Tim Cook: 'Intense Interest' in Redefining the Television Experience

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by Peace

I beg to differ on the Ultra portable laptops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook_100

And the Blu Ray Disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

"The "Blu-ray Disc founder group" was started on May 20, 2002 by MIT and nine leading electronic companies: Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung.

PowerBook 100 definitely is not a predecessor to MBA. Sony Vaio 505 is:

[MisterMe]

Originally Posted by a0me

What's wrong with TV:

...

You believe that the problem with TV are cable and OTA channels that have not been on the air for five years? Well, that is certainly an easy problem to fix.

[apolloa]

yyyyyyaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn

blah blah blah blah... ALL Apple can do is give me a pretty interface and an iOS remote control for a huge cost. I'll take my Panasonic and next gen Xbox and Netflix instead thanks for less, and to get the content you need to compete with everyone else which I don't think they can or will.
Content is king and with the big providers investing in the making of that content as well as the delivery, Apple is going to have it's work more then cut out to do anything 'different'.

----------

Originally Posted by Compile 'em all

Since when have Sony revolutionized anything since the Walkman?

hmmm Blueray? You know full HD 3D films and programmes capability in your own front room? Bag of hurt, if you say so, the consumer couldn't care and loves the fact you get that full HD 3D in the lounge.

[macs4nw]

Originally Posted by HyperX13

Maybe Mr. Cook should finally hang up the rabbit ears antenna and try direct TV or Fios or something modern?

Hope you were joking, but the man (Tim) has a valid point. Other than the delivery mechanism -analog cable>digital cable>satellite-, and the sheer amount of it that we consume, in spite of the revolution in other entertainment options, nothing much has changed with the way we watch, and pay for, Television programming. Please Tim, blow us away with some revolutionary concept.

[a0me]

Originally Posted by MisterMe

You believe that the problem with TV are cable and OTA channels that have not been on the air for five years? Well, that is certainly an easy problem to fix.

Ha ha!
No, the problem is 30+ button TV remotes and consumers having to think in terms of channels instead of content.
Surely there's got to be a way to 1) radically simplify remotes without losing functionality and 2) not having to worry about who (what channel) is delivering the content you want to watch.

[nia820]

Why not improve your apple tv box first apple? I live my apple tv but they could seriously add some more features and improvments to it.

----------

Originally Posted by nickgri

Forget all the fancy stuff at first Apple-make millions by simply offering a "bookmark" or send feature to a remote which allows the advertisers to send you to their website either now or later-simple.
That's what they want to get us to look further at their products right-well make it happen and charge them for it-duh!
Apple could start by making it a lot simpler to type in your info rather than that scroll to each letter pain in the butt thing they have now-totally laborious-helloooo Apple-you can do better!

You know I always thought that apple should have enabled an ipad or iphone to connect to apple tv so you could use your ios device as a keyboard.

[TallManNY]

Originally Posted by Liquorpuki

ESPN per subscriber fee is around $5, so that's how much Time Warner pays ESPN to middleman their channel. Meanwhile they charge like $50 for me to get access to ESPN. I also have to rent a cable box to turn coax into HDMI when the same content could be streamed through the internet if they developed the infrastructure. I also have to pay a service charge for a guy to come staple coax under my carpet and flip a switch outside. If all I want to do is watch ESPN, how am I not getting ripped off?

"if they developed the infrastructure" Hint, they aren't developing the infrastructure unless it leads to them getting paid for it. They aren't going to put themselves out of business by offering ala carte orders that result in less money going to them.

Here's the deal. You like TV. TV is worth $50 per month to them. They don't care what you watch or when you watch it. They care how many people will pay to $50 to have TV. You are one of them. You may only like ESPN. I bet there are folks out there that just watch the Korean language station that is getting paid 5 cents per subscriber. Are they getting ripped off even more than you? Not really. Time Warner has to work just as hard to get that content out them.

Don't belittle the difficulty of running wire to nearly every single house in an entire city. It is kind of an amazing thing these cable companies have done. And the upkeep of that wire takes a lot of work.

We won't break them until wireless can handle huge amounts of video. Then they will lose their monopoly.

[Liquorpuki]

Originally Posted by TallManNY

"if they developed the infrastructure" Hint, they aren't developing the infrastructure unless it leads to them getting paid for it. They aren't going to put themselves out of business by offering ala carte orders that result in less money going to them.

If they don't, somebody else will. That's how disruptive tech works. Borders didn't take the eReader seriously. B&N did. Borders no longer exists.

