Jobs Says Apple TV App Store Could Launch When the Time is Right

[Bevz]

Originally Posted by chris975d

This is what I've been wondering. I haven't read up that much on the new AppleTV, but I think it's all streaming, correct (meaning no on board storage)? And if Jobs is talking about a possible app store for it some time in the future, won't the apps downloaded need a place to reside (i.e. storage space)? If the new AppleTV can't download/store anything, where are the apps supposed to stay?

Like the article says; it'll be interesting to see if the ATV comes with a reasonable amount of flash memory (16/32/64gb) like the iPhone et al... If it does it'll be a sign they're planning on including app download at some stage!

[PeterQVenkman]

Originally Posted by arn

I don't see why people are saying it needs an input controller.

The point isn't that there will be iPhone apps running on the Apple TV.
The point is there will be Apple TV-designed apps running on the Apple TV.

arn

The point is that when using an iPhone, your input device IS your display, so you are looking at both input device and display simultaneously.

With an app on a television, you are no longer looking at your input device when holding it - you are looking across the room at your TV. Using an iPhone for anything other than basic screen based apps is fine - but playing games or anything on the Apple TV is going to require faster or more accurate input would be difficult. A touch screen device doesn't provide tactile feedback about what you are pressing, and where your fingers are in relation to the buttons needed for the interaction.

It is doable, it just isn't ideal.

[jaybrad]

I believe Apple's intending the TV to become a projector for what's on an iOS device and to skirt the cable operators. I can understand the streaming of movies and TV shows, but I'm not sure how they're going to pull off games.

To help get lots of Apple TVs into homes, they should give away one with every iPad purchase. They have plenty on money on hand to do this. Four billion would probably be able to subsidize 60,000,000 Apple TVs at their cost. I'm not saying that they would do this, but I think it would help them gain a big foot hold in the living room.
They could probably write off the loss on the subsidizes towards federal taxes.

[Lepton]

Originally Posted by PeterQVenkman

He's going to need an input device you can use without looking at it.

1. The included Apple remote. To see how it might work, check out 'Mouse Keys' on the Mac (arrow keys move the cursor) semi-lame, but included in the $99 product.

2. Kick-butt remote app on the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch. Amazing but you need an expensive gadget.

3. The Magic Trackpad. Probably what it was made for. $70.

[arn]

With an app on a television, you are no longer looking at your input device when holding it - you are looking across the room at your TV. Using an iPhone for anything other than basic screen based apps is fine - but playing games or anything on the Apple TV is going to require faster or more accurate input would be difficult.

So what?

People said the same thing about the iPhone app store. Apps will end up being designed around the device... Not the other way around.

arn

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Originally Posted by jp102235

Holy cow,
man, I don't know how many times I can say this: you don't need 1080p on an appleTV!!!!!!

the information content of the source material (itunes/anything on ipad) is WAAY WAAAAY below 1080p bit rate capability.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter. The mere lack of 1080p regardless of merit will drive MOST PEOPLE away. You WILL NOT convince them they don't need it, regardless of merit. LIke most things, there's some truth and some distortion. The ignorant of the world hear and see what they want to or allow themselves to be deceived (lots of this in politics to cater to those you don't really give a crap about, for example). The point here is whether Apple wants these things to sell or not, regardless of whether some of these things are actually needed or not.

Originally Posted by mdelvecchio

hmm maybe it was inventing desktop publishing w/ the first commercial GUI desktop pc. but i dunno for sure.

The question was rhetorical. I see that you don't seem to get that.

...you mean the Mac Mini? yeah. it does most those things, cost that much, and is sitting under my tv connected via HDMI. have had it for years.

