Brightcove CEO Envisions His Dream Apple Television and Set-Top Box

This is foolish. The current Apple TV with the right improvements is more than capable of doing anything we need on a television. In case you haven't noticed, Apple is investing a ton of money in their data centers and putting a huge emphasis on cloud storage. I think it would be highly unlikely to see a new box with onboard storage.

Refresh the current Apple TV with an A6 or A7 (depending on the timeframe) and work out content deals with networks and providers. Give us options like subscriptions to networks or packages and lower costs on movies and shows purchased in iTunes. Add 3D movies to iTunes for 3D capable televisions so we don't need to buy blurays at all anymore. Control the box through the included remote or your iphone, ipad, or iPod touch connected via the current wifi app or Bluetooth, with Siri input from that device.

As for the television itself, offer a couple standard sizes like 42" and 55" with all the Apple TV features built in, and maybe a camera for FaceTime. I don't see a need for anything else. Apple succeeds on its simplicity. People don't want that tangled mess of wires behind their TV. I want a television that I can hang on the wall, plug in the power cord, and connect to wifi. Nothing else. Stream my movies and shows, AirPlay my games and music. Throw my cable box and bluray player out the window, along with the stand they sit on!

If Apple does do a better TV I hope they take into account sound. This is one area some serious improvement from the base box would be nice.

Just waiting to see what they do... I'm not convinced that an entire TV is needed... but a $300 kick-butt box with all the goodies and al-a-carte programing would be awesome!

World Citizen said:

My quality HDMI cable puls this thing of my furniture in a second

WE NEED FULL FLEDGED FORM FACTOR MADE OF ALLUMINUM WITH SOME WEIGHT!!

Click to expand...

Maybe Apple will package/promote Redmere-enabled HDMI cables instead - they're ultra thin:

http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10255

I am wishing for the same thing although i really hope that apple NEVER releases a stand alone box in the shape of a bar!!! Keep it sleek, simple, but sexy Jonny!

rmwebs said:

Trying political jokes is a bit stupid when I'm not in the USA

If we go by pure facts, the fact is there is no Apple TV set and wont be. We're all basing everything in this thread on pure speculation. Hype.

Click to expand...

Wasn't joking. So please elaborate on your first post about the naming of Apple TV & not Apple iTV, so I think you are not a joke to begin with. There are a ton of facts pointing to an Apple iTV, you just haven't begun to make the right speculations. And once again, you making a comment about the name, makes me think you are just a waste of time on this thread.

Please fill me in on facts about the naming of Apple iTV vs Apple TV??? (<<<That's not a joke either.)

coolspot18 said:

On the same note, a 46" TV would look minuscule in my place - but then I'm in Canada and our houses are bigger(?). In fact, it's becoming common to find 70 -80" TVs on sale here.

Click to expand...

This is why I think they ought to produce a range of sizes for different people's needs.

I think this applies more and more the higher up in size you go. It doesn't make sense to produce different phone sizes as it's sort of a one size fits all situations. Then you get to laptops. I Imagine there were a fair few more 17" mbps sold across the pond. I've never actually seen someone who had one here in the UK. Then TVs the difference is even more dramatic!

Ohhh... and I'll throw in another marker for mister Allaires wish list here ...

Give me a large AppleTv screen with complete touch control and I'll by it anyday for our architectural studio! Would be absolutely awesome for client presentations and creative digital colaboration in our studio!!

mrfoof82 said:

People replace their television set every 4 years?! I do very well for myself, and I think my replacement cycle is nearly double that.

Click to expand...

I thought the same...
4 years replacement cycle is just a waste of resources, money and so much more...
Heck I even keep my computers for longer as main system.

Glassed Silver:mac

The camel just wants to put his nose in the tent first!

I certainly agree that a first step is the set top box to get more people into the Apple Eco System, then the tv a little later when it is more advanced.

The biggest draw for me would be a Siri voice interface. The problem with Siri now is that you have to touch something to activate it because leaving it on continuously would draw too much power. With a set top box, including a sensitive microphone, you could leave Siri on, and integrate voice commands to a variety of functions, such as:

" Siri, TV on"
" Siri, change channel to Number 361"
" Siri, pause TV"
" Siri, TV off"

etc.
I would buy it today if it could do even that.

crackbookpro said:

Wasn't joking. So please elaborate on your first post about the naming of Apple TV & not Apple iTV, so I think you are not a joke to begin with. There are a ton of facts pointing to an Apple iTV, you just haven't begun to make the right speculations. And once again, you making a comment about the name, makes me think you are just a waste of time on this thread.

Please fill me in on facts about the naming of Apple iTV vs Apple TV??? (<<<That's not a joke either.)

Click to expand...

Ok,

The reason it was never called iTV in the first place is because that's a trademark. It's owned by "ITV", a UK television network, which has existed since the 1950s.

