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 TV Concept Envisions iPod Touch-Style Remote
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good grief. Its called an iPhone. Try finding an AppleTV owner that doesn't have one.
I mean that mockup/entire article is SO ABSURD it just perfectly points out how clueless people really are...
"wouldn't it be nice if the AppleTV remote had bluetooth and touch screen and Siri and keyboard and blah blah blah...just like an iPhone"
Just. Use. Your. iPhone. It's all there already, inside the Remote App.
I DO hope Apple does a slightly better job with the Remote App itself in the future, but that is neither here nor there...
Apple is already shipping the exact remote that they should...Except I would go back to plastic instead of aluminum so that it doesn't disappear into the couch so easily.
I mean that mockup/entire article is SO ABSURD it just perfectly points out how clueless people really are...
"wouldn't it be nice if the AppleTV remote had bluetooth and touch screen and Siri and keyboard and blah blah blah...just like an iPhone"
Just. Use. Your. iPhone. It's all there already, inside the Remote App.
I DO hope Apple does a slightly better job with the Remote App itself in the future, but that is neither here nor there...
Apple is already shipping the exact remote that they should...Except I would go back to plastic instead of aluminum so that it doesn't disappear into the couch so easily.
Love the look of the champagne one….matches my iPhone 5s 
Would be nice if the fancy remote was optional if your iPhone can already use an app to get the same thing. I already use an app for XBMC and it works great. BTW- the iPhone doesn't necessarily need to fall sleep when it's in use as a remote. Could be a setting like with the alarm clock app I use.
I'm in the process of building an XBMC-based htpc and PVR with my old 2008 MacPro. Sold my jailbroken AppleTV 2 (in two hours on Ebay for $234.95!) and bought the ATV3 for $75 because of the $25 iTunes card with purchase deal to tide me over until an upgrade comes. Figured out how to use AirParrot to wirelessly send the content to the ATV instead of stringing 25ft of hdmi and optical cables through the basement. Now I'm wondering if I should buy an HDHomerun Prime to get cable channels for my Myth TV PVR or wait to see what kind of deal Apple makes with cable providers. The classic "should I wait" scenario. Please, no suggestions to just watch tv through XBMC, I'm trying to stay legit and besides, the view quality of the pirate content sucks much of the time (yes, I looked to see what the fuss was about).
Wonder what the chances are that Comcast would allow an AppleTV to be a PVR and eat into Comcast's monthly dvr rental revenue… probably pretty low but sounds like they are talking. Would there be a cable card slot for that?
Would be nice if the fancy remote was optional if your iPhone can already use an app to get the same thing. I already use an app for XBMC and it works great. BTW- the iPhone doesn't necessarily need to fall sleep when it's in use as a remote. Could be a setting like with the alarm clock app I use.
I'm in the process of building an XBMC-based htpc and PVR with my old 2008 MacPro. Sold my jailbroken AppleTV 2 (in two hours on Ebay for $234.95!) and bought the ATV3 for $75 because of the $25 iTunes card with purchase deal to tide me over until an upgrade comes. Figured out how to use AirParrot to wirelessly send the content to the ATV instead of stringing 25ft of hdmi and optical cables through the basement. Now I'm wondering if I should buy an HDHomerun Prime to get cable channels for my Myth TV PVR or wait to see what kind of deal Apple makes with cable providers. The classic "should I wait" scenario. Please, no suggestions to just watch tv through XBMC, I'm trying to stay legit and besides, the view quality of the pirate content sucks much of the time (yes, I looked to see what the fuss was about).
Wonder what the chances are that Comcast would allow an AppleTV to be a PVR and eat into Comcast's monthly dvr rental revenue… probably pretty low but sounds like they are talking. Would there be a cable card slot for that?
