Apple's iTV Set for September Launch With iAd-Supported Channels, iPad as Remote?

[macdaddy57]

No Way

Again, until there's a TiVO for Internet-based viewing, this is a total non-starter for me. I will not watch ANY TV or movies over the Internet if it means having to sit through advertisements.

 

[longball11]

iPad as a remote? Make sure you use two hands to hold the remote control. Hahahaha

 

[Cynicalone]

Since most networks are against renting TV Shows. I think at most you're looking at a streaming Apple TV. With an iOS layer for Apps and interface.

 

[i.evolve]

OK stop

OK everyone stop for a second.....

Does anyone think that this whole Hulu Plus, Verizon Fios app, Att U-verse app, HBO GO and the other new apps that allow video on the ipad and iphone, all are really being created to be in place for the iTV??? Things that make you go hhhhmmmmm

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Since most networks are against renting TV Shows...

I'm not sure that's true. I think the networks just want to grow their businesses- the same as every other business. Right now they make most of their money in a first run by:

• revenues from commercials/sponsers
• some get paid a small piece of your cable/satt subscription fee

After first run, they make more money on sales of videos (like DVDs), rentals (including internet rentals), and so on.

To win their support in a big way, a new delivery model needs to show them a way to make at least as much money per set of eyeballs as they make now.

Unfortunately, the dream within threads like this is commercial free and a lot cheaper than cable. Thus, if implemented they make no money from commercials and they get a smaller slice from a cheaper subscription. On the upside, they may make more for the buy/rental of their shows, but will there be enough in that to wash out the loss vs. the current model?

If the new iTV has any kind of DVR-like capability, or if it can be added via hardware/software add-ons/apps, then the second run revenues are in jeopardy. In other words, do they still sell the DVDs and still get internet rentals if we can record it when we watch it and archive that recording?

Hopefully, you can see the problem. We all want cheaper with no commercials. They want to make at least as much if not more for granting us the convenience of watching what we want, when we want, without commercials, etc.

One might hope that cutting out the middle man- the cable/satt company- could set up an opportunity for the content creators to make just as much as they do now, but then our middle man is Apple/iTunes and their piece of the action might mitigate some of the savings. Plus, we still have the problem of Apple's cableTV replacement solution having to be delivered through broadband pipes typically controlled by cableTV companies.

Something's gotta give for this to work out. I really doubt we can end up with cheaper, commercial free, on demand, etc and have all that delivered by the very companies who lose the most by Apple winning with this service.

 

[Scottsdale]

I want one entertainment device that does it all.

If Apple came out with an iTV that did its own iTunes purchases, and had BluRay, and did DVR (maybe even a Tivo like partnership), and did 7.1 surround sound out, I would pay a bundle for it. I don't want another AppleTV device that only allows me to pay for tv shows and that's it. It's just not very good at it.

It has to at a minimum have BluRay, DVR (even Apple software branded), and iTV functionality for me to get really excited. I don't believe, from Apple's previous quarterly announcements, that it's interested in adding DVR functionality because it doesn't make them money. I also assume BluRay is not going to happen because SJ's doesn't like paying licensing for anything.

Apple needs to create its own optical media if it's going to refuse BluRay forever. Hell, I don't care who makes it as long as it gives me a hard copy of my very expensive 1080p movies. I just want something physical for my money, and I want more than 720p when it comes to HDTV playback. This 720p only talk will disappoint a lot of people.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OK everyone stop for a second.....

Does anyone think that this whole Hulu Plus, Verizon Fios app, Att U-verse app, HBO GO and the other new apps that allow video on the ipad and iphone, all are really being created to be in place for the iTV??? Things that make you go hhhhmmmmm

Could be, but probably NOT because they are privy to the iTV specifics. The catch is that solutions like Hulu Plus means that we take one cable bill and fragment it into many. The HBO GO type solution requires us to already have a paid subscription to HBO via cable/satt.

That said, I think it would be terrific to have the option for these kinds of apps on the new iTV, as it would be a potentially big step toward getting to pay for just what you want to watch, rather than having a bunch of channels forced on you in exchange for getting the one- or few- channel(s) you actually care about.

I don't think the combinations of parts via independent apps like these is how we end up with a pretty good cableTV replacement solution for a lot cheaper than we pay now. But, I'd love to be wrong about this.

 

[DylanLikesPorn]

I'm not really digging this $99 price point Apple iTV.