Here's the deal. You like TV. TV is worth $50 per month to them. They don't care what you watch or when you watch it. They care how many people will pay to $50 to have TV. You are one of them. You may only like ESPN. I bet there are folks out there that just watch the Korean language station that is getting paid 5 cents per subscriber. Are they getting ripped off even more than you? Not really. Time Warner has to work just as hard to get that content out them.

Well, if they only wanted to watch the Korean channel that has a $0.05 sub fee to the Korean content provider, and are paying the cable company $40 to watch it, then yeah they're getting ripped off more than I am.

Don't belittle the difficulty of running wire to nearly every single house in an entire city. It is kind of an amazing thing these cable companies have done. And the upkeep of that wire takes a lot of work.

I'm not belittling anything and nothing changes going to your house. Poletop/underground copper/fiber is still required bring you internet access regardless of what business model they use for cable. I'm on Time Warner and both my TV's cable box and my cable modem are hooked up to the same coax splitter. It's redundant architecture.

[Bezetos]

"When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years"

I don't know. When I look at my internet enabled HD TV, I certainly don't feel like I've gone 20 to 30 years backwards in time. Now I can watch films in high definition, have a plethora of options when it comes to video on demand and social content, I can participate in interactive experiences, stream content from my devices etc..

I just can't see what Apple can "revolutionise" here and what do they find so old-school; Tim Cook just sounds cynical.

I'm open to ideas regarding what could be introduced to "bring TV back to the present".

----------

Originally Posted by Compile 'em all

Since when have Sony revolutionized anything since the Walkman?

How about:
compact discs (you know, the most popular discs on the planet),
DAT,
Blu ray discs?

----------

Originally Posted by Compile 'em all

One word: Siri.

The great thing about the TV is that it is always connected to power and network. Imagine if it detects via a motion sensor that you are in front of the TV and automatically activates Siri. Without a single press of a button.

You've heard about Kinect, right? You know, the device that does exactly that (except that it doesn't "activate Siri", you don't have to active voice recognition, it always listens)?

[APlotdevice]

^ the CD certainly. However DAT was a niche format, and Blu-Ray is more evolution than revolution.

[Sugadaddy]

Originally Posted by blizaine

I think Apple is working to re-invent the cablebox/dvr. Not just the appletv, but a box that has appletv features with multiple hd tuners and in home sharing to other boxes. Pretty much every DVR's interface hasn't changed in 10 years and they ALL suck. Google TV was a nice attempt but it's UI sucks as well, and you shouldn't need a keyboard for your TV.

I agree with this. Merge the Apple TV with a DVR box. Better interface, Slingbox features, Facetime, etc.

[APlotdevice]

Originally Posted by blizaine

I think Apple is working to re-invent the cablebox/dvr. Not just the appletv, but a box that has appletv features with multiple hd tuners and in home sharing to other boxes. Pretty much every DVR's interface hasn't changed in 10 years and they ALL suck. Google TV was a nice attempt but it's UI sucks as well, and you shouldn't need a keyboard for your TV.

It would be nice to have the option though. *wishes Apple would enable the AppleTV's latent Bluetooth connectivity*

[diamond.g]

Originally Posted by Sugadaddy

I agree with this. Merge the Apple TV with a DVR box. Better interface, Slingbox features, Facetime, etc.

Is the aTV interface really that much better for recording shows than the TiVo interface?

[derbladerunner]

Originally Posted by diamond.g

Is the aTV interface really that much better for recording shows than the TiVo interface?

Agree.

Also, as others pointed out features like video chat and "innovative" control schemes (Samsung motion/voice control, Wii U TVii, XBox Kinect...) are on the market already and some look rather gimmicky to me.

Still scratching my head what innovation Apple could bring to the table with its own TV set. As somebody pointed out in another Apple forum:

I'd much rather be able to have all the TVs in the house connected to boxes I bought from Apple without having to replace any TVs, than have to buy a new TV for each room just to get a useful UI, services, and content. I'm simply not going to put a large HDTV in the guest bedroom but I'd be fine if I could spend a couple hundred on a box for it.

Apple should stick to improving its hockey puck and not do a TV set in my opinion.

Then, Apple being Apple they could surprise us all again with something really innovative.

After Cook's NBC comments it looks quite certain *something* TV-ish is coming in 2013.

[Radio]

This will fail

Nobody will pay per show when tv is free

[derbladerunner]

Originally Posted by Radio

This will fail

Nobody will pay per show when tv is free

I don't think a business model is out there for the "new" Apple TV.

It could be a mix of free and paid, maybe you pay per channel and not per show. Each TV channel would be like an app.

Maybe you get targeted, personalized ads (iTV ads or whatever) instead of traditional TV ads blasted to everyone in the area.

Maybe you can choose to get ads and a free channel or pay for the same content with no ads, lots of options.

PS: It all depends on content and Apple can't keep this a secret in 2013. They need lots of contracts worldwide to get rights to TV/film content. Also, the TV/film industry is not as desperate as the music industry was back in the 2000s when iTunes launched. It will probably be harder (more expensive) for Apple to get the really interesting stuff. Especially sports and other live content is sometimes locked to one channel/provider for years.

[AaronTheYoung]

Originally Posted by SiPi

Just another new product launch that Apple can mess up

Or sell a few million in a weekend.

[AaronTheYoung]

Originally Posted by The Captain

I don't think the supporters of A la carte TV have really given much thought to the consequences of the idea, or they have little understanding of how TV gets made. Right now is the best TV has ever been in terms of variety of choices, level of talent, quality of productions, and amount of experimentation. And the trend seem s to be that it's only getting better as we go forward. Bundled networks have allowed for a vast amount of new talent to get their starts. It has allowed for shows that are experimenting with formate or story lines to actually be made in the first place. Most of the FX shows like Louie, It's Always Sunny, Wilfred or Archer would never have gotten made in a A la Cate system. And those are just a few examples from one network out of hundreds.

Right now TV is being viewed as more cutting edge, more experimental, and having more freedom and variety than Hollywood ever was. How many times have we heard lately about how Hollywood movies are in trouble. That there is no risk taking and everything is a sequel to a franchise? Well that's because the film industry is an A la carte model and that's what you get.

The comparisons with iTunes is also not applicable. Well it did save consumes a bit of money (a full album is still $9.99) it mostly just cut the labels out as middleman (though they still are a bit). The artist themselves where mostly not effected too much since the main difference is that bands make most of their money touring. There is no "touring" for a TV crew. A TV crew gets their money upfront in the form of day/project rates or hourly. A band playing a few gigs to save up the money to rent studio time for a new project, is much different that needing to have a budget in place to hire the 5-20 man crew, fly them to location, pay for post production time ect. The editor need to be paid wether the show is a hit or not. The grips have rent, and need to be paid when shooting is complete, not after some internet sales. Studios are able to do this all on such a grand scale now because bundling allows them to spread the risk of any one project throughout the advertising revenue of the networks other shows or even other networks. The great thing is this even applies to small networks and production houses so that all levels of the industry can take more chances and flourish more than before.

How is removing all of that "better" just because there's an apple logo on it now?

Everything has to evolve. I'm sure the TV industry is in a very fearful period and we really don't know how this all may end up. However, Apple has a very good track record at stirring things up for the good of the consumer. If the consumer gets less, they are likely not to do it. They want their products to be a smashing success, proving that they know what the consumer wanted before they got it.

I very anxious to see what Apple creates for us.

[AaronTheYoung]

Originally Posted by derbladerunner

They are falling behind with the current hockey puck Apple TV box in my view.

In my view, Apple should make a better Apple TV box to counter Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, Roku, and cable TV solutions instead of a TV set.

Apple needs and wants to re-imagine the entire "TV" experience. If they were to pursue a better more capable Apple TV box, they aren't controlling ALL the hardware and that's just not their philosophy. I do expect them to keep improving the Apple TV, but I think we are going to get a full fledged re-imagined "TV" experience.

I'm really expecting it to be more than just a TV, but also a communications hub (Think George Jetson). I want to be able to be watching my TV and say, "Call Dad" and it'll find him on his iPhone or iPad no matter where he is and I'll have my FaceTime conversation. As soon as my conversation ends, it will go right back to where I was watching TV. Just like my iPhone goes right back to the music I was listening to when I end a phone call.

Or if the kids are in the family room and dinner is ready, I can just open up a FaceTime to the family room TV and tell the kids to come to dinner. No shouting upstairs or downstairs.

Apple isn't going to be able to provide this with a the same style if they have to deal with vendor displays. Does it have a camera? Is it compatible with the Apple TV box? Granted all this can be worked out, but I don't think it's Apple style.

Just my .02.

[Radio]

Originally Posted by derbladerunner

I don't think a business model is out there for the "new" Apple TV.

It could be a mix of free and paid, maybe you pay per channel and not per show. Each TV channel would be like an app.