Last edited:
i agree with others, economically its not likely to happen. that remote would indeed hike the price up too much. as would the aluminium unibody design on the Apple TV.
but i disagree about the approach to the remote - yes feeling buttons and being able to press and click buttons without having to look at the remote is ideal and intuitive when using a tv. but theres a simple solution to that - apple can make a double sided remote. one side that has 3-5 basic buttons (volume, play/pause/channel/selector etc). use the remote one way round for while you want to adjust basic things without having to take your eye off the tv much. and simply switch it around in your hand to get back to the touch based browsing of your tv content.
i have the apple tv and i never look at the remote when using it, so i can see this solution making the idea of a touch screen fair, reasonable and not redundant an idea at all.
but i disagree about the approach to the remote - yes feeling buttons and being able to press and click buttons without having to look at the remote is ideal and intuitive when using a tv. but theres a simple solution to that - apple can make a double sided remote. one side that has 3-5 basic buttons (volume, play/pause/channel/selector etc). use the remote one way round for while you want to adjust basic things without having to take your eye off the tv much. and simply switch it around in your hand to get back to the touch based browsing of your tv content.
i have the apple tv and i never look at the remote when using it, so i can see this solution making the idea of a touch screen fair, reasonable and not redundant an idea at all.
I really like the look of the boxes. Very glossy and nice. Great.
What I think is ridiculous though is expecting a touch interface for the remote to work. There are three reasons why this concept of remote makes no sense:
1) You need to be able to use your remote without looking at it, based on tactile feedback
2) I don't want to have to plug in my remote constantly because it's battery is dead
3) I don't want to lose a remote if its as expensive as I'm sure those things would be.
For that nice touch interface with contextual buttons, etc. Apple can rely on existing hardware such as iPhones and iPods. We already have the Apple Remote app available. Why add a new product? I like the dedicated dumb remote that comes with the Apple TV. The only thing that is annoying is when I have to type a password or something. That's when I pull out my iPhone and connect it up instead.
But, back to where I started. I LOVE the look of the boxes!
What I think is ridiculous though is expecting a touch interface for the remote to work. There are three reasons why this concept of remote makes no sense:
1) You need to be able to use your remote without looking at it, based on tactile feedback
2) I don't want to have to plug in my remote constantly because it's battery is dead
3) I don't want to lose a remote if its as expensive as I'm sure those things would be.
For that nice touch interface with contextual buttons, etc. Apple can rely on existing hardware such as iPhones and iPods. We already have the Apple Remote app available. Why add a new product? I like the dedicated dumb remote that comes with the Apple TV. The only thing that is annoying is when I have to type a password or something. That's when I pull out my iPhone and connect it up instead.
But, back to where I started. I LOVE the look of the boxes!
In which case I want to pick a remote with real buttons and feedback. Make it a bluetooth or wifi remote but it has to has buttons.
I don't want to see onto my remote everytime I need to push a button. Touch screens are cool for the first hour but it's painful afterward.
That's if the remote contains memory. Since it doesn't need storage that would drop the cost a lot but the total package would still come in at least double the cost.
Personally I think they need to plan for simpler video game style remote that would only bring the cost up maybe 25%. Or better yet, just release the Apple TV as it is but sell optional remotes for people that don't have iPhones or iPads and also allow for gaming controllers. It should be setup to run two bluetooth gaming controllers so people can play games on their Apple TVs. Also, games bought in the Mac store should be able to be streamed through Apple TV so you can play any game you bought on your Mac on your big screen.
Remotes were designed so that you would not have to look at them. Remotes the veered from this design have been panned despite giving the user "more control". Apple's current Apple TV remote shows just how few buttons you actually need at your fingertips.
Touch remotes require a user to power them on (even if just by touch), then to look at them, then to perform the action. Sorry, but that won't cut it. Having a regular remote paired with a keyboard, iPhone, etc for certain tasks is the most ideal.
TiVo remote (not the light up one) is still the end-all-be-all of remotes.
Touch remotes require a user to power them on (even if just by touch), then to look at them, then to perform the action. Sorry, but that won't cut it. Having a regular remote paired with a keyboard, iPhone, etc for certain tasks is the most ideal.
TiVo remote (not the light up one) is still the end-all-be-all of remotes.
Harmony One is still the best remote made for controlling everything. Just too bad Logitech doesn't make that one anymore.
Why is everyone so ferociously knocking the need for a remote? There won't necessarily be someone with an iPhone in the house all of the time. The kids may want to watch aTV after school before mom and dad are home, but not have an iOS device. Mom or dad may not want to give their phone up all the time to the kids just to watch tv or play games. I'm often on my iPhone reading when an episode of the show my girlfriend is watching ends and needs changed. Sometimes I dislike having to give my phone up to change the channel.
