The current remote would be perfectly adequate for media, information, and even some casual gaming apps. No one said the app library for an AppleTV had to be as diverse as the iPhone's for it to be useful.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's New TV Effort May Kick Off This Fall with Focus on Third-Party Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current remote would be perfectly adequate for media, information, and even some casual gaming apps. No one said the app library for an AppleTV had to be as diverse as the iPhone's for it to be useful.
Controllers for games? Did everyone forget that Apple just added support for Bluetooth keyboards for Apple TV 3? And if that's not enough, they can add specialised Bluetooth controllers too.
As for whether we need apps on Apple TV: BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD, Sky, HBO, TuneIn, Vine...
As for whether we need apps on Apple TV: BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD, Sky, HBO, TuneIn, Vine...
I'd love to have my TimeWarner App on my Apple TV. It isn't a great App, but it allows me to watch TW Cable shows on my iPad as long as I'm in my house connected to my TW WiFi. Currently I Slingbox my video from the cable box to the various TVs in my house because I don't want to run wire or have multiple cableboxes sitting around. TimeWarner App would negate the need to do that and probably provide a much clearer picture.
There isn't a ton of storage space on the current ATVs, but I suspect there is enough to add plenty of small Apps and even some large ones. The programing challenges to set this up must be fairly trivial because of the shared OS between ATV and iOS. I can only think that Apple has been slow to do this because of the high expectations of "APPLE TV" and they don't want to disappoint with some half-baked thing.
There isn't a ton of storage space on the current ATVs, but I suspect there is enough to add plenty of small Apps and even some large ones. The programing challenges to set this up must be fairly trivial because of the shared OS between ATV and iOS. I can only think that Apple has been slow to do this because of the high expectations of "APPLE TV" and they don't want to disappoint with some half-baked thing.
This is great news and a reason why i never got a apple tv to boot. it also will mean that i will buy my first Apple TV with my new iMac next year, for now I will be on look out for the new ipad.
It couldn't possibly stink anymore than the crap being pushed through my TV now.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you can stream a movie stored on a fat hard drive attached to a computer elsewhere in the house, that same drive could also store 1000 apps that could be streamed over one at time when you are wanting to run one on an
TV.TV is not like the other iDevices. It's not intended to be mobile (out and about). Instead, it is pretty much always tethered to up to all of the storage one could attach to the computer somewhere else in the house. In this way, it's an iDevice with many Terabytes of storage... plus an 8GB buffer.For real gamers, hardcore multiplayer gamers, you are correct. But there is not really that many people.
This will be for casual gamers, and quite a bit more advanced than Angry Birds. Anyone who has played Real Racing 2 on the Apple TV can tell you that can offer a pretty good console level experience. Sure, it's PS2 level, but it's fun.
And the focus here is on games, but how many other apps would love to on Apple TV and would be great there. Pandora? Spotify? Slingbox (how great would slingbox be)?
You could literally name hundreds of content apps, that would love to be there. And just by opening it up a lot of the content walls would come down out of a fear of being left behind.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Seriously -- apps coming to Apple TV without a doubt would become a game changer in the CONTENT distribution business. If -- if in fact the content kings are fighting the prospects of a proposed paradigm shift towards "al la carte" programming -- that fight could deflated by a mass market device.. Think about it..
If ANY developer could in fact create an app that delivers "original" or "licensed" product -- what would Apple potentially need network or licensed programming per say. Plus -- plus it would in a way make the App Store a type of "you tube" like marketplace -- where anyone literally could develop an app to deliver content..
Studios are you listening? I happen to work for one of the majors.. Apples iOS user base is just north of 500 mil and growing. Add a real Apple TV that is content loaded -- seriously HOLY ****-AH! Plus what would stop Apple itself or an acquired property from bringing or making its own content deals -- even though Apple claims it wouldn't do -- I call BS on that..
Content is king.. Mark my words -- the value of content will soon start to accelerate -- deals like NFL, NBA, etc etc.. All the players - Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc know all to well that it's the content stupid.. And yea software in my world is considered content.....