It smells of the profit-grabbing motives of printer companies that sell printers for cheap, but charge through the nose for the ink.

I want off this train!

 

[skeep5]

WHat about Voice Control for iTV... except when you're yelling at the refs on screen.

 

[Dan--]

I really do hope they have another, more capable model, as well.

Think - local storage, full connections/interfaces, can stream to other devices, etc. But really - no built in bluray.

Does anyone find it strange that they made the new(ish) Mini in the aTV footprint (and just 0.3 inches taller), then are rumored to be doing a mini iTV in a totally different form factor? I do hope that leaves room for a bigger more capable device, but still priced well.

-Dan​

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

WHat about Voice Control for iTV... except when you're yelling at the refs on screen.

It gives you free rentals or other bonuses when you bash Windows, PCs, Flash, Blu Ray and anything else that Jobs is rallying against at any given time.

 

[i.evolve]

Could be, but probably NOT because they are privy to the iTV specifics. The catch is that solutions like Hulu Plus means that we take one cable bill and fragment it into many. The HBO GO type solution requires us to already have a paid subscription to HBO via cable/satt.

That said, I think it would be terrific to have the option for these kinds of apps on the new iTV, as it would be a potentially big step toward getting to pay for just what you want to watch, rather than having a bunch of channels forced on you in exchange for getting the one- or few- channel(s) you actually care about.

I don't think the combinations of parts via independent apps like these is how we end up with a pretty good cableTV replacement solution for a lot cheaper than we pay now. But, I'd love to be wrong about this.

No offense but I pray you are wrong. I would love the idea of an ESPN Live app. where i would be able to stream HD Live sporting events from my itv!! Hell I'd be happy if I could get my itv to have an overlay where I watched Lifetime with my wife but still had the ESPN overlay ticker at the bottom of the screen....maybe im ahead of my time

I do believe the possibilities are endless if iTV did go the route I hope for with TV branded apps that allow live streaming per the channel or provider.

 

[mkoesel]

The Apple Remote app DOES look a lot like the iPod app. That's sort of my point, though: to use it you have to be staring at your iPhone to select what music you want to play, etc. You are not staring at your TV screen for that (nor would you want to be, necessarily), so there is no problem for that particular functionality.

One possibility for a "touch pad remote" is to have the necessary controls show up on the TV screen as an overlay. I don't mean the full screen, perhaps just a small portion on the side or in the corner (though it could be resizeable or moveable, and the defaults would be user configurable). This way, as you move your finger around the pad, you see a "mouse pointer" move around to various controls on overlay presented on the TV. Instead of a pointer arrow, however, the cursor is shaped like the contact patch of your finger (or fingers, actually, since we are talking multi-touch) and becomes larger/smaller and more-opaque/less-opaque as you adjust the way you press. Tactile feedback is also provided in the form of vibrations when you pass across buttons or other controls that you can "click" (much like various Wii games give you tactile pointer feedback). To interact with buttons and such, you merely press the touch device which in turn increases your contact patch on it, and thus registers a click.

Now, when instead using a device like an iPhone or iPad, which has a touch screen instead of just a pad, these onscreen controls would show up on the controlling devices screen as well so you can operate them without looking at the TV screen (or even being in the same room).

I guess what I'm really curious about is how existing apps which rely heavily on the look-and-tap method of touch screen control are going to make their way to an iTV device.

For existing apps where the UI is the only concern visually (i.e. not remote-style apps who UI is being used to control media that is also presented on the TV screen), the same system will work. In other words what you see on the screen is the same as you will on any other iOS device, except that you now have a cursor that becomes an extension of your hand as I described above. The main difference is that instead of a screen tap, the iTV will need to able to recognize the difference between a merely resting your finger on the input device's surface vs. actually pressing it deliberately. I think this could be done reliably for most existing apps, though it might be a gray area for some.

 

[drewc1138]

I want one entertainment device that does it all.

If Apple came out with an iTV that did its own iTunes purchases, and had BluRay, and did DVR (maybe even a Tivo like partnership), and did 7.1 surround sound out, I would pay a bundle for it. I don't want another AppleTV device that only allows me to pay for tv shows and that's it. It's just not very good at it.

It has to at a minimum have BluRay, DVR (even Apple software branded), and iTV functionality for me to get really excited. I don't believe, from Apple's previous quarterly announcements, that it's interested in adding DVR functionality because it doesn't make them money. I also assume BluRay is not going to happen because SJ's doesn't like paying licensing for anything.