ITV have previously stated that they would never allow Apple to use the name. Because ITV is a globally registered trademark, with offices in the UK, US, and a load of other locations, Apple would never be allowed to use it without ITV giving them permission.

It'd be like Apple trying to release the Apple TiVo without permission from TiVo - it cant happen.

You cant use someone else's brand name in the same market. You wouldn't see some random company launching a TV station called 'Fox TV' as it's taken.

Then you've also got the fact that ITV has had numerous names branded around the ITV name, such as ITV Digital, ITV Sport, ITV Movies, ITV On Demand, ITV Player, etc - all of these are protected.

Trademarks exist for a reason. Apple is usually the first one to start handing out lawsuits when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Does this help?

arkoh said:

Wall mounting is SILLY!?? What century are you living in!?? This is 2012... and flatscreens 1 inch thick are for what?... putting in the corner!? Ehhhh... you got to be kidding me!? If you place it in the corner, you might as well make it as in the "good old days" with a 60 cm deep back to fill up the space behind it! I personally freed up about 3 m2 of my living room (and no need for a tv furniture to lift the thing from the ground!) when I mounted it on the wall like a picture frame!

Click to expand...

rmwebs said:

If you mount a TV on the wall (in most UK houses) it's going to be above the fireplace. That's already a good meter up in the air, so the TV will be VERY high up the wall. Meaning not only are you having to look up, but you will get a glare from the light in the middle of the room, plus it's a hell of a lot harder to watch from angles. A corner TV is just logical.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with this poster. Imagine a rectangular room. You could wall mount the tv on the longer side, above the fireplace, thus forcing you to crane your neck, and excluding anyone who isn't sat on the centre sofa, or you can mount it on the short side of the room, meaning you'd need cinema style multi row seating. Very anti-social!

I don't know about the US but in the UK people (esp. families) tend to have a single 'living room' which is used for watching tv and general socialising. Obviously both of these layouts don't lend themselves to that at all.

Also on more specific note to myself, our lounge is pretty big and so losing 1-3 square metres of floor space is really no big deal, and nothing else would go in that corner anyway as it's dark and you wouldn't be able to see the TV whatsoever.

I like this design. Just add an option mounting clip for placing it on top of the TV.


I don't think people who say the set top box should eliminated and thinking very practically. Cellphones are something people were more than willing to replace every couple years long before Apple even entered that market. TVs are something most folks only replace every decade or so.

A wish list for those with prejudice

No. no. no. no. no.

The future of TV is purely on demand. Not some magical unicorn device that makes the content providers happy. I absolutely do no care to see commercials nor do I want to pay a regular fee to the providers of content.

this gives apple that additional $30 billion+ revenue stream it needs.

Click to expand...

lol

mankar4 said:

Not ambitious enough. Apple wants to change the way we watch "TV". When Cook says he walks 30 years into the past when he turns on his television, its not because of Netflix, it's because the way the channels themselves are delivered.

Click to expand...

If Cook turns his TV on and walks 30 years into the past then he needs a new TV/content provider/streaming box. I can remember my first black and white 3 channel TV set from almost 30 years ago and the stuff I do and see and get on my TV now is lightyears ahead.

Of course, Cook is setting up his marketing campaign for whatever he puts out in the near future. But in typical tech fashion, folks in the know have been doing what Apple is trying to offer for years, albeit with two devices and two service providers.

pubwvj said:

Cute but the problem is the content of TV is still sludge.

Click to expand...

Agreed! And if that's what Cook meant then he'd better open a production company like Sony.

mankar4 said:

YES!!!!!
Something like a Pandora/Spotify combination for TV content would be great. Themed "stations" for discovering new content, or just when you want to watch something from a certain genre but can't think of something specific, alongside a completely on-demand service for the shows you know want to watch.

Click to expand...

We have that already . . . . . . TOTALLY in fact.

Popeye206 said:

If Apple does do a better TV I hope they take into account sound. This is one area some serious improvement from the base box would be nice.

Just waiting to see what they do... I'm not convinced that an entire TV is needed... but a $300 kick-butt box with all the goodies and al-a-carte programing would be awesome!

Click to expand...

I know BOSE has a TV that has a serious weight problem that they claim provides 5.1 surround sound in a 2.1 setup that automagically adapts to wherever you put it in a 43" case all for the affordable $5000.

I chuckled and walked out of the store.

Otherwise I'd agree. I'd rather not have to do major construction on my living room just to get decent sound out of my TV.

rmwebs said:

We're not Apple's market for this one. It'll be for the stay at home family people.

Click to expand...

Then we aren't talking about increasing the overall revenue pie, we're talking about Apple taking existing revenue from someone in the "TV" business who already has it.

So who will that "somebody" be?

HDMI, Ethernet, & Lighting ports?? What a completely brain dead idea. Just give it a couple Thunderbolt ports and sell adapters seperaty.