Apple TV unlocked could blow the lid off the way content gets distributed -- frankly the dynamics of this delivery will ultimately force Hollywoods hand..
I'm wrong? Tell that to the music industry...
The existing players like things more "as is" rather than handing it all over to Apple. If the al-a-carte vision ends up as just Studios + Apple + Us and we perceive we are going to pay a lot less than we pay in the "as is" model, which of the other 2 links in that chain is going to take the big hit so that we can pay a lot less? Or are we expecting much cheaper out-of-pocket but somehow all of our favorite shows will continue to be produced, at the same levels of quality, etc AND brand new pilots for brand new (future) favorite shows will still have big incentives to be made?
And even if we are, who owns the pipes through which an Apple replacement solution must flow? How do we imagine that the Cable/Satt empires will just roll over and let Apple take their cable subscription revenues and not make up any such losses in the broadband toll "for heavier users"?
This is nothing like the music industry scenario. Consumers had easy access to unprotected CDs from which to rip any music they wanted in their digital collection. For the "then I'll just steal it" crowd, the music industry had no control over the pipe through which the piracy was dependent. It is much more complicated & painful to try to rip any video and video- by nature- is not like music where you might want to hear the same song 1000 times (and thus some justification for building up a music library). And the video guys pretty much generally have a complete lock on U.S. broadband Internet connections (why do you think they are in that business... and why do they crush any upstarts that try to spring up in areas they control?). The music industry was in a very weak position all the way around and Apple was just one of the lifeboats they tried getting into.
The video industry ship is not sinking; it's sailing better than ever. And the video guys got to witness what happens when an industry allows itself to get under a heavy level of domination by Apple as middleman. They desperately do not want to repeat the mistakes of their music industry cousins. Those cousins have been trying to get themselves out from under Apple's thumb ever since.
TV apps as "channels" or links to a database of shows does seem very likely. But wait until we see the prices of the "in app" purchases or subscriptions. My bet: that cable sub at about $100/month could be replaced with al-a-carte apps involving total costs of about $150/month (in short, we will pay a premium to realize the al-a-carte dream, not get a huge discount). No one in the existing chain- Apple included- has any real incentive to kill the existing cash flow of about $100/month and replace it with one that yields about $5-$20/month. I would bet very hard that the masses $100 cable bills will not be able to be cut by 80%-90% or more and still get everything we want to watch, and still have the machine bring us new shows we might want to watch in the future, and keep the quality of our favorite programming at least at the level it is now.I think too many people imagine al-a-carte is current cable bill/# of cable channels = X (cost per channel). For example, $100/month now/200 channels = 50 cents per channel. 'I' only like to watch 10 channels, so my bill should be $5/month. The reality of al-a-carte programming is probably more like how adult channels are priced: one channel could cost $20, $30 or $40/month (there's that premium I referenced above). Even if we assume an average price of- say $12 per channel (more like cable HBO-type pricing), 'my' 10 channels al-a-carte would cost $120 vs. the old 200 channels at $100.
And again, since Apple's replacement solution will have a huge dependency on flowing through pipes that are generally controlled by the existing cable monopoly/duopoly, I completely expect average broadband costs to go up and/or for the cell-phone-like tiered model to show up to price broadband for "heavier users such as video streamers". So if our broadband is- say- $50/month now, I would expect it to rise to $100-$150 then.
Net: we go from $100/month for 200 channels of cable + $50/month for broadband to $120/month for our favorite 10 channels plus $100+/month for broadband. If so, that's $220/month (not $22 or $10 or $5/month) for al-a-carte.
