspapers. Yes, they're all everywhere, but they're purely consumption-oriented, low-quality and single-purpose. There's not all that much you can do with them, especially if you want to create a platform for creative work. The few things you can do with them are roadblocked by the greed and paranoia of the content creators, who want absolute control over what people do and don't do with the kitsch they distribute.
Apple is currently, silently, undermining conventional, centralized musical distribution (including radio). I'd be much more interested in their attempt to pull the rug out from under television than in some attempt to accomodate it as it currently exists. There's a reason it's called the "idiot box."
I was in the Grove store yesterday and asked the salesgirl if it was true about Apple stores carrying Tivos. She looked at me like I was crazy and said "of course not." I showed her the MacMinte article and then another slaes guy said "Oh yeah we have those, they came in today." I asked for more info and he went to check with the manager. When he came back he had completely changed his tune. "Ah, we don't when we're going to sell them or how much they are."
Seems like the the Tivo rollout is a little haphazard.
The 'iFrame' discussions have been quiet of late but this could conceivably fit in. Time-shifting programs so that you can watch them on your iMac or iFrame; I'd buy that for a dollar.
Steve will want to sell you movies over the internet in a year or so's time once the success of iTMS has been established and Steve is officially "Saviour of the Music Business". Of course bandwidth is a bit of a problem, however you could broadcast an encrypted film on the 'Apple/TiVO channel that can be watched on three registered iMacs or unlimited "iFrames"
Movies over the Internet will never have the same penetration that music does.
Movies are typically 90 minutes long and watched in one long viewing. We don't create movie playlists or compilation scenes. There is some value in the ability to receive a movie "On Demand" but that will remain quite small in comparison to music which so much more deeply woven into daily life. We listen to Music in the morning on the way to work, we listen to it at work(if we're lucky) and finally at home.
What consumers want from TV is efficiency. We want to be able to extract the Cream from the Crop. We want to cut out useless commercials and regain %20 of our time back in many cases. We want to maximise our investment in Cable or Satellite systems and get our moneys worth.
If Apple can Partner with Tivo to do that I'm all for it.
Having a vision for a piece of technology means that you see it filling a particular role, and that means that you see it not filling another role. I know that marketers are incapable of understanding that marketing is not the only metric by which all endeavours should be measured, but it's true. Steve is not stupid to stick to what he has a passion for, because his passion is what drives Apple's legendary ease of use and attention to detail.
That statement is a little too sweeping in its generalization; let's remember, at heart Steve is a true marketer, he just happens to have a vision we all like.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Apples have always been pitched at sparking or enabling creativity. That's why Apple has always been keen for the educational market. TV is passive in every sense, and while its penetration into American households is amazing, that doesn't mean there's much you can do with it. Except for HDTV, which is still catching on, TV has poor resolution and poor fidelity regardless of screen size (which is why a 20" monitor is so much more expensive than a 20" TV), and it's not geared to do anything other than show you given images in rapid succession.
Maybe, maybe not. Most people think there is not much that can be done with something until someone comes along with a great idea. Wasn't it HP that thought Woz's "personal computer" would be an utter flop, and let him keep ownership of his idea?
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Calling Steve an idiot for not piggybacking on television is like calling him an idiot for not piggybacking on radio, or newspapers. Yes, they're all everywhere, but they're purely consumption-oriented, low-quality and single-purpose. There's not all that much you can do with them, especially if you want to create a platform for creative work. The few things you can do with them are roadblocked by the greed and paranoia of the content creators, who want absolute control over what people do and don't do with the kitsch they distribute.
Here is where we don't see eye-to-eye: I don't think Steve is an idiot or stupid; after all, he wouldn't be where he is. Further, I didn't say he should piggyback on radio/TV.
However, if any leader of a company was presented an idea from his/her people (not that TIVO is a good idea, that wasn't the point of my post) and they cast it out because of their personal beliefs (let's keep this within the realm of reason and avoid the obvious immoral, unethical, or illegal ideas) without considering how it would fit with the company's core capabilities, current/future marketing, strategy for the company, then that leader would be deserving of the label moron IMHO.