The design of this remote may not be ideal but there is likely some way Apple would address a lot of those kind of concerns. I'm sure the remote device would be optional. If they make a touchscreen style remote it wouldn't need the same kind of memory and components as an iPhone or iPod Touch so the cost could potentially be reasonable. The screen may not be as large as current iOS devices but it would likely need to scale proportionally if it were to include any potential aTV game mirroring, etc. Though, Apple has been pushing flexible app design lately, so that could help.
It's possible they don't necessarily need a touchscreen design, depends what they have planed for the future of aTV. Either way there could still be physical buttons. Pretty easy to imagine how that could be on a non touchscreen remote. For an aTV that would need a touchscreen remote, physical buttons similar to current iOS devices would work. Volume buttons on the left, lock/power button on top, and home button below the screen. Could also add a couple of buttons on the right side of the device to program with an actual television.
They might be able to surprise us on price? Battery life would definitely be an issue. Even if Apple introduced inductive charging to their products, I'd question if a touchscreen device could make it a week. Especially if used for any enhanced tv/movie/game/mirroring experience. Bluetooth would be needed, and probably wifi as well? IR would be nice to interact with the actual TV and possibly base aTV functions to save power. IR is also low on power consumption. Lack of cellular and phone radios obviously help. A smaller screen would require less power.
I think one could easily under estimate selling multiples of these to house holds at a decent price point. If it enabled easier navigation and input over a hardware only remote and provided a method of enhanced interaction with tv/movies/gaming it could be a nice little money maker. Multiple individuals may want to interact wth the content or theoretical supplemental enhanced content at the same time. And these could be sold additionally to be people that already have an iPad or iPod potentially.
The design of this remote may not be ideal but there is likely some way Apple would address a lot of those kind of concerns. I'm sure the remote device would be optional. If they make a touchscreen style remote it wouldn't need the same kind of memory and components as an iPhone or iPod Touch so the cost could potentially be reasonable. The screen may not be as large as current iOS devices but it would likely need to scale proportionally if it were to include any potential aTV game mirroring, etc. Though, Apple has been pushing flexible app design lately, so that could help.
It's possible they don't necessarily need a touchscreen design, depends what they have planed for the future of aTV. Either way there could still be physical buttons. Pretty easy to imagine how that could be on a non touchscreen remote. For an aTV that would need a touchscreen remote, physical buttons similar to current iOS devices would work. Volume buttons on the left, lock/power button on top, and home button below the screen. Could also add a couple of buttons on the right side of the device to program with an actual television.
They might be able to surprise us on price? Battery life would definitely be an issue. Even if Apple introduced inductive charging to their products, I'd question if a touchscreen device could make it a week. Especially if used for any enhanced tv/movie/game/mirroring experience. Bluetooth would be needed, and probably wifi as well? IR would be nice to interact with the actual TV and possibly base aTV functions to save power. IR is also low on power consumption. Lack of cellular and phone radios obviously help. A smaller screen would require less power.
I think one could easily under estimate selling multiples of these to house holds at a decent price point. If it enabled easier navigation and input over a hardware only remote and provided a method of enhanced interaction with tv/movies/gaming it could be a nice little money maker. Multiple individuals may want to interact wth the content or theoretical supplemental enhanced content at the same time. And these could be sold additionally to be people that already have an iPad or iPod potentially.
The whole mockup looks really sexy to me.
----------
I doubt it. Even though it looks a bit like an iPhone or iPod, it's not. It consists of a smaller touch screen than those two devices have, a home button, some port for charging it, a battery, and some kind of wireless IO, and just about nothing else. Virtually no memory or CPU, and absolutely no GPU or storage - just enough to setup the communication stacks, push images to the screen, and push user input to the Apple TV box.
The Apple TV box itself would be where all the computations would take place - it would create the images for the remote and push them to it (like the Wii U GamePad). The Apple TV would also be where the storage would be.
----------
I doubt it. Even though it looks a bit like an iPhone or iPod, it's not. It consists of a smaller touch screen than those two devices have, a home button, some port for charging it, a battery, and some kind of wireless IO, and just about nothing else. Virtually no memory or CPU, and absolutely no GPU or storage - just enough to setup the communication stacks, push images to the screen, and push user input to the Apple TV box.
The Apple TV box itself would be where all the computations would take place - it would create the images for the remote and push them to it (like the Wii U GamePad). The Apple TV would also be where the storage would be.