I would bet very large that this is more representative of the economics of some al-a-carte replacement model than the one that the vast majority of us imagine. Even Apple can't resolve the broadband pipe toll issue regardless of how innovative a new
TV or TV software might be (just as an iPhone doesn't deliver us dirt cheap data streams via AT&T, Verizon, etc 3G/4G connections). That's real-world al-a-carte.Some also dream of the "commercial free" addition: commercial-free, al-a-carte, forgetting that commercials are a HUGE subsidy paid by other people to help deliver the shows we love. Those who want the commercials killed off are wanting that subsidy killed off. In the Studios + Apple + Us new replacement model, who makes up for that subsidy if we are going to pay a fraction of what we pay now? Apple? No way. So we apparently expect the Studios to take that huge hit too yet still be able to keep cranking out new episodes of our favorite programming at the same level of quality AND we expect them to also back pilots of brand new shows that could become our future favorites? Al-a-carte is a mess. Commercial-free al-a-carte is even a bigger mess. Both are fantastic dreams but they fall apart in dramatic fashion when one thinks them through. Personally, I love the dream as much as anyone but I know it's just a dream as many of us are dreaming it.
Last edited:
Dear lord this isn't even a ****ing rumor. macrumors used to be about rumors, now it's statements from random people saying most anything without any actual rumor
What content they offer will be in the hands of he copyright holders so don't count on it. Expect to be disappointed in terms of getting stuff at the same time as the US, UK or wherever. Then be pleasantly surprised if we get lucky.
Seriously -- apps coming to Apple TV without a doubt would become a game changer in the CONTENT distribution business. If -- if in fact the content kings are fighting the prospects of a proposed paradigm shift towards "al la carte" programming -- that fight could deflated by a mass market device.. Think about it..
If ANY developer could in fact create an app that delivers "original" or "licensed" product -- what would Apple potentially need network or licensed programming per say. Plus -- plus it would in a way make the App Store a type of "you tube" like marketplace -- where anyone literally could develop an app to deliver content..
Studios are you listening? I happen to work for one of the majors.. Apples iOS user base is just north of 500 mil and growing. Add a real Apple TV that is content loaded -- seriously HOLY ****-AH! Plus what would stop Apple itself or an acquired property from bringing or making its own content deals -- even though Apple claims it wouldn't do -- I call BS on that..
Content is king.. Mark my words -- the value of content will soon start to accelerate -- deals like NFL, NBA, etc etc.. All the players - Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc know all to well that it's the content stupid.. And yea software in my world is considered content.....
Apple TV unlocked could blow the lid off the way content gets distributed -- frankly the dynamics of this delivery will ultimately force Hollywoods hand..
I'm wrong? Tell that to the music industry...
The only way this works is if the line between subscription and app access is severed. For instance, I can access HBOgo IF I currently subscribe to HBO in my TV service.
If they're willing to provide independent App access than it could work.
You don't really need anything like that. Just a video editor etc. And one comes on every Mac built in.
----------
They already did. It's called Airplay. You can mirror any app that doesn't have it blocked for legal reasons (like HBOGo just dropped) and developers can actually create special Airplay modes such as how the Real Racing app does it.
----------
Devices don't matter. Almost 7 full years with mass market video capable devices just from Apple and it has had zero effect. Because the issue is a legal one. Until the studios etc have the desire to allow such access they will legally block it from Apple, Amazon and so on.
And they will block it until someone has the brass balls to challenge them on their notions that ready and international access at high quality and decent pricing will not screw with box office, ratings etc as much as they fear it will. And so on.
----------
Already possible with Airplay if the designers want to include it. As is controller modes to link an iPhone/touch to an iPad. See the games Real Racing 2 and the Incident for examples.
If you can stream a movie stored on a fat hard drive attached to a computer elsewhere in the house, that same drive could also store 1000 apps that could be streamed over one at time when you are wanting to run one on an
Excellent point about network storage for games (especially large ones).
Similarly, already iPads have 128 Gb, which means that games can be stored on iOS devices as well, and my iPad 3 has a number of high quality racing, flying games with awesome graphics.