The Mac Mini lacks a front-end to do most of those things from the couch. That's kind of important, really. The lack of Blu-Ray and a simple plug'n'play approach to encoding DVDs and BD discs for iTunes makes the Mini no better than any desktop machine for doing these things. The only thing it has going for it is its small size and a price range near what I talked about. Otherwise, what's so great about it? Does it have HDMI? Does it support Blu-Ray? Does it have an updated Front End like Apple TV? How much content can its internal drive hold? 2.5" drive? 750GB is the max. If they had made it a TINY bit bigger, they could be putting 2TB 3.5" drives in it, maybe 4TB combo. And THAT is what you need for HD home theater storage! You could run PLEX on it, but you're going to have to do all the work yourself to get Blu-Ray to run on it (i.e. decode/encode) and it won't be practical in the average home theater room so I hope there's a 2nd PC involved. It's also not just the interface, but a proper remote (again a Wii style remote would be ideal, especially also for gaming) to handle all that stuff.

In other words, yes, Apple COULD base a new Apple TV off the Mac Mini platform (but then again, the Mini and original Apple TV were already sharing a few things in common), but it still needs a lot of work to make it comparable to what the iPhone did for the smart phone market. It needs to be an elegant complete system, not just a smallish sized computer where you still need to set up something like Plex to make it do anything interesting, along with adding external hard drives and blu-ray drives and everything else to make it work right because what it comes with isn't good enough by itself to cover a large home theater setup.

i had to re-quote that. because the world doesnt have enough blinking "12:00" VCRs under their TVs, right!?

Well, unlike a VCR, a computer (Apple TV or Mac Mini alike) can set its clock through the Internet so there's not blinking anything. Does your cable box's clock blink?

Originally Posted by SockRolid

Wrong. This is the trap that Google is falling into. They will be thrown down the same stairs that WebTV got thrown down. Just a simple example: web browsing on TV is a horribly bad idea. Why? Because everyone wants to surf different things. Do you think the family would let Mom look up a roast beef recipe in the middle of, say, Monday Night Football? And would Dad be allowed to look up his team's quarterback's passing statistics during a family showing of Kung-Fu Panda? I don't think so. There just isn't any good reason to web surf on your big-screen TV. It's there for communal use in most homes. Family members can surf on their iPhones, iPod touches, iPads, MacBooks, or whatever else.

You really think small don't you? This device is cheap enough that you could put it on all the TVs in the house, not just a big screen in the home theater room (assuming there even is one). Who said everyone is fighting over surfing the web anyway? I live alone. I dont' have to fight anyone over surfing. It'd be mighty convenient if I wanted to look something up quickly while watching TV if I could do it with my Apple TV instead of having to get up and go to another room (possibly across the house) or stare at some tiny iPhone screen when I could view the results on my 93" projector.

In any case, surfing is just ONE thing. Are you going to argue that being able to play games on a big screen television is a bad idea too? Sorry, but your limited example hasn't convinced me I'm wrong about anything.

Originally Posted by benoitgphoto

I don't agree. Your description is not innovation, it's only putting in 1 box all the existing home theater technologies. Streaming from the cloud IS innovation.

The innovation would come from the applications that could be developed from such a platform, just as the true innovation on the iPhone is the same (well that and a touch screen interface that is great for some things, typing not being one of them, IMO).

OTOH, I don't see streaming from a "cloud" to be innovative. It's more like the dream the studios have had for ages. They don't want to SELL anything. They want to rent or lease content so you keep paying for it over and over and over again. If you had unlimited rentals for a month at a time and failed to pay your bill at some stage, you have NOTHING. If you bought all your music, you still have it. Likewise, streaming apps (the dream of Microsoft lately?) is a bad idea. Not only is it going to be slow, but it's a security nightmare from multiple standpoints. You're also completely dependent on those servers being up and not crashed, etc. You put all the eggs in one basket (the server) instead of your individual home which is far less likely to be hacked than a giant everything-is-there server.