Why is everyone so ferociously knocking the need for a remote? There won't necessarily be someone with an iPhone in the house all of the time. The kids may want to watch aTV after school before mom and dad are home, but not have an iOS device. Mom or dad may not want to give their phone up all the time to the kids just to watch tv or play games. I'm often on my iPhone reading when an episode of the show my girlfriend is watching ends and needs changed. Sometimes I dislike having to give my phone up to change the channel.
The design of this remote may not be ideal but there is likely some way Apple would address a lot of those kind of concerns. I'm sure the remote device would be optional. If they make a touchscreen style remote it wouldn't need the same kind of memory and components as an iPhone or iPod Touch so the cost could potentially be reasonable. The screen may not be as large as current iOS devices but it would likely need to scale proportionally if it were to include any potential aTV game mirroring, etc. Though, Apple has been pushing flexible app design lately, so that could help.
It's possible they don't necessarily need a touchscreen design, depends what they have planed for the future of aTV. Either way there could still be physical buttons. Pretty easy to imagine how that could be on a non touchscreen remote. For an aTV that would need a touchscreen remote, physical buttons similar to current iOS devices would work. Volume buttons on the left, lock/power button on top, and home button below the screen. Could also add a couple of buttons on the right side of the device to program with an actual television.
They might be able to surprise us on price? Battery life would definitely be an issue. Even if Apple introduced inductive charging to their products, I'd question if a touchscreen device could make it a week. Especially if used for any enhanced tv/movie/game/mirroring experience. Bluetooth would be needed, and probably wifi as well? IR would be nice to interact with the actual TV and possibly base aTV functions to save power. IR is also low on power consumption. Lack of cellular and phone radios obviously help. A smaller screen would require less power.
I think one could easily under estimate selling multiples of these to house holds at a decent price point. If it enabled easier navigation and input over a hardware only remote and provided a method of enhanced interaction with tv/movies/gaming it could be a nice little money maker. Multiple individuals may want to interact wth the content or theoretical supplemental enhanced content at the same time. And these could be sold additionally to be people that already have an iPad or iPod potentially.
The design of this remote may not be ideal but there is likely some way Apple would address a lot of those kind of concerns. I'm sure the remote device would be optional. If they make a touchscreen style remote it wouldn't need the same kind of memory and components as an iPhone or iPod Touch so the cost could potentially be reasonable. The screen may not be as large as current iOS devices but it would likely need to scale proportionally if it were to include any potential aTV game mirroring, etc. Though, Apple has been pushing flexible app design lately, so that could help.
It's possible they don't necessarily need a touchscreen design, depends what they have planed for the future of aTV. Either way there could still be physical buttons. Pretty easy to imagine how that could be on a non touchscreen remote. For an aTV that would need a touchscreen remote, physical buttons similar to current iOS devices would work. Volume buttons on the left, lock/power button on top, and home button below the screen. Could also add a couple of buttons on the right side of the device to program with an actual television.
They might be able to surprise us on price? Battery life would definitely be an issue. Even if Apple introduced inductive charging to their products, I'd question if a touchscreen device could make it a week. Especially if used for any enhanced tv/movie/game/mirroring experience. Bluetooth would be needed, and probably wifi as well? IR would be nice to interact with the actual TV and possibly base aTV functions to save power. IR is also low on power consumption. Lack of cellular and phone radios obviously help. A smaller screen would require less power.
I think one could easily under estimate selling multiples of these to house holds at a decent price point. If it enabled easier navigation and input over a hardware only remote and provided a method of enhanced interaction with tv/movies/gaming it could be a nice little money maker. Multiple individuals may want to interact wth the content or theoretical supplemental enhanced content at the same time. And these could be sold additionally to be people that already have an iPad or iPod potentially.
I like the remote as is because it has physical buttons that I can touch and use it without looking at. Not that it wouldn't be nice to have an app I can download to my iPhone. Their is something to be said about using the remote without looking so I can look at the tv itself.
Last edited:
Good concept... But with the new remote we would have to to charge the remote very often, which would not be very convenient.. A touch screen is good but only if It needs to be charged once in a month or so..
Actually, I don't want Harmony One. I'd rather have iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad to be used as a all-in-one remote. Apple just needs to integrate infrared/RF built into the next gen iOS devices.