I said it before and I will say it again. Apple does not need to make a TV. A magical all powerful app enabled Apple TV box is all it needs to be. If they want to design, build an actually, sell a set it would have to be compatibly priced and I don't me with the super high end Samsung's and Panasonic's ($2-3k). I mean in the $1,200-$2,000 range which is high in my opinion. I just purchased a very nice 2012 Panasonic 55inch 3D plasma, wifi enabled, Apps (I know they are laughable) on board for $750 at Costco. I can even connect to it with my iPhone. It would be a tough to justify paying 2-3x that much for an Apple branded set. Could an Apple set really look or function so much better? This is no dig at Apple but how much thinner could it be? Does that even matter, how much better could the image quality be? It's going to made by the same people (samsung possibly) that make all the other sets.. So getting access to the App store and connecting you phone makes it worth it? We'll have to see.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes, because of that tethered-to-a-computer (which could then have any level of storage) requirement, I don't foresee an
TV ever having more than a minimal buffer whether it gets apps or not. For example, I don't see a 128GB TV making any sense or offering any real benefit over one with a small buffer since it isn't really meant to be a mobile device. Even a fat game app could be streamed from the host computer if the total data used by that app exceeded the buffer on board the TV. Of course that said, I loved the 1st gen hard drive option for synching. That did make it possible to load it up with a bunch of movies for the road and take it on vacation without having to take along the home computer as well. However, I don't think Apple will go back to that. If we are ever going to get local storage again, I suspect the hope is for a normalized USB port to which people interested in that could attach whatever size of external storage they desire.
Well, here in the UK the obvious apps would be the on-demand TV apps from the various networks (which DRM paranoia hath rendered nonstandard): BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD, Demand5...
Lots of smart TVs, Blu-Ray players and DVRs have BBC iPlayer, but not the others - but they do exist for iPad so (one would assume) supporting AppleTV would be a no-brainer.
The other thing that immediately springs to mind is the Elgato EyeTV app that lets you stream live TV from a Mac with an EyeTV dongle.
Another possibility is 'companion' apps for movies and TV shows - the equivalent of 'DVD/BluRay Extras' for iTunes video purchases.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
In spite of what I wrote above about al-a-carte, I do think this will arrive. BUT, it won't be at a price that makes anyone dreaming of cheap al-a-carte happy. My guess for HBO GO as a stand alone (no cable sub required) app would involve a monthly fee of around $45-$50. Yes, that seems crazy when it is perceptually "free" now or when we think in terms of a bundle of HBO channels via cable costs about $15/month and we get HBO GO for "free" with that... but that is how I think al-a-carte reality would play out. There would have to be a premium to make their cash cow (cable partners) not feel overly threatened and there would have to be something even more than what HBO gets on a per household basis now. Thus, my guess of about $45-$50 per month in al-a-carte world.
Oh that's better than I expected.
8GB should be enough for a couple important apps - there probably won't be that many good apps on launch, plus games are pretty much unplayable with the existing remote.
All I really want is Plex
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
One might as well apply the same kind of mentality to the iPhone then. If I can't cut my 3G/4G fees with an iPhone purchase, it doesn't make much sense for my family to buy iPhones. The issue is pretty much exactly the same. Whether iPhone or
TV, the service side of things is largely controlled by others who are not interested in just giving their business to Apple and giving us consumers a huge price cut... especially considering that an iPhone without 3G/4G service is as limiting as an TV al-a-carte replacement model without broadband. Just as AT&T, Verizon, etc completely owns the wireless pipe, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc completely owns the broadband pipe. Apple can't innovate hardware & software around that dependency so there is no way to take the cable business from the cable players, significantly cut our costs while Apple takes a big fee for their troubles and NOT have an AT&T or Comcast make up for the losses and then some in a broadband fee hike. A net result for us consumers cannot be lower out-of-pocket each month if we want to plug Apple in as a new middleman and not see a drop in the quality of programming, the loss of any of our favorite shows, and a strong incentive for new pilots of future favorite shows to be made.
We consumers did not get huge savings in cell phone plan costs as a result of Apple inventing an iPhone. In fact, we generally pay MORE than we did before for those plan costs. We should not expect Apple inventing an
TV to yield huge savings in television plan costs. Both depend on others who are happy making what they make now. Nobody- Apple included- has any real incentive to kill that golden goose that is about $100/month per household. Apple's usual 30% cut is much more interesting if we are still paying $100/month than if we are paying $5 or $10/month. And again, who controls the pipe through which Apple's replacement solution must flow?
Last edited: