Apple Gives Media Executives Vague Hints about Its Television Plans

[divinox]

I've just seen this on the BBC news site talking about gesture controlled TV interfaces.

Apple get a brief mention towards the end of the article.

MSFT certainly have them too, considering their involvement in the Minority report project, their vision productions and the development of Surface (et co). MSFT are doing some mind-blowing things in this department from "seeing screens" to faux-windows (perspective based multi-person imagery*).

I truly recommend anyone interested in the future of tech to have a look at this:

http://vimeo.com/31899108

Its long, but amazing.

NOTE:

To RDF subscribers, the video shows MSFT doing pinch-and-zoom in 2003 (among other things). For those of you who wants to keep believing that Apple invented this, close your eyes or simply dont click the link.


Addendum:

* Apparently the geekier term is "[multi-person] view dependent image"

 

[louis Fashion]

as long as it can automatically bring the volume level of advertisements down to be the same as the shows, it will be awesome.

Don't you have a DVR? Record everything a zap the loud advertisements.

 

[Avatar74]

BFD, voice navigation (especially for TVs) is lame... <snip> Unless you don't have any hands or severe arthritis I can't see any real world benefit over this than a remote.

I'll be the first to admit a couple years ago I didn't really see it either. But Apple has a way of dominating every space they enter.

Granted, it's not going to be for everyone... but it doesn't have to be in order to be successful. Apple is not Ford. They're not selling everything to everyone... and even if they integrate Siri, just like the iPhone that won't be the only way to interface with it.... but one of several options. I am not sure why every time Apple proposes a new interface concept like multitouch or Siri, people think that suddenly, instantaneously, the keyboard, mouse, etc. are all going away. That's not how these things typically happen.

But I don't like to think of this as voice integration. That's far too simplistic a way of looking at what Siri actually does. Siri marries voice recognition with search/execution heuristics... basically primitive A.I.

Think of how you have a conversation with Siri, rather than simply issuing commands, to get things done. "I feel like listening to electronic music.... I want to have Greek food... Schedule an appointment with Dr. Bass at 1pm this Monday.... When's my next appointment with Bob Krakowski?"

It may take some observation to realize the above commands are not as simple as we take them to be. Siri understands that "eating/food" means you're looking for a restaurant. Siri knows that "I feel like listening to electronic music" means a) you want it to play music, b) you want it to play a particular genre, c) the genre you want it to play...

Now extrapolate this to television. This is much, much more than "record family guy on Friday at 12:30"...

Imagine saying "Hey, I'm in the mood for something funny." Or "I want to watch a Judd Apatow comedy..." Or "I'd like to see a spooky movie." And Siri then narrows your list view down to those programs that fit your criteria, intelligently and may recommend Netflix, Vimeo or iTunes content when live programming doesn't come up with anything at the moment.

THAT is the next generation of interacting with your TV set.... and while it's not a necessity, neither is the remote control. But sitting just five to twelve feet from your TV, people now find the remote indispensable. So there you are.

 

[bwillwall]

I'm sure 99% of the people don't change their TV sets each year. The 1st gen. must have features that are at least 3-4 years ahead of competitors.

I didn't say that it's good that that might not happen, I said it was a worry in fact. Why is my comment so disagreed with? You all act like apple haters, I can't believe this site. No faith.

 

[MacAddict1978]

Isn't this already available with Kinect? I guess I was just confused by the "future" technology part of it.

Kinect requires use of the Xbox though... harmonizing Kinect like features universally into a television would be where it's at. (Which Microsoft seems to be attempting, yet poorly <big surprise> and will soon offer software to allow the 360 to act as a cable box.) It also doesn't work well with voice commands and it much better with gestures.

I don't like the idea of speaking to the TV I like using the remote or touch device to flip through channels or go to the menu don't feel up to talking to a tv don't think is such a good idea using voice commands.

And no one would probably engage any device completely by voice. Like Siri, there are times when it's a great thing to have, but more often you do things manually.

Have you ever tried to search the cable guide for a show? It's tedious and takes forever. That's when voice control would be a go to feature. "Find American Horror story and set to record a season pass." That's the sweet spot. "Siri, turn to channel 2" is where it's a bit extreme, or "turn the volume up ten notches" which can be done faster with a remote.

But when Apple does it, it will suddenly become revolutionary and people will wonder how they ever got along without being able to talk to their tv.

With Apple, it would be the whole package, not just one lone feature like voice control. Voice control would not sell a device for them, it would merely be an extra incentive. Much as Siri didn't bring forth many early upgrades, where the iPhone 4 was revolutionary in design and power that people upgraded early in droves.

If Apple did it though, the feature would probably work. Above, someone mentioned Kinect. Enough said. You usually end up swearing at the Kinect more than you find talking to it productive.

Look at Face Time. 98% of people played with it once for the novelty, and have never found a need to use it again. No matter how video chat improves, it's shunned. Voice control has been that way too. Every time I see someone screaming and yelling in a GM vehicle, I'm usually certain they are swearing at the On Star lady who screws up everything you tell her.

I think you are in a very small minority on this one. Voice is where I ts going and I can't wait!

I think you are actually the one in the minority. Voice control isn't exactly new. People tend to feel dumb talking to inanimate objects. It can also become frustrating after a certain point.

When Voice control works like it does in Nick Stark's house in the Iron Man movies, then that would change. That's a long ways off. We can't even get computers to speak naturally yet, much less have perfect accuracy. Sometimes it's just easier to do things with a button, and no one feels like an idiot that way.

As for the article, Apple could very well even partner with other companies. At the end of the day, they need a TV that will work like any other TV, and offer some extra incentive worth the premium we all know their TV would command. Voice control isn't it... iTunes intergration isn't it... IOS control isn't it... it's all those combined and then some. A glorified Apple TV with Voice Control isn't revolutionary. It just needs something more.

 

[Pilgrim1099]

I'll be the first to admit a couple years ago I didn't really see it either. But Apple has a way of dominating every space they enter.

Granted, it's not going to be for everyone... but it doesn't have to be in order to be successful. Apple is not Ford. They're not selling everything to everyone... and even if they integrate Siri, just like the iPhone that won't be the only way to interface with it.... but one of several options. I am not sure why every time Apple proposes a new interface concept like multitouch or Siri, people think that suddenly, instantaneously, the keyboard, mouse, etc. are all going away. That's not how these things typically happen.

But I don't like to think of this as voice integration. That's far too simplistic a way of looking at what Siri actually does. Siri marries voice recognition with search/execution heuristics... basically primitive A.I.

Think of how you have a conversation with Siri, rather than simply issuing commands, to get things done. "I feel like listening to electronic music.... I want to have Greek food... Schedule an appointment with Dr. Bass at 1pm this Monday.... When's my next appointment with Bob Krakowski?"

It may take some observation to realize the above commands are not as simple as we take them to be. Siri understands that "eating/food" means you're looking for a restaurant. Siri knows that "I feel like listening to electronic music" means a) you want it to play music, b) you want it to play a particular genre, c) the genre you want it to play...

Now extrapolate this to television. This is much, much more than "record family guy on Friday at 12:30"...

Imagine saying "Hey, I'm in the mood for something funny." Or "I want to watch a Judd Apatow comedy..." Or "I'd like to see a spooky movie." And Siri then narrows your list view down to those programs that fit your criteria, intelligently and may recommend Netflix, Vimeo or iTunes content when live programming doesn't come up with anything at the moment.

THAT is the next generation of interacting with your TV set.... and while it's not a necessity, neither is the remote control. But sitting just five to twelve feet from your TV, people now find the remote indispensable. So there you are.

Big problem with your logic in using voice commands for the Apple television. People who are incapable of speech through a disability or are deaf that cannot speak in a coherent manner, relying on sign language. This tech will NOT fly with the disabled minority.