TIVO or a TIVO-like product may not be a good fit for Apple and their strategy. However every product that may be a good fit should be analyzed with a critical eye and not cast aside for blatantly personal reasons.
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple is currently, silently, undermining conventional, centralized musical distribution (including radio). I'd be much more interested in their attempt to pull the rug out from under television than in some attempt to accomodate it as it currently exists. There's a reason it's called the "idiot box."
The music thing is a great idea, and if Apple had a similar idea that tied into TV, then it should be pursued if it fits the company's strategy. Just calling it an "idiot box" and casting it aside shows a lack of vision.
We want to cut out useless commercials and regain %20 of our time back in many cases.
A problem with this is the pricing model of TV. We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access. If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al. That's the double-edged sword about commercials, we want to skip them, but if technology truly rendered them useless, then we would be paying a lot more to watch TV.
Of course I'm all for something that lets me skip commercials without destabilizing the pricing model: I want my cake and eat it to
We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access.
That's what the Content Providers want consumers to believe but it's false. The payments consumers make for Cable Televison are indeed funding them whether it be by Proxy or not. Their logic would seem to make it legal and ethical to run a "Black Box" since you haven't cost THEM anything you just bypassed the "Access Provider". See the conundrum here?
Quote:
If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al. That's the double-edged sword about commercials, we want to skip them, but if technology truly rendered them useless, then we would be paying a lot more to watch TV.
I find it odd that no Network has tried to offer even the choice of no advertising on standard channels. Honestly? How precious is your time. I would consider paying an increased premium to have NO commercials. It's the 21st Century..I think it's about time to find better ways of adverstising. Many people grow weary of being a Captive Audience to commercials on the "Idiot Box".
That statement is a little too sweeping in its generalization; let's remember, at heart Steve is a true marketer, he just happens to have a vision we all like.
I see it the other way: He has a strong vision for technology in general and computers in particular, and the combination of his conviction and his innate charisma makes him a good marketer.
That's why MItch Mandich was the only person in Apple's crackerjack executive team to be given his walking papers since Steve assembled them: Marketing is a means for Steve, not an end.
Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. Most people think there is not much that can be done with something until someone comes along with a great idea. Wasn't it HP that thought Woz's "personal computer" would be an utter flop, and let him keep ownership of his idea?
Sure. But no such thing existed at the time. The television exists, and its capabilities are well enough established at this point that a multi-billion dollar industry has been built around them. Those attempts to reuse it that have succeeded (video game consoles, VCRs) have played to its narrow and limited strengths.
Quote:
Here is where we don't see eye-to-eye: I don't think Steve is an idiot or stupid; after all, he wouldn't be where he is. Further, I didn't say he should piggyback on radio/TV.
However, if any leader of a company was presented an idea from his/her people (not that TIVO is a good idea, that wasn't the point of my post) and they cast it out because of their personal beliefs (let's keep this within the realm of reason and avoid the obvious immoral, unethical, or illegal ideas) without considering how it would fit with the company's core capabilities, current/future marketing, strategy for the company, then that leader would be deserving of the label moron IMHO.
Sorry, but this looks like backtracking. You said he'd be an idiot for ignoring the television, and that's what I responded to. An idiot is an idiot.
Now, Steve actually went and did this when he came on board. Zillions of pet projects and aimless wanderings were stopped, and steered Apple back to its original mission, which is building a great platform. Now, there's clear evidence that he has done exactly what you want him to do: Apple's late, but nevertheless impressive, foray into music. It can be difficult to steer him in a new direction, if the anecdotes are any indication, but that just means that he has a clear idea of how things should be, and if you want him to change direction you'd better have a damn good argument. Marketing is extremely susceptible to what a friend of mine calls Notion's Syndrome, and he clearly has no patience with that. This is not an unambiguously Good Thing; nor is it an unambiguously Bad Thing. Whether a trait is advantageous or not is entirely dependent on the situation. By and large, I think Steve's stubborness has served Apple well, even if it means they've been late to a few parties.
