Apple TV Hacked to Run iOS Apps at Full Screen

[Exhale]

but not everyone knows what HDMI is

Maybe not always what the name is, but few will not have worked with the cable before.

Either because of a game console, Blueray player, even some DVD players, Cable/Satelite or misc digital box, 3rd party network media player, or because of a PC <-> Monitor/TV connection.

They'll understand it as the connection that is used to plug in other things, much like the SCART or RGB cables of old.

You know a lot about technology, and that's fine, that's your strong suit. But these are Movie companies we are talking about here. These are the people who suggested SOPA to the US Government. If they could require a retina scan and blood test before you watched something you paid for, they would do it.

However HDCP is already extremely widely used. All the time in the above list. Don't forget rent-a-movie, streaming, and so on has been provided not only by stand-alone boxes, but also games consoles for many years now - and the media companies have come along just fine with it. (Aside from the usual legislative sluggishness on the international front)

 

[balamw]

why are all TVs coming with NetFlix apps built in these days?

I think you are supporting KnightWRX's point here.

All current TVs are coming in with Netflix/Amazon/Vudu/YouTube/Pandora/.... This is what the integrated TV will be competing against.

Is iTunes integration or even Siri in a 32-37" screen really enough of a draw to buy a whole new screen? Not for me(*).

However if I can get iTunes integration for $99, a better user interface and keep my existing screen or buy the one I want that's a win for Apple.

If Apple were already in the TV business or were partnering with someone who is that might be different.

(*) I might consider replacing the 32" in the guest bedroom if the price is right.

B

 

[nick_elt]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

If apple subsidized the tv set from what they will earn from the app store then they could win the market otherwise i think they would make more money from $99 set top boxes that are fully funtional that will sell millions of apps for them than the tv set.

 

[nick_elt]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

And most ppl I know dont think about pixel density when buying a tv but size mainly. Seems strange if the reports are correct that the apple tvs will come in 32" and 37" flavours when alot of ppl buy a tv with a minimum size of 42"

 

[dokujaryu]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

What I'm saying is that the $99 box is available now from all differe t kinds of companies. If it such an amazingly important facit of TV, one would be sold per TV. I agree the idea is great, hell, I have an apple tv, that the most I can possibly agree with the way things are now.

However, saying that integrated is inherently stupid and that the adon box is the only way to penetrate the market is very narowminded.

 

[Swift]

All I want

Is my digital local channels via antenna -- great picture in my area -- and a few branded apps I'd like to see: HBO GO (without being tied to my cable provider, yuck), Netflix, Comedy channel or a few apps that are like Hulu, except specialized for say, PBS or Documentary channels, and maybe MLB or NFL all-games. From the cable provider, or whoever is the fastest with the cheapest, I get broadband and shut up about upselling me to buy the next tier of crappy reality tv "channels."

The most important thing is, broadband is THE channel. The producers, directly, sell their wares in little digital app storefronts. A subscription would buy you the ability to stream anything in that producer's archive. New producer's companies could be formed, like filmmaker's coops, to offer things that "networks" couldn't dream of. If you're "broadcasting" to everyone, you're offering limited choice of whatever's live or in short term memory (live-to-tape). But it's happening now. It's New Year's? Time for the bowl games, live, maybe. News. Good for broadcasting, though TV news is horribly superficial. We need to see into the news archives. It gives you perspective.

What Apple TV, or whoever gets the breakout change in the way we get TV, has to do is bypass the idea that the network, that big thing run by advertisers' stooges in suits, deserves to run the new tv world just because they ran things when we had 13 channels and a big program would get a hundred million viewers in the US. The cable providers are not the answer. They're in the process of buying networks (NBC) and forcing everybody to keep two subscriptions, broadband and cable tv tier... and phone too. We need to empower the producers of content by allowing those who are brave and/or public-spirited to sell to us directly. I'd drop Kardashian Kabletown in an instant and just order their fastest broadband and a Skype account.

The cable industry is corrupt and terribly stupid.

 

[balamw]

What I'm saying is that the $99 box is available now from all differe t kinds of companies. If it such an amazingly important facit of TV, one would be sold per TV.

The problem they all face (Apple, third party, etc...) is that "do nothing" is free. Network features are already bundled in HDTVs, BluRay/DVD players, game consoles, etc... and "free" will always be cheaper than another add-on box.

Why would I need to buy a Roku/WDTV Live/TV if my (*other device*) player already supports NetFlix, etc..? Also, why would I buy a new TV to get these features.

Whatever it is has to be compelling enough to justify the cost. KnightWRX and I can clearly see the value of a ~$99 add on box, but have a much harder time seeing how there is a large enough market to justify the costs for something that by its nature will likely cost more than a fully loaded iPad.