Apple needs to create its own optical media if it's going to refuse BluRay forever. Hell, I don't care who makes it as long as it gives me a hard copy of my very expensive 1080p movies. I just want something physical for my money, and I want more than 720p when it comes to HDTV playback. This 720p only talk will disappoint a lot of people.

It doesn't have anything to do with paying for licensing (I don't think). Apple thinks (correctly) that physical media is dying. What they're doing here is trying to show that to the consumer...the same way they did it with the floppy drive.

 

[drewc1138]

As someone who has 2 AppleTV's, one in the living room and one in the bedroom, I'll be pretty upset if there's not some kind of support for the current AppleTV.

 

[JAT]

A 7 - 9.7 inch iPad as a remote - that sounds cool.

Only if you like staring at your remote when using it, instead of looking at the TV. Touchscreen remotes have been around for decades, and are still not that popular.

+1

I like the direction it is taking also. I like the idea of watching anything at whatever time I want to watch it.

I've been doing that for over 10 years. Although I would like to change how I do that to make it cheaper.

If there's an option to watch sporting events live, even at an additional cost, I will cancel my cable membership right away. I've been wanting to get rid of my cable for years now, but live sports have made me keep it.

Antenna? I'm really starting to get down on ESPN. They are one of the worst networks out there, ruining sports for me. This is my last holdout before just dropping TV providers and using other means (antenna, internet) to watch stuff. And I'm just not even sure I care since their product is **** to begin with.

As a result of this type of technology, we will likely start seeing ISPs charging us for bandwidth (when they start loosing cable TV customers), guess we will see. But at least we should have a better TV watching experience.

Uh, they already do that with their tiered speed pricing and hidden bandwidth volume limits. At least, in the USA.

Didn't ITV launch in 1955 already?

So, does your current sig explain why all of your comments are pointless? At least troll based on the actual discussion, not something essentially unrelated.

wait, am I hearing this right: 99$ Apple TV plus a $700~ iPad?

Current solutions that are similar in size to the iPad will run $10,000, usually. The touchscreens themselves begin around $1000 at cost, MSRP much higher. Then there is other hardware, programming, installation, etc. Custom HT installers are beginning to look at the iPad and an HTPC as a cheaper alternative to "real" control solutions.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

No offense but I pray you are wrong. I would love the idea of an ESPN Live app. where i would be able to stream HD Live sporting events from my itv!! Hell I'd be happy if I could get my itv to have an overlay where I watched Lifetime with my wife but still had the ESPN overlay ticker at the bottom of the screen....maybe im ahead of my time

I do believe the possibilities are endless if iTV did go the route I hope for with TV branded apps that allow live streaming per the channel or provider.

Oh I'm with you on this... just don't see how we get the other wishes of "cheaper", etc. In the end, the content providers don't want to make less than they make now, and they make a lot of their money with commercial insertions and a share of our cable/satt bills. If they are going to serve it up commercial free, unbundled (so that they don't get to collect little shares of revenues from other channels forced into a package), etc, they'll want more- not less- from us, or at least the same from us.

Then, you've got the powerful middleman in the cable and satt companies, who, interestingly enough, tend to dominate as the sole player (or sometimes two) that can deliver broadband to our homes. They just are not going to stand by and allow "their" pipes to be used to replace their lucrative cableTV subscriptions via some kind of iTunes cloud cableTV-replacement service.

Legally, they probably can't block it, but there little to stop them from charging more for broadband (to make up for losses in cableTV revenues) and/or pushing through tiered pricing based on broadband usage, which would be heavier if an iTV was really used as a replacement for cableTV.

Things would really get interesting if a rumor came out (again) that Apple is about to buy DISH network, which would give them a way to bypass the middlemen as well as cover other issues like live sports, local programming, broadband constraints, etc. (at least in the U.S.).

 

[mrklaw]

I am really really excited for this.

The Television industry is overdue for a revolution - and Apple is just the company to make it happen.

Cool idea (but won't happen) is a camera for FaceTime on the iTV. Who knows, maybe if they're really serious about Face Time they would do this

TVs have been internet enabled for a while now. My bluray player has fantastic BBC iplayer support - catchup TV works best on an actual TV.

As so often before, Apple aren't inventing anything new - they'd be taking something embryonic or partially developed but still quite techy, and making it mainstream and approachable. And people will still think they invented it. Le sigh.

 

[pmjoe]

Yawn! I can already buy a Blu-ray player with all kinds of apps to chose from (including Netflix, Blockbuster, Hulu), 1080p support, will stream media from your computer, etc. for about $150.

Sorry Apple, but you snooze, you lose. Apple had a chance a few years ago with Apple TV, but they offered no developer support, 720p max, and a pile of other questionable decisions - that would've been inexpensive software add-ons to the existing hardware.

 

[leroypants]

Jobs is reading this so here I go

- It should be a 99 dollar or less device;
- iOS apps on the interface, displayable next to each other (widget like)
- All series and movies available and streamed via the new Cloud server farm of Apple.
- WIFI Wireless connectivity
- iPhone and iPod remote control ability
- At least 720p or better
- Stream media from other (SMB, NFS etc) network devices
- Support for the main formats and containers (mpeg2/4, divx, xvid, h264/x264, avi, mkv)
- Subtitle support (srt etc)

Would be nice if at least some of the above makes it in the final product

Popcorn Hours makes a device that can do all that and more (for 100 bucks more). You have a better chance of playing a PS3 game in an Xbox 360 than you do for apple allowing Support for the main formats and containers (mpeg2/4, divx, xvid, h264/x264, avi, mkv). It will never happen, apple is out to milk the customer dry through itunes. Why would Jobs allow you to watch something for free on this device, when he could over charge you for an inferior product.

 

[paul4339]

It's hard for me to imagine a $99 device from Apple and still make tonnes of cash.

I think the currently Apple goals are to extend it's distribution network/service offering (iTunes/App Store) to as many devices as possible. In this case, the TV. Create even more momentum for the App Store; Get penetration into people's homes, and make money off of the apps, media and ads.


If this is the case, the question I would have is: what remote would they create so that users can use the Apps (other than an iPad/iPod) ?

(I am assuming that they would want users to use Apps on TV with the Apple remote or some kind of device, of course).



P.

 

[wesk702]

Nevermind

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It doesn't have anything to do with paying for licensing (I don't think). Apple thinks (correctly) that physical media is dying. What they're doing here is trying to show that to the consumer...the same way they did it with the floppy drive.

Except they replaced the floppy drive with a CD then DVD drive which is still with us today. Why? Because it was superior to the floppy.

Now, we have BD which is superior to DVD in 2 ways, but has 3 big benefits vs. iTunes/digital only media:

• it is an easy, cheap medium on which to deliver 1080p video and richest sound, and which can be shopped for at many stores competing for consumer business,
• it has a lot of support from all of the studios so that we have access to a very large library of content, much larger than the available library via iTunes, and
• it offers very large archival storage at 50GB- soon to be 100GB- per thin 5.25" disc

Instead, Apple wants us to be happy with a heavily compressed incarnation of 720p which pretty much has to be bought from just one store- an Apple owned store called iTunes- which also has a relatively small selection of content that seems to hold steady (content gets added, but other content disappears).

I agree that the time will come when physical media is fully dead and we're downloading everything. But between now and then, it would be nice to at least have the OPTION for those that desire it, and then let them "waste" their money on that OPTION while the rest of us enjoy our limited selection of 720p only available from iTunes and only at (sometimes higher) prices that Apple decides.

 

[bigjohn]

I'm good with my current media streamers and Roku box.

Thanks Apple, but focus on computers and phones please.

If Apple is looking for something to do, how about getting USB 3.0 involved in the laptops/desktops?

 

[Peace]

Just think of the new Apple TV ( iTV won't make the cut unless Apple strikes a deal with the real iTV ) as a modern audio/video airtunes device.

All it needs is a SOC that does 720P with an HDMI and possible Optical port on it and a USB port for external storage.


Google has it all wrong. They expect people to go out and purchase a new HDTV for $1500 for the living room or spend $399 for their box.

Apple just thinks you need an iPad for interaction between the TV screen and the iPad. A good example would be the Yahoo TV guide. The apps aren't built into the chips on the TV like Google is doing. Thus negating the need to purchase a new TV.

The new Apple TV will help create more hype for the new iPad also.

Together these two new devices will sell like hotcakes.

BTW. The killer software in iLife '11 has something to do with this.


Apple has the content. Google doesn't.