I note that, over all the years, no-one has changed Steve's mind about television, and sofar he's been borne out. A few years ago, everyone questioned his competence and vision because he didn't see everything centering around the television. Well, nothing did, because the only people who wanted the television at the center of everything were suits who wanted a faster and more reliable way into people's pocketbooks. The television business' idea of "interactivity" is clicking on Ally McBeal's shirt to order it - so why is Steve's attitude toward television at all surprising?
Now, the TiVo is definitely more consumer oriented than that, which accounts for its popularity. However, by your own description, Apple should only consider television if they can find a way to make it fit into their vision, and Apple's vision is creation. It has been since before the Mac was a gleam in Jef Raskin's eye. So, how do you turn television into something creative? Into something that can be molded to suit the end user's whim? More to the point, how do you do that without the media moguls (I said "content creators" in my last post, and that was an egregious error: I should have said "content publishers") lining up outside 1 Infinite Loop with pitchforks and torches?
TIVo does make a decent first stab by allowing people to watch shows on their own schedule rather than someone else's. This is definitely a good thing, and a step toward mooting the whole idea of passive, central broadcasting. What I'm hoping for is something that not only reorganizes television into something like the iTunes Music Store, complete with previews, but which turns the source material into putty for iMovie, similar to the way that music purchased with iTunes can be used for personal creative work. That's the only way I can see to reconcile Apple and television, and the obstacles here would be political, not technical.
Quote:
TIVO or a TIVO-like product may not be a good fit for Apple and their strategy. However every product that may be a good fit should be analyzed with a critical eye and not cast aside for blatantly personal reasons.
None of us can possibly know whether or why Steve rejected the strategy you're calling him an idiot (or not calling him an idiot ) for rejecting, so this statement is basically meaningless. Unless you bug his office, it's all speculation.
Quote:
if Apple had a similar idea that tied into TV, then it should be pursued if it fits the company's strategy. Just calling it an "idiot box" and casting it aside shows a lack of vision.
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that it is an "idiot box" and imagining that it's capable of something that it's not capable of shows a lack of vision as well - and I mean a more basic sort of "vision." Television is a passive, numbing entertainment medium by design. The whole industry is built around that assumption.
I find it odd that no Network has tried to offer even the choice of no advertising on standard channels. Honestly? How precious is your time. I would consider paying an increased premium to have NO commercials. It's the 21st Century..I think it's about time to find better ways of adverstising. Many people grow weary of being a Captive Audience to commercials on the "Idiot Box".
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
You would see just the straight 22 minutes of video edited to be commercial free. This would come over a seperate feed. Moving to Digital has allowed the "Proveribial" 500 channels. Why not have commercial free television. What's 2-4 hrs of your time worth? To many that's a substantial $$$$ amount. Of course Sports and other live shows that have required breaks would be exempt.
Currently the Content Providers idea of "Premium" Cable is to toss more shows at you. But the fact is we have enough shows. It is Time that we don't have and cannot modify.
Comments
Has anyone tried this?
http://www.macminute.com/2003/05/23/tivo
QTTV, anyone, anyone?
Screed
with rendevous and the home media option for TiVos I would say this is another thing that works great with macs....
You go to your computer to turn your brain on."
- Steve Jobs, quoted in Fortune Magazine
Originally posted by Brad
Correct. He's actually talked publicly about this before -- something about using the computer and the digital hub being "active" and watching TV being "passive".
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
After all, the TV and telephone have the greatest penetration of all consumer (digital, we're not counting beds here) products. Anything that ties to either of those two products and demonstrates an "I must have it quality" could rival the success of the iPod.
--edit, let me add one thing: as I realized that Steve's comment may have been taken out of context; if he realizes the importance of the TV in the market, and is open to ideas that could capitilize on it (assuming there was a good product fit) then I don't think he is a moron. However, if he would totally ignore a good idea that his people come up with because of his personal dislike for the TV, then my original opinion (in my own mind) stands.
Originally posted by curiousuburb
"You go to your TV to turn your brain off.
You go to your computer to turn your brain on."
- Steve Jobs, quoted in Fortune Magazine
Thank you. That's exactly the quote I was trying to think of.
Originally posted by Brad
Thank you. That's exactly the quote I was trying to think of.