Another area for innovation would be a new controller. I gave the Wii controller as an example, but ideally for Apple they should have something that is similar to their existing iOS devices, but cheap enough to include at least one unit with the device (e.g. maybe a dumbed-down iPod Touch with gaming controls added that gets its information streamed to it the same way air-play would stream video to Apple TV). Then you could have a combo gaming controller and touch-interface to control it instead of that crappy little remote they decided on whose only merit is bare simplicity. In any other aspect (trying to enter titles to search for example), it FAILS royally. I know because I use it all the time. Sure, I could use my iPod Touch, but is everyone supposed to have one? Do you know how fast the battery depletes using WiFi constantly? I keep mine upstairs wired when using it control the Apple TV there so as to not waste constant recharge cycles. Wired sucks, though. I'm sure a newer model would do better, but still suck compared to a conventional remote for battery life.

Originally Posted by nelmat

Sorry to quote all that garbage again, but you miss the point.

No, I think you miss the point and I'll gladly tell you why.

Content:

Apple aren't in control of this.

The studios aren't on board, so no point getting excited until there's a decent amount of content available on the rental model.

You're preventing a chicken/egg scenario. Sorry, but the hardware has to be there first. Apple knows this even with the limited TV rentals they're planning to do now and they already have big time RENTAL agreements for MOVIES (getting permission to SELL HD movies is their problem). Besides, consumers can provide their own content. I rent movies from Apple once in awhile, but 90% or more of my usage of my Apple TV is to watch or listen to my own OWNED content. I'm talking about the fact I converted my entire CD and movie (DVD/LD/VHS) and video (Hi8; digital camcorder) libraries to view on Apple TV through streaming from iTunes. EVERYONE I've showed this setup to (ordinary people) think it's AWESOME. I have all my movies, music, home movies and photos available at the click of a remote through an easy-to-use menu system. Yes, it's a PITA to set up, but once done, it's a library dream to just to click and start any media you own. The lack of 1080p, though means I have to convert HD movies to 720p to store them.

Infrastructure:

Apple aren't in control of this.

There is no way to stream 1080 into the average house, this is a streaming device therefore there's no reason for 1080. When 1080 is realistic, telcos are going to massively increase/remove consumer bandwidth limits.

There IS a way to stream your own 1080 movies from your PC/Mac. I stream 720p ones all the time. 1080p is not a problem on a 802.11N network. You could sell 1080p movies online easy enough as well. They could download overnight no problem. That's still faster than ordering a Blu-Ray disc from Amazon and waiting for it to be delivered and easier than driving to Best Buy. With a half hour leader or so, you could stream a 1080p movie while downloading without too much difficulty with 5Mbps or better. I wait a mere 20-30 seconds on average to buffer/stream an iTunes 720p rental, after all.

Until this happens, the product remains a hobby. At $99, this is a no brainer, a toy - people wanted it cheaper, Apple halved the price. I don't own the original apple TV, but those people I know who do, love it - there are too

Once again, you seem to miss the point. This device doesn't have to be just about iTunes rentals/sales. MOST people that are crying about the lack of 1080p are going to use it to stream their own libraries anyway. Then there's the other uses it COULD have had (e.g. DVR combined with BD/DVD player). You can use it for these uses NOW and still have it ready to go for other uses as you get faster Internet. I've watched thread after thread after thread about how people want the things I've talked about. Combine that with the popularity of apps for iOS devices for a reasonable price and you'd have a winner. They could still release a "cheaper" $99 version like htey have now with limited app support, etc. for a different market segment, yet retain the same interface, basic hardware internals and OS. In other words, the only thing preventing DVR usage is an input encoder and a large hard drive with the appropriate control software. Apple could easily afford to make more than one version if they wanted to take this thing seriously. But treating it as a "hobby" does not lead to taking over new markets. Apple DID NOT treat the iPhone as some limited test hobby device. They had a plan in mind from Day 1 and I'm saying it's a shame they don't have more vision when it comes to Apple TV.

many factors outside of Apple's control, you can't blame Apple for the studios refusing to allow their content onto this platform.

I don't ask the studios for permission to put their moves on my Apple TV and iTunes setup anymore than I ask the music studios their permission to put an album I own on iTunes using its ripper. You can argue about the legality of that with either one, but the content is paid for either way so I couldn't care less what they think of HOW I view of listen to it.