Apple does this and it's lawsuit time. It would be truly narrow minded for the company to go with the voice commands. Imagine doing that at a bar that has a tv set in a loud setting.

The idea of product design is to anticipate and think about what kind of problems could arise when users work with the device or OS and make it flexible and accessible. If they do voice commands, it must be done by remote control with a device that has authorization control settings to prevent tampering from others.

So, consider this. Is voice command a necessary function or just for pure vanity's sake?

Think about it.

 

[Teste]

I would pay Apple for a service, not for a device. What I want is the death of the TV networks.

Say I'm at home. I point my iPhone at the screen, open the iTV app, and my TV turns on. I tell my iPhone, "I want to see the news". The TV would open a menu (in a pretty, Apple-like graphical interface, not just words) showing all news shows in chronological order, such as...

"Raptor News, originally aired 1:45 hours ago"
"CCB News, originally aired 3:00 hours ago"
"The New York News, originally aired 5:00 hours ago"

I would then be able to pick which one I want to see. Or, I could just ask, "I want to see news about the 2014 World Cup Disaster", and the TV would give me a list of news shows that mentioned the event in question, and I would be able to see just the relevant part of each show.

When I got tired of the news, I would ask if there's anything new that might interest me. The TV could then give me a list of new movies and episodes of TV series of genres I enjoy; if I tell it I'm not in the mood for a movie or a series, it could tell me my favourite singer has appeared in a few TV shows, and give me a list of all those shows so I can watch them, either entirely or just the parts with the singer I like.

This system (which of course would not have any adds) would destroy TV networks, but I really couldn't care less. I would pay Apple a large monthly fee for something like that.

 

[divinox]

Kinect requires use of the Xbox though... harmonizing Kinect like features universally into a television would be where it's at. (Which Microsoft seems to be attempting, yet poorly <big surprise> and will soon offer software to allow the 360 to act as a cable box.) It also doesn't work well with voice commands and it much better with gestures.

MSFT has a praised product, and Windows-like penetration visa vi the aTV. And yet, they're attempting poorly? Shocker to hear from someone named MacAddict. Plus, what do you know of what happens behind closed doors? Nothing? Thought so.

 

[Avatar74]

Big problem with your logic in using voice commands for the Apple television. People who are incapable of speech through a disability or are deaf that cannot speak in a coherent manner, relying on sign language. This tech will NOT fly with the disabled minority.

<snip>

So, consider this. Is voice command a necessary function or just for pure vanity's sake?

Think about it.

Did you not read the part of my post indicating that, like most Apple devices, Siri would most likely not be the sole means of device input?

But for sake of argument, why aren't groups with ALS suing remote control manufacturers? Your own supposition is undermined by the very fact that these are conveniences and not necessities. Were we talking about wheelchair access to a medical facility, that'd be an entirely different story... but in this case I find the claim irrelevant.

And I have cerebral palsy.... For those who share the more severe form of this motor dysfunction, voice interaction would actually be a benefit not a detriment.

 

[dgalvan123]

Meh. I'm having trouble imagining what could improve on the current setup.

I use an OTA antenna connected to an HD Homerun to record broadcast TV shows on my macbook pro using the EyeTV software. It automatically exports those shows (with closed captioning and all the appropriate metadata) to iTunes so I can watch them on my Apple TV 2. I can schedule recordings from anywhere I have an internet connection using my smartphone or a webbrowser. I can export any of those recorded shows to an ipad, or iphone to watch on the go, stream them from eyeTV to my iphone or ipad using the app, or archive them to a DVD if I want.

The ATV2 is jailbroken so I can watch cable content from Hulu for free. And Netflix covers all the other content I'd be interested in.