I think Jobs said this in order to crush rumors about an Apple settop box that would allow a user to surf the net and perform other computing tasks (brainy stuff) on a TV. But watching videos, iMovies or iPhoto albums (non-brainy stuff) on your TV via Tivo and your Mac is a different idea. So the mentioned quote does not apply to what could become another link on Apple's Digital Hub strategy.
Originally posted by fuzz_ball
Then Steve must be a moron IMHO...sad, as I previously thought he was a marketing genius. <sigh>oh well, all great figures have a fatal flaw somewhere; call it a black-hole in vision.
Having a vision for a piece of technology means that you see it filling a particular role, and that means that you see it not filling another role. I know that marketers are incapable of understanding that marketing is not the only metric by which all endeavours should be measured, but it's true. Steve is not stupid to stick to what he has a passion for, because his passion is what drives Apple's legendary ease of use and attention to detail.
Apples have always been pitched at sparking or enabling creativity. That's why Apple has always been keen for the educational market. TV is passive in every sense, and while its penetration into American households is amazing, that doesn't mean there's much you can do with it. Except for HDTV, which is still catching on, TV has poor resolution and poor fidelity regardless of screen size (which is why a 20" monitor is so much more expensive than a 20" TV), and it's not geared to do anything other than show you given images in rapid succession.
Calling Steve an idiot for not piggybacking on television is like calling him an idiot for not piggybacking on radio, or newspapers. Yes, they're all everywhere, but they're purely consumption-oriented, low-quality and single-purpose. There's not all that much you can do with them, especially if you want to create a platform for creative work. The few things you can do with them are roadblocked by the greed and paranoia of the content creators, who want absolute control over what people do and don't do with the kitsch they distribute.
Apple is currently, silently, undermining conventional, centralized musical distribution (including radio). I'd be much more interested in their attempt to pull the rug out from under television than in some attempt to accomodate it as it currently exists. There's a reason it's called the "idiot box."
Seems like the the Tivo rollout is a little haphazard.
Originally posted by Amorph
Having a vision for a piece of technology means that you see it filling a particular role... [snipped very good post]
Thank you. That's exactly the explanation I was thinking of.
Steve will want to sell you movies over the internet in a year or so's time once the success of iTMS has been established and Steve is officially "Saviour of the Music Business". Of course bandwidth is a bit of a problem, however you could broadcast an encrypted film on the 'Apple/TiVO channel that can be watched on three registered iMacs or unlimited "iFrames"
Movies are typically 90 minutes long and watched in one long viewing. We don't create movie playlists or compilation scenes. There is some value in the ability to receive a movie "On Demand" but that will remain quite small in comparison to music which so much more deeply woven into daily life. We listen to Music in the morning on the way to work, we listen to it at work(if we're lucky) and finally at home.
What consumers want from TV is efficiency. We want to be able to extract the Cream from the Crop. We want to cut out useless commercials and regain %20 of our time back in many cases. We want to maximise our investment in Cable or Satellite systems and get our moneys worth.
If Apple can Partner with Tivo to do that I'm all for it.
Originally posted by Amorph
Having a vision for a piece of technology means that you see it filling a particular role, and that means that you see it not filling another role. I know that marketers are incapable of understanding that marketing is not the only metric by which all endeavours should be measured, but it's true. Steve is not stupid to stick to what he has a passion for, because his passion is what drives Apple's legendary ease of use and attention to detail.
That statement is a little too sweeping in its generalization; let's remember, at heart Steve is a true marketer, he just happens to have a vision we all like.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apples have always been pitched at sparking or enabling creativity. That's why Apple has always been keen for the educational market. TV is passive in every sense, and while its penetration into American households is amazing, that doesn't mean there's much you can do with it. Except for HDTV, which is still catching on, TV has poor resolution and poor fidelity regardless of screen size (which is why a 20" monitor is so much more expensive than a 20" TV), and it's not geared to do anything other than show you given images in rapid succession.
Maybe, maybe not. Most people think there is not much that can be done with something until someone comes along with a great idea. Wasn't it HP that thought Woz's "personal computer" would be an utter flop, and let him keep ownership of his idea?