Apple clearly has value here that competitors do not. It's in the iTunes/iOS ecosystem. (iTunes Store/iTunes Match/Home Sharing/Airplay/...). Does that value justify buying a whole new TV when I already have one?

All we are saying is that an integrated device looks like it is destined to be a niche product (think Mac Pro) rather than a market leader (think iPad).

Apple may definitely have something up their sleeves to upset this balance, but it just seems unlikely.

B

 

[KnightWRX]

I disagree. There will be an added cost in separating them in packaging, cables, power plugs, etc. If it makes more sense to separate them, why are all TVs coming with NetFlix apps built in these days? If customers want the feature, and it's cheap, bundle it with your product and make your money on the screen. This may surprise you, but not everyone knows what HDMI is and would consider someone trying to sell them a cable to be a scam.

Netflix apps come built into everything these days, hardly a good argument. Blu-ray players, DVD players, dedicated streamers, TVs, heck probably in microwaves for all we know.

The thing with an Apple TV set is that it cuts out all of the market for people who bought Sony/Samsung/LG/Vizio/Philips/Panasonic/Sharp TVs. TVs are something you don't just change every time a new product hits the market. You usually buy and stick to it for a couple of years.

A 99$ box is an impulse buy. You can afford those every year (moreso than a 750$ TV).

You know a lot about technology, and that's fine, that's your strong suit. But these are Movie companies we are talking about here. These are the people who suggested SOPA to the US Government. If they could require a retina scan and blood test before you watched something you paid for, they would do it.

Hum... HDCP hails from these movie companies. Are you saying Movie companies don't know technology ? These are not individuals, joe sixpacks. They have consultants, employees, etc.. These are the companies that brought us these hardware copyright control mechanisms (HDCP, CSS, Macrovision, name it, it's an initiative by content providers, not the electronic industry).

Again, that fails the most basic argument.

The point is this : If Apple really decides to sell a TV set, an actual monitor with brains instead of just brains, they are cutting out a vast segment of the market. If instead, they come out with a much improved 99$ AppleTV 3, they will reach a far broader audience and lose nothing. With all we've heard until now, there is just no compelling reason Apple should release a TV set.

 

[shandyman]

The point is this : If Apple really decides to sell a TV set, an actual monitor with brains instead of just brains, they are cutting out a vast segment of the market. If instead, they come out with a much improved 99$ AppleTV 3, they will reach a far broader audience and lose nothing. With all we've heard until now, there is just no compelling reason Apple should release a TV set.

they'll probably do both. Tv set and an ATV 3. Makes sense.

 

[damir00]

With all we've heard until now, there is just no compelling reason Apple should release a TV set.

The only possible reason I can come up with is some crazy wild UI thing that depends on an array of sensors in the bezel. Moving us towards the "Minority Report" UI, that sort of thing.

But short of that...I too fail to see the rationale behind shipping an actual "TV".

 

[dokujaryu]

With all we've heard until now, there is just no compelling reason Apple should release a TV set.

Again, I disagree. Leaning on what exists today as adequate is a counter argument to most products apple has pushed. Not all of which were successful. Ultimately, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[KnightWRX]

The only possible reason I can come up with is some crazy wild UI thing that depends on an array of sensors in the bezel. Moving us towards the "Minority Report" UI, that sort of thing.

But short of that...I too fail to see the rationale behind shipping an actual "TV".

Kinect is not built into TVs.

----------

Again, I disagree. Leaning on what exists today as adequate is a counter argument to most products apple has pushed. Not all of which were successful. Ultimately, we will just have to wait and see what happens.

You disagree yet offer no insight into why you disagree. What have we heard about the Apple TV set that makes you think there's something compelling enough for Apple to produce a monitor instead of just a box ?

Are you disagreeing just to disagree ? Maybe you're missing the point of my posts. I'm not saying they won't do it, I'm saying there's no logical reason to do it. With all we've heard (Siri, content distribution, apps), a 99$ set top box makes much more sense as far as mass market appeal goes and reaches a wider audience.

 

[dokujaryu]

a 99$ set top box makes much more sense as far as mass market appeal goes and reaches a wider audience.

I think if you are thinking that the only possible result of the new product is the features of the $99 box baked into a tv, then your position is beyond reproach. As you said earlier, with no information on new features, what assumptions are we making about what it will or won't feature?

 

[KnightWRX]

I think if you are thinking that the only possible result of the new product is the features of the $99 box baked into a tv, then your position is beyond reproach. As you said earlier, with no information on new features, what assumptions are we making about what it will or won't feature?