[GeekLawyer]

Originally Posted by Bevz

Like the article says; it'll be interesting to see if the ATV comes with a reasonable amount of flash memory (16/32/64gb) like the iPhone et al... If it does it'll be a sign they're planning on including app download at some stage!

I'm expecting 8GB, but would be pleased to see 16GB. It's got to have some capacity of onboard storage for iOS and any shipping apps (Netflix, iTunes, etc.). iOS apps don't take up that much space as it is. But especially if they're being served streaming video content from elsewhere.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

I read that as:

"Dear TV Networks,

When it strikes my fancy, I will crush you.

- Love Steve."

[Bregalad]

Originally Posted by MenLoveToys

Do you really think that the family watches TV together that much anymore?

The kids all have TV's in their bedrooms and I know when I want to watch Football and the wife wants to watch another show I lose and watch it on the HD TV set in the bedroom.

While they live at home my kids will never have TV in their bedroom(s) and I don't think they'll consider that a hardship. TV simply isn't that important and those who think otherwise should seriously consider getting a life.

[mplaisance]

Originally Posted by MagnusVonMagnum

When the time is right? Yes, instead of offering an innovative and interesting new product with all kinds of potential 3rd party support and things to look forward to, let's offer the same old product that didn't sell before for a somewhat lower price, take away all internal storage so it's even less useful in some areas, ignore ALL previous customer suggestions (say 1080p?) and hope it sells anyway. Then we'll hint that SOME DAY maybe we'll offer something useful or interesting to consumers IF we sell a whole boat load of them, which we won't because it's uninteresting and out of date just like the last version that didn't sell for squat.

Sometimes I TRULY wonder how Steve ever got where he did. He'll show all this innovation in some areas like the iPhone but then appear to be Forrest Gump when it comes to something that's actually pretty simple like home theater products (i.e. offer the best quality and state of the art features for a reasonable price offering all the conveniences of the best products that already exist).

For example, if Apple TV had 1080p from the start, a DECENT sized hard drive (even if that meant making SLIGHTLY bigger to fit a 3.5" hard drive; imagine THAT!?!) contained a DVR and Blu-Ray drive with support to convert them to be stored in iTunes automatically (like they do for CDs; a license would make this possible), had a front panel display that at least had a CLOCK on it (rather than just a little led light that does squat) and maybe even display title/artist information so you can see what's playing music-wise when the TV is turned off and don't have to wear out your projector bulb just to see a flipping album cover endlessly...or perhaps offer a cool visualizer to watch while you listen? What's THAT?!? ), put in place the ability to add features like Netflix support, etc. as they become available (i.e. give the thing proper hardware assisted video decoding) and supported ALL the available formats so you can watch your home movies etc. without having to convert them to M4V and left provisions in place for gaming (and included a "remote" that could be used for gaming ala the "wii") and offered it for around $500, MAYBE just MAYBE the thing would have actually SOLD because it would have the potential to replace most of the home theater gear out there (just add receiver and TV).

THAT is what it would take to be as innovative as an iPhone. Apple TV should be a general purpose computing device with slick controls that can be upgraded to do just about anything you'd want it to do, whether it be a DVR or a cookbook display for the TV in the kitchen/dining room. If it had the proper connections (e.g. input video as well as output it) and the right hardware inside (hardware assisted encoding/decoding) with enough room to store apps/videos/movies (1.5TB 3.5" drives and larger are DIRT CHEAP for goodness sake!), it could do for TV what the iPhone did for smart phones. But no, some of those things MIGHT cannibalize iTunes music/movie sales, so we cannot include them! Never mind that we claim we do not make much profit from selling those sorts of things. We simply CANNOT offer a user-friendly do-everything type device because we want to sell SD 480p movies with low-quality video encoding and Dolby Pro Logic 2-channel sound to people that don't think there is anything better....

Did you ever stop to think that Steve gave you just ALL the stuff you wanting in a little device called a Mac Mini!!