All this without having to pay monthly fees (except for Netflix). There's really no functionality I feel I'm missing out on here, so I'm skeptical that I'll be impressed with whatever new TV Apple is coming up with. I'd actually prefer they just keep improving the ATV2 set top box and leave the TVs as dumb screens that I only have to update once every 10 years or more.

 

[divinox]

Meh. I'm having trouble imagining what could improve on the current setup.

I use an OTA antenna connected to an HD Homerun to record broadcast TV shows on my macbook pro using the EyeTV software. It automatically exports those shows (with closed captioning and all the appropriate metadata) to iTunes so I can watch them on my Apple TV 2. I can schedule recordings from anywhere I have an internet connection using my smartphone or a webbrowser. I can export any of those recorded shows to an ipad, or iphone to watch on the go, stream them from eyeTV to my iphone or ipad using the app, or archive them to a DVD if I want.

The ATV2 is jailbroken so I can watch cable content from Hulu for free. And Netflix covers all the other content I'd be interested in.

All this without having to pay monthly fees (except for Netflix). There's really no functionality I feel I'm missing out on here, so I'm skeptical that I'll be impressed with whatever new TV Apple is coming up with. I'd actually prefer they just keep improving the ATV2 set top box and leave the TVs as dumb screens that I only have to update once every 10 years or more.

You're approaching things the wrong way. I think its less about how Apple can push the envelope tech wise. More on how they can repackage what is in a way that appeals to the masses (i.e. stupidly simple). Add some magical marketing sprinkles on top, and they're set.

 

[dgalvan123]

As for using voice to control a TV: Meh.

I suppose the ability to search for content using a voice search request might be ok: "Play latest episode of The Office on Netflix."

I suppose. . . but I'd guess it wouldn't really be THAT much faster or more convenient than just using your remote to press your DVR button, move to the episode you want, and hit play. If there is an improvement in convenience, I'd think it would be minor.

And the whole "control your apple tv with your iphone" thing has been blown out of proportion, IMHO. The ONLY situation in which I've found it is more convenient to use the iphone/ipad to control my apple tv is when I'm entering text to search for something on youtube or vimeo or netflix. Or when I'm entering the password again because I had to reboot my apple tv for whatever reason. (And honestly, those needs to not arrive very often, since I set up my netflix queue and youtube favorites from a computer anyway.) All other times, the remote, with it's tactile feel, is a far easier and faster way to control the Apple TV than the iphone app, in which you have to launch the app, select what you want to control (TV or computer?), then swipe your figure in a more elaborate motion then simply pressing a button. And you don't have to be looking at the device in your hand if it's a regular remote. You often do when using the remote app with ATV2, though admittedly not in every situation.

I would think the comparison is similar for voice control: for certain limited applications it might provide a benefit, but in general it will remain easier and quicker to use a push-button remote (not a touch screen remote) to control your TV.

 

[Ironduke]

I wonder what they will call it

iView maybe

 

[Demosthenes X]

Cuz Netflix isn't free and it basically sucks? --- thats one way

Netflix provides fantastic value. And that's coming from a Canadian - our Netflix content is a fraction of what US consumers get.

And I highly doubt that whatever solution Apple comes up with will include free content, so that's moot.

 

[SeaFox]

I wonder what they will call it

iView maybe

I think "Applevision" is much catchier.

 

[samcraig]

Look at Face Time. 98% of people played with it once for the novelty, and have never found a need to use it again. No matter how video chat improves, it's shunned.

FaceTime, like other video chatting will take a long time to be adopted. The first obvious reason is that you have to be on WiFi. So that immediately limits the ability to be spontaneous. I can't (for example) be at the furniture store and call my wife asking her opinion on something I'm looking at in real time. I would need to snap some pictures, email/txt them while on the phone.

Just one example.

The other BIG reason is, quite frankly, people don't just talk on the phone. They often multitask. They talk while emailing, walking around, having side conversations, get ready for work/gym/etc, in various states of dress, in bed,respond to comments with facial expressions - all things people don't want the person on the OTHER end of the call to see.

My .02