Well, again, I'm basing all my speculation on the articles that have been posted about this TV set on MR. If you have any other insight from other sources, feel free to provide them.

 

[damir00]

Kinect is not built into TVs.

No, it's not.

It would work better if it were.

No idea if Apple is going there, it's just one possible avenue.

 

[KnightWRX]

No, it's not.

It would work better if it were.

Is that a fact (that you can backup with a citation) or just your opinion ?

 

[dokujaryu]

Well, again, I'm basing all my speculation on the articles that have been posted about this TV set on MR. If you have any other insight from other sources, feel free to provide them.

Well, again, tvs are coming with many of the features that the $99 box provides. There's only so much time before it won't make sense any more to buy it. How long till the only niche is iTunes purchased content? In fact if I go buy a smart tv now, isn't that already the only unique feature niche?

Apple tv 2 sold about 2 million units total. iPhone 4S sold 4 million in a weekend. There are three billion tvs in the world, let's say only 1/10 of them are nice tvs in an area where they could use an apple tv. That's less than 1% of people impulse bought this $99 box. That sucks. That's less than Mac vs PC desktop numbers. 58 million xbox 360s have sold, 30x as many as apple tv or say 30% of my made up number of first world tvs. Assume 15% of them redringed, whatever, thats still a lot more, and at a much higher non impulse price. The product in its current form, as much sense as it makes to you an me, even as a cheap impulse buy, is not popular on any real scale.

I can speculate all night long on possible tv features that apple might come up with. However, my assumption is that they exist, even though Mac rumors hasn't reported them. We can also speculate on the features, 30/37" size and high dpi, as being wrong too.

I think it is a very safe bet to assume that a tv from apple will have more features than apple tv. I think it's fairly safe to assume those features will be related to content accessibility, some aspect of image quality, some "new"ish user interface, perhaps gaming, and perhaps a stronger connection to your other apple devices.

There, you turned me into an analyst. Are you happy now?

 

[dokujaryu]

(*) I might consider replacing the 32" in the guest bedroom if the price is right.

B

I'm in a different position that I think is more where Apple might have a market. I'm not a big fan of TV, I still have low def cable for example. About 5 years ago I bought a 50" plasma 720p from Sams, floor model, for $1400. Good deal, works great. I've looked at new TVs and I see almost no reason to upgrade my screen. We own another 42" 720p plasma downstairs that i got for $400 but we don't really use it. I have no interest in 3D or higher res or LED thinness. I have a PS3 for blu-ray and an Apple TV, so I see no benefit to a smart tv. At the same time, I feel like I got my money out of this screen, and I'm basically just waiting on the next thing. Not that I'm not interested in high hz and going green with power savings, I'm just not $1000+ interested.

To be fair, if apples tv is only 37", I'm also probably not $1000 interested. ;P

 

[damir00]

Is that a fact (that you can backup with a citation) or just your opinion ?

It's a fact. The Kinect uses an approach similar to that used in submarine applications. Those demonstrably work better with larger arrays with greater spatial separation, and this has been known for decades.

I like what Softie has done, and look forward to even better implementations in the future.

Whether this has anything to do with whatever Apple is cooking up we probably won't know for a few months yet.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, again, tvs are coming with many of the features that the $99 box provides.

You're saying Apple is incapable of providing more value than Sony/Samsung/LG/Panasonic with their ecosystem vs those companies that have none ?

Anyway, you're still not providing a reason for a TV set, only speculating why they will do it (to compete with others). That doesn't make it logical. That doesn't give us the "feature" that requires an attached monitor at all cost or it wouldn't work. What you say keeps driving us back towards a 99$ set top box as the most logical choice.

 

[Stella]

Not unless they add an optical device and/or lots of local storage.

Use your Time Capsule hard disk or Cloud. Or, next version of AppleTv comes with internal storage. Apple are moving away from optical media.

 

[KnightWRX]

It's a fact. The Kinect uses an approach similar to that used in submarine applications. Those demonstrably work better with larger arrays with greater spatial separation, and this has been known for decades.

Sure, but that doesn't require it to be embedded into a TV bezel. In fact, Kinect on its own is no slouch when it comes to width.

And citation needed.

 

[Wicked1]

Assuming this is Apple's furture intention with the Apple TV? I would assume?

 

[damir00]

And citation needed.

Not my job to show you, go find your own.

Cheers.

 

[shandyman]

No, it's not.

It would work better if it were.

No idea if Apple is going there, it's just one possible avenue.

Doubt it!

If it were built into the TV how would it move to adjust like it does now?!