Also have you thought that maybe this is not all Apples decisions that effect product realeases. There are a lot of legal, license, and copy right issues that have to be ironed out and as successful as Apples has been especially the Music Industry, other Media Companies tread lightly as to what Apple has planned.

And while I am sure Apple wants to push iTunes content because it's money to them, remember iTunes is a big part of Apples user experience. With iTunes Application and Apple's Hardware it great combination. These TWO hardware/software integration is a big part of the iPods success. But also Apple has shown it plays well with others. They played well with Google for the iPhone(of course look what Google did), now they playing well with Netflix.

I understand you WANT IT ALL and you can by putting a damn computer in you living room!! But Apple too has to tread lightly with the "content companies". Business is business and its a cut-throat industry.

Plus who are to judge Steve's business. The man started a Billion Dollar company from his garage, pioneered the Macintosh, left the Company he found, found another company, no two, Next and Pixar, the former to become what is now the OS you are currently running, MAC OS X, and Pixar? Well I would hope you know who they are. He than came back to Apple and pulled them out of near bankruptcy to now the Second highest company in Market Cap just under Exxon in just a little over 10 years. HOW IS THAT http://www.macworld.com/article/1460...rc=rss_mainFOR A RESUME!!

Also I can't understand why people are screaming 1080p. Pleas people over 90% of the content you watch is in 720p or at best 1080i, which many say 720p is much better than 1080i. The reason is bandwidth!! Try downloading a blueray size movie or streaming that puppy. The thing is it's obvious Apple is moving to the cloud. No more CD's or DVD's. Companies like Apple see those as "old" technology. Apple is building this huge Data Farm in Nort Carolina. Be interesting to see what they do with it. Maybe once it's online we will all be able to stream ALL our owned content from Apple's servers. So basically content anywhere you have a connection. And of course you can still keep you content local if you choose.

[jmull]

Well since it's a pay-per-view device that does nothing else, who wants it? And now a feature they want to ad just allows you to buy more crap from Apple, oh joy! Oh and the device cost money too! Crazy... I already have a PPV box I don't need thanks and I got it free. I generally love Apple products, but the Apple TV is a scam at this point.

[orbiterdictum]

Originally Posted by Bregalad

While they live at home my kids will never have TV in their bedroom(s) and I don't think they'll consider that a hardship. TV simply isn't that important and those who think otherwise should seriously consider getting a life.

Actually, I think TV is important. There is nothing more American than TV (even apple pie).I gave up TV completely for two years and I often found that I had a hard time making small talk to new people or acquaintances. I don't watch it religiously, but it is important.

[CalumC]

Apps are the only way this is going to sell in the UK, especially with YouView coming early next year. If Apple want my HDMI port, they're going to need to have specialised TV apps, maybe an internet Freeview (HD?) function including VoD from at least all terrestrial channels, and considering they've got a Sky iPhone app, maybe thats not too big a stretch.

I want to love Apple TV, but i'm struggling to see what it offers me.

[slicecom]

Originally Posted by gramirez2012

LOL, yeah right! Everyone had 1080i in 1998.

Well not everyone has 1080i today either. I said 1998 because I fondly remember walking into a Sony Store in 1998 and seeing HDTV for the first time, and it was 1080i.

[WestonHarvey1]

Doesn't need storage. If you can stream your content, you can stream your apps too.

[roland.g]

Are they going to use the iPhone/Touch/iPad as a wireless touchscreen App/Game controller.

[roland.g]

With an app on a television, you are no longer looking at your input device when holding it - you are looking across the room at your TV. Using an iPhone for anything other than basic screen based apps is fine - but playing games or anything on the Apple TV is going to require faster or more accurate input would be difficult.

The iPhone has a Gyroscope in it. Who is to say that the iPhone can't use Airplay to send gyroscopic data to the Apple TV app just like a Wii controller or the new Sony PS3 controllers.

[paradox00]

Originally Posted by roland.g

Are they going to use the iPhone/Touch/iPad as a wireless touchscreen App/Game controller.

