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

[TsunamiTheClown]

I am afraid that Mr. Allaire has this all wrong. The consumer knowing what he wants? Heresy.

[notsurfeif]

Originally Posted by charlieegan3

Connectivity to what?

Next gen blu ray players with apps and lightning connectors. Duh.

(Really though, that would be great vs an IR blaster)

[BornAgainApple]

Sigh, I must be getting old, because CRT's back in the day lasted 20-30 years. Still got a 13" Trinitron for the elliptical in the basement.

[charlieegan3]

Originally Posted by notsurfeif

Next gen blu ray players with apps and lightning connectors. Duh.

(Really though, that would be great vs an IR blaster)

Ha

But in all seriousness what are these going to be used for?

[goobot]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Most input methods have already been done for TV. If its something new, it'll be something that nobody has heard of / seen before.

As it stands, we have:

- Remote
- Voice
- Hand Gestures
- Keyboard/Mouse
- Remote App's for mobiles

Cant see them coming up with a better alternative than any of these.

I think they will have like a medium sized touch device that connects via Bluetooth, has things like gyroscope, head phone jack that will allow for just you to listen to it, has mic, tumbler, speaker and so on to have the optimal touch remote experience, not just bundle an app you know? Like put a lot of work into a separate touch remote, then also make it so 3rd parties can release support of their devices that you can download so you only need that remote and nothing else, stream line things.

[mattopotamus]

The really annoying thing is that cable companies will still charge you $15 as if you are renting one of their boxes

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by pgiguere1

You could say it the other way around: 32" isn't a TV, it's a monitor.

Seriously though, 4 sizes is a lot of options given that Apple usually has a streamlined lineup to minimize the costs of components through economy of scale and maximize profits.

The original article has more realistic expectations than yours. Apple products are high-end. They're desired by rich people. 48" is smaller than what a lot of people would buy. That's what I have and I don't feel like it's a huge TV by any means. If I were richer I'd definitely get something bigger.

It's not like the mobile market where too big of a screen means less portability. Modern LED-backlit TVs are so thin it doesn't really matter whether they're 40" or 60". Just use a wall mount if you want to save some space. It's really more of a money issue for people, but since Apple is used to get a near-monopoly of "premium" products it shouldn't be a problem. It's easier to have a large margin on expensive products.

I guess it depends where in the world you live. I know of loads of people with TV's that are around 32-38" and only 1 who has a 50". Houses in the UK aren't big enough for massive TV's they just look stupidly out of place.

[btbeme]

Until the content providers agree to a completely new and foreign financial, profit, and delivery structure, all of this is lipstick on a pig. Well, mostly. I can see some advances in searching and recording, for instance, that can be changed with minimal participation from content providers.

But for meaningful change to happen, it will take a lot more cooperation than simply a visionary company making some really nice TVs.

[pgiguere1]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

Most input methods have already been done for TV. If its something new, it'll be something that nobody has heard of / seen before.

As it stands, we have:

- Remote
- Voice
- Hand Gestures
- Keyboard/Mouse
- Remote App's for mobiles

Cant see them coming up with a better alternative than any of these.

They don't have to invent a new input method, just use right one of the existing ones, which has never been done for TVs so far.

Touchscreen phones and tablets existed before the iPhone and iPad too, they just didn't work well.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by pgiguere1

They don't have to invent a new input method, just use right one of the existing ones, which has never been done for TVs so far.

Touchscreen phones and tablets existed before the iPhone and iPad too, they just didn't work well.

What's wrong with the current methods then?

TV remotes work fine.


(IMO something like a touchscreen 'pad' would be useless as you've got no feedback or knowledge of what buttons you're pressing without looking at the controller - it will need to be something with physical buttons).

[Mykbibby]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I wont be interested if its 60". That's just stupid. They need about 4 different models:

32? That's a Cinema Display. To be honest, anything less than 60 and I won't be interested.



32" 36" 42" and 48"

Any bigger and its no longer a TV, it's a cinema.

32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80 should be the range of sizes. 999, 1399, 1699, 1999, 2499, 2999, 3499

[iAco]

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

Such a stupid thing shouldn't even exist.

It should be integrated into the TV.

It makes sense that the thing you stare at should stare back. Therefor we need the camara inegrated into the TV.

There is so much more wrong with the idea of a set top box. It's for people that want the Apple experience on a non-Apple brand TV. Just reaches more market.

But the idea of a set top box is old and ought to be shot over and over until blown into oblivion.

I like to have my TV mounted on the wall, flush, no cables, boxes, garbage. Like a animated picture frame on the wall. And a set top box screws it all up for me. Instead I have to place them inside the wall behind the TV, but then I have issues with the IR signal reaching the boxes, so I get a extender, tucked it behind the edge of my TV, and the signal reaches 50% of the time. WiFi (AirPlay) controls are usually a bit laggy and that kills the experience.

So again, **** set top boxes.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by btbeme

Until the content providers agree to a completely new and foreign financial, profit, and delivery structure, all of this is lipstick on a pig. Well, mostly. I can see some advances in searching and recording, for instance, that can be changed with minimal participation from content providers.

But for meaningful change to happen, it will take a lot more cooperation than simply a visionary company making some really nice TVs.

Yup, and dont forget we're not just talking about the US networks, we're talking about tens of thousands of TV networks from around the world, many of which are state-owned so are a hell of a lot harder to get to license stuff (one such example, the BBC need government approval for any 'large' spending.