Although I can see that on demand is the future, I'm not ready to let go of the traditional TV experience just yet.

Sometimes it's nice just to be able to switch on the tv and go into zombie mode watching whatever crap is on. If I have to choose what to watch from a list bigger than the 6-7 channels I ever watch then two things happen -

1. I have to spend ages trying to decide exactly what I'm in the mood to watch.
2. I become a lot more engrossed in what I'm watching - now people might say this is a good thing, but that's not what I want! Of course sometimes I want to watch a TV show seriously and get really into it, but I most definitely also want the option to switch off and watch what someone tells me to without caring what it's really about.

palmerc said:

No. no. no. no. no.

The future of TV is purely on demand. Not some magical unicorn device that makes the content providers happy. I absolutely do no care to see commercials nor do I want to pay a regular fee to the providers of content.

Click to expand...

If you dont see commercials, or pay a subscription...how the heck do you expect the TV programs to be made without any money?!

The way to build the iTV is to make sure it's 'guts' can be upgraded every few years without having to buy a new 'monitor/screen'. The guts are the processor/graphic chip, etc.

They can do this buy making a 'guts' that can be removed and swapped with a new one and just having it be in the base/stand/back of the TV. Something you literally just slide out and slide back in and no tech/experience required.

So if your TV ships with say the A6X guts this year and 2 years from now you want to upgrade to the A8X, you just go to the Apple store and buy the new upgrade tray and plug it in and there is your new updated Apple TV for something like $149.

rmwebs said:

In an ideal world we wouldn't have channels at all. There's no need for them. Just have shows that are all on demand. Much better IMO.

Click to expand...

Programs are supported by the whole in the current cable business model. Moving to a system where shows exist on their own would be an insanely difficult transition. And chances are you would lose a lot of the programming that you enjoy, have less choice, and see less innovation.

iAco said:

The second you start thinking about a set-top box you've failed.

Such a stupid thing shouldn't even exist.

So again, **** set top boxes.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I have my tv mounted to my wall now with only 2 cords (power and hdmi). I have all other devices tucked away but easily accessible. I don't need my tv to act as an all in one receiver and display.

Ideally I would like to see another small set top box like we have now. Something that can be replaced easily rather than a giant 60" monitor. For camera access I think it would make more sense for the box to integrate with a camera already built into the TV, or allow for a third party camera accessory for older tvs that don't have one built in.

X38 said:

HDMI, Ethernet, & Lighting ports?? What a completely brain dead idea. Just give it a couple Thunderbolt ports and sell adapters seperaty.

Click to expand...

The price would have to go up significantly then given that a basic thunderbolt device, like a hard drive is already double the price you'd pay for a non-thunderbolt one.

What need would there be to attach thunderbolt to this? It's supposed to replace any/all set-top boxes right? Then all you need is a usb3 port for additional storage. Thunderbolt would be a pointless waste for that. Streaming full HD would never need 10gbps. With USB3 addon drives you could still record a bunch of things at the same time in full HD without it ever getting close to the bandwidth limitations.

It is imperative that the set top box has an HDMI input, so you can plug your cable box into it. That puts the box in input one not input two which is very important. The box can passively transfer the cable signal to the TV, and then wake up when an airplay input comes in, instead of you having to switch the input. This also lets it overlay information on top of the cable TV signal. The box should use iOS, and be able to run all existing iOS apps. It should be controllable by Siri, and accept a keyboard and trackpad.

And keep it a set top box. Apple should not be in the business of making TV monitors. There are too many screen sizes and technologies to mess with.

palmerc said:

No. no. no. no. no.

The future of TV is purely on demand. Not some magical unicorn device that makes the content providers happy. I absolutely do no care to see commercials nor do I want to pay a regular fee to the providers of content.

Click to expand...

No it's not. A la carte programming is just not feasible. And you will never see the end of commercials (unless it's replaced with massive product placement).

rmwebs said:

If you mount a TV on the wall (in most UK houses) it's going to be above the fireplace. That's already a good meter up in the air, so the TV will be VERY high up the wall. Meaning not only are you having to look up, but you will get a glare from the light in the middle of the room, plus it's a hell of a lot harder to watch from angles. A corner TV is just logical.

Click to expand...

I know you english people have a deep love of fireplaces , but I also know of plenty of English houses where it is possible to put it somewhere else than above a fireplace! Cmon... get in the game here man, and come up with serious arguments man!

A corner placement is for me, the last place that makes sense... put a 50 inch flatscreen in the corner with a furniture that'll lift and carry it, leaves you short of approx. 2 m² of living room space!... Wall mounting it leaves you short of... ehhh... 0 m² of space! And in my oppinion, adding a furniture to put it on anywhere in the room, does ecatly the opposite of what you would want! - It accentuates the tv as the shrine of the room! Putting it on a wall makes it work as a picture frame, without drawing focus!