Individual apps may as an option. Anything Apple ships would be designed to work with the remote that ships with Apple TV. Of course, the Remote App on the iPhone can serve that same function.

As Arn has already stated, you design the apps around the device, not devices around the apps.

That said, there are some iOS apps that require third party hardware to function properly, so the same could happen for Apple TV apps. A developer like EA could turn an app supported Apple TV into a full fledged gaming console by introducing a gamepad that worked with their apps. Better yet, Apple could introduce a gaming API and create their own controller (and license the design to third parties, like they do with the inline remote).

The big thing to consider here is that you limit your audience when you require additonal hardware for your app to function. The vast majority of apps on Apple TV would require no more than the Apple remote to function. Developers would be making apps for Apple TV, not transfering their current iOS apps to Apple TV. Forget about iPhone apps, they wouldn't look like that. As an example, compare Netflix on Apple TV to Netflix on the iPad. They are not the same.

[WiiDSmoker]

Originally Posted by roland.g

The iPhone has a Gyroscope in it. Who is to say that the iPhone can't use Airplay to send gyroscopic data to the Apple TV app just like a Wii controller or the new Sony PS3 controllers.

You can't use the iPod Touch/iPhone as a controller. You have ZERO tacticle feedback. You have to look at the device to see what you're doing. Controllers for consoles have real buttons and sticks, you don't need to look at the controller while operating. With an iDevice you HAVE to look at the controller.

In summary, using the iDevice as a controller for something on the screen does not work.

[moneyman118]

Apple will be a media distributor much like Comcast and AT&T. I believe the lines have to be licensed out per government legislation. Most of it will be wireless like Clear. Apple will install all of the cell towers themselves making sure they cover good portions of the us. This will be followed by the rest of the world. He loves the U.S. This is why we haven't seen the iPhone for any other carrier. They're saving the exclusivity for themselves. Ipads ipods macs all getting internet from apple iphones all getting service from Apple. Itunes getting a new design. Its all in front of our eyes. Think big, think different, create it yourself. History making in 2011.

[pika2000]

To me, it sounds like Apple doesn't want to be the enemy of the content providers (cable, networks, etc) out of the bat. Having an app store means that the content producers can directly release their stuff as an app, bypassing the networks and middle-men altogether. If Apple did this overnight, the rate of content providers leaving iTunes will probably be much higher than the rate of content producers putting contents in. So maybe Apple is hoping somebody would do it first, get the middle-men angry, maybe hoping that they will be more willing to work with Apple, and when Apple hold the control, bam.

[pooryou]

When the time is right = when apps can be stored and run from 'the cloud' and when developers have been brought on board and start getting apps ready. That's my feeling on it anyway.

[gnasher729]

A famous quote: "Nobody will ever need more than 640K".

An even more (in)famous quote: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." That was the introduction to the discussion on Slashdot about the iPod when it was introduced in 2001, predicting that nobody would ever, ever consider buying an iPod. By now Apple has beaten the Walkman in unit sales, and Sony sold about 230 million of those.

Most people don't care about 1080p. They have no idea what it is. Most 1080p material is so compressed that it doesn't look any better than 720p. I wouldn't want to make any predictions about Apple TV sales, and numbers about sales seem hard to get, but I wouldn't bet against Apple.

Originally Posted by pooryou

When the time is right = when apps can be stored and run from 'the cloud' and when developers have been brought on board and start getting apps ready. That's my feeling on it anyway.

You know, my wireless network at home is a lot, lot faster than access to the cloud.

[E.Lizardo]

Originally Posted by Super7668

1080i version?

Huh?

[Master Chief]

Originally Posted by GeekLawyer

I'm expecting 8GB, but would be pleased to see 16GB. It's got to have some capacity of onboard storage for iOS and any shipping apps (Netflix, iTunes, etc.). iOS apps don't take up that much space as it is. But especially if they're being served streaming video content from elsewhere.

I can confirm that it comes with 16GB.