Also given that most TV networks in Europe (and possibly Australia? May be wrong tho?) have spent billions on a 'digital switchover', they arent about to ditch that for something else.

[pgiguere1]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I guess it depends where in the world you live. I know of loads of people with TV's that are around 32-38" and only 1 who has a 50". Houses in the UK aren't big enough for massive TV's they just look stupidly out of place.

People who would buy an Apple TV are probably richer than the average person and have a bigger house. What I meant is that Apple makes premium devices so they don't necessarily have to have the average person in mind. Macs are all over $1k even though the vast majority (90%+) of people aren't willing to spend over $1k on a laptop.

Likewise, the only Apple monitor you can buy right now is 27" even though the vast majority of people buy monitors that are smaller than that (20-24").

Anyway, if the set-top box idea is true, you could still buy it and attach it to your existing smaller TV, or to an iMac or computer monitor if this suits you better.

[Mykbibby]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I wont be interested if its 60". That's just stupid. They need about 4 different models:

32" 36" 42" and 48"

Any bigger and its no longer a TV, it's a cinema.

Maybe your needs lend themselves to a small bedroom-sized screen, but I and almost everyone I know wouldn't buy it at a screen size less than 55. Size matters.

32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80 should be the range of sizes. 999, 1399, 1699, 1999, 2499, 2999, 3499

[mms13]

Breaking up the cable companies' monopolies on the industry is the biggest challenge this faces.

Apple needs to figure out a way to offer live television, then they will be able to dominate the market. Trust me, I'd love to be able to sever the ties with Comcast.

[Digital Skunk]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I wont be interested if its 60". That's just stupid. They need about 4 different models:

32" 36" 42" and 48"

Any bigger and its no longer a TV, it's a cinema.

I agree about the 60" but I would consider the 42" to be the start and the finish. Apple won't put out more than 2 models IMHO. Maybe a 39" for budget sake, but they'll push the 43"/46" model as the standard.

Originally Posted by blockhed

The fellow predicts:

A7 quad-core chip and offering several cameras and sensors, HDMI, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, substantial storage, and Lightning ports for power and a coaxial cable dongle.

I think all this for $149 is perhaps inspired by smoking a lot of whackyweed. Does he live in Colorado or Washington State? Just "substantial storage" is enough to make the thing cost $150.

I agree. I don't think Apple will make the set top box. This is Apple, a company that has thrived off of simplicity. Either the current design of the Apple TV will get updated with those features, or it will stay the same and you'll have to buy the actual TV to get the the new features.

Also, there won't be an Ethernet port. HDMI and a lightening port or two for dongles. Storage only for apps, and therefore only 16GB . . . . maybe 32GBs. The rest can be streamed.

No connection to legacy devices like Blu-Ray, etc. Definitely no IR.

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I guess it depends where in the world you live. I know of loads of people with TV's that are around 32-38" and only 1 who has a 50". Houses in the UK aren't big enough for massive TV's they just look stupidly out of place.

I agree. Very few people in the state even have sets larger than 50" We have a 43" that looks just gigantic in our moderately sized house. I am afraid to hang it on the wall personally.

[pubwvj]

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

[mankar4]

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.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by iAco

I like to have my TV mounted on the wall, flush, no cables, boxes, garbage. Like a animated picture frame on the wall. And a set top box screws it all up for me.

I've never understood this. IF you've got it fixed to the wall in the way you describe, you'll be cranking your neck to look above the fireplace, and will be getting a big ass glare from the light on the ceiling :/

Obviously this will depend on your house, but typically I cant see that working, it'd be way too high up.

[coolspot18]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I wont be interested if its 60". That's just stupid. They need about 4 different models:

32" 36" 42" and 48"

Any bigger and its no longer a TV, it's a cinema.

Sorry, but 48" is much too tiny for my place... I need at least 60".

[TimUSCA]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I wont be interested if its 60". That's just stupid. They need about 4 different models:

32" 36" 42" and 48"

Any bigger and its no longer a TV, it's a cinema.

I see 3 levels:

37", 46", and 55"

That covers a wide spectrum of common TV sizes, and it isn't like Apple to have more than a couple of options to choose from. iPhones and iPads are different because they require various carriers.

[rmwebs]

Originally Posted by mankar4

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.

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.

----------

Originally Posted by TimUSCA

I see 3 levels:

37", 46", and 55"

That covers a wide spectrum of common TV sizes, and it isn't like Apple to have more than a couple of options to choose from. iPhones and iPads are different because they require various carriers.

Yeah thats probably a better spectrum than the one I suggested, yours is covering three different/broader markets whilst not creating too many options.

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by justperry

No way, Apple is all about streaming content, they won't go anything bigger than needed, 8-16 GB Max.

I could see them going up to 128 or even 256 GB for stream buffers and rentals but not likely more than that even when flash storage has it.

Also his box is basically a Mac Mini with a locked down OS, no way would that be a mere $149-199. Try triple that.

[skippymac]

Originally Posted by rmwebs

I guess it depends where in the world you live. I know of loads of people with TV's that are around 32-38" and only 1 who has a 50". Houses in the UK aren't big enough for massive TV's they just look stupidly out of place.

I agree with this. My parents house is pretty big and they just bought a 46 inch TV. It's the biggest TV I've ever actually seen in someone's house and it is MASSIVE. The other TV is 30 inches and I'd say that's a pretty average size here.

Someone earlier said 32 inch is not a TV but a big monitor. I have a 27 inch monitor that is more than big enough for me to use as my only media consuming device!