Originally posted by Amorph
Calling Steve an idiot for not piggybacking on television is like calling him an idiot for not piggybacking on radio, or newspapers. Yes, they're all everywhere, but they're purely consumption-oriented, low-quality and single-purpose. There's not all that much you can do with them, especially if you want to create a platform for creative work. The few things you can do with them are roadblocked by the greed and paranoia of the content creators, who want absolute control over what people do and don't do with the kitsch they distribute.
Here is where we don't see eye-to-eye: I don't think Steve is an idiot or stupid; after all, he wouldn't be where he is. Further, I didn't say he should piggyback on radio/TV.
However, if any leader of a company was presented an idea from his/her people (not that TIVO is a good idea, that wasn't the point of my post) and they cast it out because of their personal beliefs (let's keep this within the realm of reason and avoid the obvious immoral, unethical, or illegal ideas) without considering how it would fit with the company's core capabilities, current/future marketing, strategy for the company, then that leader would be deserving of the label moron IMHO.
TIVO or a TIVO-like product may not be a good fit for Apple and their strategy. However every product that may be a good fit should be analyzed with a critical eye and not cast aside for blatantly personal reasons.
Originally posted by Amorph
Apple is currently, silently, undermining conventional, centralized musical distribution (including radio). I'd be much more interested in their attempt to pull the rug out from under television than in some attempt to accomodate it as it currently exists. There's a reason it's called the "idiot box."
The music thing is a great idea, and if Apple had a similar idea that tied into TV, then it should be pursued if it fits the company's strategy. Just calling it an "idiot box" and casting it aside shows a lack of vision.
Originally posted by hmurchison
We want to cut out useless commercials and regain %20 of our time back in many cases.
A problem with this is the pricing model of TV. We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access. If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al. That's the double-edged sword about commercials, we want to skip them, but if technology truly rendered them useless, then we would be paying a lot more to watch TV.
Of course I'm all for something that lets me skip commercials without destabilizing the pricing model: I want my cake and eat it to
We don't pay for TV (except for premium channels); we just pay for access.
That's what the Content Providers want consumers to believe but it's false. The payments consumers make for Cable Televison are indeed funding them whether it be by Proxy or not. Their logic would seem to make it legal and ethical to run a "Black Box" since you haven't cost THEM anything you just bypassed the "Access Provider". See the conundrum here?
If something really caught on (Replay TV doesn't count as it hasn't really "caught on") that was effective at skipping commercials then the pricing model could shift and we (consumers) could start having to pay for TV like we pay for HBO, Showtime, et. al. That's the double-edged sword about commercials, we want to skip them, but if technology truly rendered them useless, then we would be paying a lot more to watch TV.
I find it odd that no Network has tried to offer even the choice of no advertising on standard channels. Honestly? How precious is your time. I would consider paying an increased premium to have NO commercials. It's the 21st Century..I think it's about time to find better ways of adverstising. Many people grow weary of being a Captive Audience to commercials on the "Idiot Box".
Originally posted by fuzz_ball
That statement is a little too sweeping in its generalization; let's remember, at heart Steve is a true marketer, he just happens to have a vision we all like.
I see it the other way: He has a strong vision for technology in general and computers in particular, and the combination of his conviction and his innate charisma makes him a good marketer.
That's why MItch Mandich was the only person in Apple's crackerjack executive team to be given his walking papers since Steve assembled them: Marketing is a means for Steve, not an end.
Maybe, maybe not. Most people think there is not much that can be done with something until someone comes along with a great idea. Wasn't it HP that thought Woz's "personal computer" would be an utter flop, and let him keep ownership of his idea?
Sure. But no such thing existed at the time. The television exists, and its capabilities are well enough established at this point that a multi-billion dollar industry has been built around them. Those attempts to reuse it that have succeeded (video game consoles, VCRs) have played to its narrow and limited strengths.
Here is where we don't see eye-to-eye: I don't think Steve is an idiot or stupid; after all, he wouldn't be where he is. Further, I didn't say he should piggyback on radio/TV.