Maybe you get targeted, personalized ads (iTV ads or whatever) instead of traditional TV ads blasted to everyone in the area.

Maybe you can choose to get ads and a free channel or pay for the same content with no ads, lots of options.

PS: It all depends on content and Apple can't keep this a secret in 2013. They need lots of contracts worldwide to get rights to TV/film content. Also, the TV/film industry is not as desperate as the music industry was back in the 2000s when iTunes launched. It will probably be harder (more expensive) for Apple to get the really interesting stuff. Especially sports and other live content is sometimes locked to one channel/provider for years.

well said!

[diamond.g]

I want to see how Apple can keep their hardware margins. Especially since they really don't make any money on services. I would like to see how they can change how we watch TV. They sure did change we (well some of us) use cell phones.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Bezetos

"When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years"

I don't know. When I look at my internet enabled HD TV, I certainly don't feel like I've gone 20 to 30 years backwards in time. Now I can watch films in high definition, have a plethora of options when it comes to video on demand and social content, I can participate in interactive experiences, stream content from my devices etc..

I just can't see what Apple can "revolutionise" here and what do they find so old-school; Tim Cook just sounds cynical.

That's exactly what I thought at first: is he using just a plain cable box?

Tim needs a DVR to time shift his favorite shows. And to use video on demand on his iPad like the rest of us.

Originally Posted by AaronTheYoung

Apple needs and wants to re-imagine the entire "TV" experience. If they were to pursue a better more capable Apple TV box, they aren't controlling ALL the hardware and that's just not their philosophy. I do expect them to keep improving the Apple TV, but I think we are going to get a full fledged re-imagined "TV" experience.

The problem as I see it, is that Apple does want to re-imagine TV... but in such a way as to maximize their profits from it. And that requirement might get in the way of a good solution.

[oneMadRssn]

Originally Posted by derbladerunner

Many asked before and I'll ask again: Why not let the user decide on a TV brand (be it current HDTVs or 4K TVs in the future)?

The TV is "dumb" in this scenario, all it does is display content via HDMI or wireless

I still think Apple should continue to focus on the AppleTV box and improve it. The user experience is great for setup, all it takes is a single HDMI cable and Apple can sell into millions of homes who already own HDTVs.

Apart from integrating a surround system into the TV like Bose did...

http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/...e_ii/index.jsp

...I don't see any advantage in Apple selling its own large TV sets. Just think of handling, shipping and storage of these sets in crowded Apple stores etc.

Microsoft has great ideas in this area with the Xbox360 and Kinect, the new Nintendo Wii U also has nice features (control TV with the gamepad, "second screen" info, metadata, EPG...).

Unfortunately, Apple is falling behind in the living room in my opinion.

They used to say the same thing about monitors and desktop computers, yet it was the iconic iMac that saved Apple at one point.

[derbladerunner]

Originally Posted by oneMadRssn

They used to say the same thing about monitors and desktop computers, yet it was the iconic iMac that saved Apple at one point.

This is true, but I see a fundamental difference between a computer with an OS designed by Apple and a TV appliance.

I rarely hear people complain about their HDTV, some existing concepts are rather nice (Samsung voice/motion control, TiVO, Xbox with Kinect, Netflix, Hulu, Skype for Tvs...). I currently fail to understand what Apple could really innovate in TV hardware and UI.

I might be completely wrong and Apple could surprise us like they did with the first iPhone.

I guess we will know the answer by this time next year after Cook's latest comments on NBC.

[The Captain]

Originally Posted by AaronTheYoung

Everything has to evolve. I'm sure the TV industry is in a very fearful period and we really don't know how this all may end up. However, Apple has a very good track record at stirring things up for the good of the consumer. If the consumer gets less, they are likely not to do it. They want their products to be a smashing success, proving that they know what the consumer wanted before they got it.

I very anxious to see what Apple creates for us.

Actually what I was pointing to was that TV has evolved, and I gave numerous examples of how it has evolved for the better over time under a bundle model. The movie industry on the other hand has stagnated under a Al la carte model yet Apple fans see this as a better way forward just because Apple would do it? This frankly is magical thinking and borders on the religious.

And the TV industry is not in a "fearful period" as you say. As I described it the TV industry is boming compared to it's past. The only thing they "could" be fearful about is the idea of a large company like Apple at the behest of it's fans bullying it's way in and destroying a flushing industry while providing less choices for consumers at a higher cost. But that ain't going to happen which is why I think the Apple TV content thing would fail.