However, if any leader of a company was presented an idea from his/her people (not that TIVO is a good idea, that wasn't the point of my post) and they cast it out because of their personal beliefs (let's keep this within the realm of reason and avoid the obvious immoral, unethical, or illegal ideas) without considering how it would fit with the company's core capabilities, current/future marketing, strategy for the company, then that leader would be deserving of the label moron IMHO.
Sorry, but this looks like backtracking. You said he'd be an idiot for ignoring the television, and that's what I responded to. An idiot is an idiot.
Now, Steve actually went and did this when he came on board. Zillions of pet projects and aimless wanderings were stopped, and steered Apple back to its original mission, which is building a great platform. Now, there's clear evidence that he has done exactly what you want him to do: Apple's late, but nevertheless impressive, foray into music. It can be difficult to steer him in a new direction, if the anecdotes are any indication, but that just means that he has a clear idea of how things should be, and if you want him to change direction you'd better have a damn good argument. Marketing is extremely susceptible to what a friend of mine calls Notion's Syndrome, and he clearly has no patience with that. This is not an unambiguously Good Thing; nor is it an unambiguously Bad Thing. Whether a trait is advantageous or not is entirely dependent on the situation. By and large, I think Steve's stubborness has served Apple well, even if it means they've been late to a few parties.
I note that, over all the years, no-one has changed Steve's mind about television, and sofar he's been borne out. A few years ago, everyone questioned his competence and vision because he didn't see everything centering around the television. Well, nothing did, because the only people who wanted the television at the center of everything were suits who wanted a faster and more reliable way into people's pocketbooks. The television business' idea of "interactivity" is clicking on Ally McBeal's shirt to order it - so why is Steve's attitude toward television at all surprising?
Now, the TiVo is definitely more consumer oriented than that, which accounts for its popularity. However, by your own description, Apple should only consider television if they can find a way to make it fit into their vision, and Apple's vision is creation. It has been since before the Mac was a gleam in Jef Raskin's eye. So, how do you turn television into something creative? Into something that can be molded to suit the end user's whim? More to the point, how do you do that without the media moguls (I said "content creators" in my last post, and that was an egregious error: I should have said "content publishers") lining up outside 1 Infinite Loop with pitchforks and torches?
TIVo does make a decent first stab by allowing people to watch shows on their own schedule rather than someone else's. This is definitely a good thing, and a step toward mooting the whole idea of passive, central broadcasting. What I'm hoping for is something that not only reorganizes television into something like the iTunes Music Store, complete with previews, but which turns the source material into putty for iMovie, similar to the way that music purchased with iTunes can be used for personal creative work. That's the only way I can see to reconcile Apple and television, and the obstacles here would be political, not technical.
TIVO or a TIVO-like product may not be a good fit for Apple and their strategy. However every product that may be a good fit should be analyzed with a critical eye and not cast aside for blatantly personal reasons.
None of us can possibly know whether or why Steve rejected the strategy you're calling him an idiot (or not calling him an idiot
if Apple had a similar idea that tied into TV, then it should be pursued if it fits the company's strategy. Just calling it an "idiot box" and casting it aside shows a lack of vision.
On the other hand, ignoring the fact that it is an "idiot box" and imagining that it's capable of something that it's not capable of shows a lack of vision as well - and I mean a more basic sort of "vision." Television is a passive, numbing entertainment medium by design. The whole industry is built around that assumption.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I find it odd that no Network has tried to offer even the choice of no advertising on standard channels. Honestly? How precious is your time. I would consider paying an increased premium to have NO commercials. It's the 21st Century..I think it's about time to find better ways of adverstising. Many people grow weary of being a Captive Audience to commercials on the "Idiot Box".
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
Originally posted by Paul
how would that work? most shows only film like 22min per 30 min block to make room for commercials... what would we (people paying for no commercials) see instead?
You would see just the straight 22 minutes of video edited to be commercial free. This would come over a seperate feed. Moving to Digital has allowed the "Proveribial" 500 channels. Why not have commercial free television. What's 2-4 hrs of your time worth? To many that's a substantial $$$$ amount. Of course Sports and other live shows that have required breaks would be exempt.
Currently the Content Providers idea of "Premium" Cable is to toss more shows at you. But the fact is we have enough shows. It is Time that we don't have and cannot modify.