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.
Brightcove CEO Envisions His Dream Apple Television and Set-Top Box
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Correct. The reason for it being changed before release was due to ITV threatening legal action. They would clearly win if anything did happen.
I think Apple needs a full TV set. It would be beautiful and incorporate a camera and have apps and all that good stuff. It should also have a replaceable "AppleTV box" that would fit in behind it. That way you get the gorgeous gadget tv that we expect of a non-hobby, but each year you can buy a replacement box as an upgrade. iMore's Rene Ritchie was right when he said its important for Apple to control the entire UI as input 0. The volume switch, the tv color settings, the input control... This all needs to be Apple UI. This means the monitor part of the TV. The replaceable and upgradable CPU addresses the slow upgrade cycle of TVs and allows for a better user experience and allows Apple to sell you something every year.
This seems like a long way off. The ultimate gaming console? Really? I've played Angry Birds through a Roku and it's fun and all, but it also has about the simplest controller requirement that you can think of (one button, one motion). Would Apple expect us to use the iPhone/iPad as a controller for "real" console games? No thanks, I prefer tactile buttons for real gaming and I don't see Apple building one of those. The iPad makes a good controller for driving games and 2D touch games, and that's about it.
I also don't see them packing 1 TB drives or even allowing DVR functionality at all. It's just not their style. I'm sure they also won't let me play my non-Apple content (read: MKV) on their device.
And, of course, network content will be limited without a cableCARD setup, which also doesn't seem like an Apple thing to do.
Are people going to run out and buy an expensive Apple Television after watching Apple intentionally handicap older iPhones to encourage people to upgrade? Do you really want to be tied into a $2k TV only to have Apple tell you each year that you'll need to upgrade in order to get the best new features (even when most of the time there's not technical constraint)? No thanks!
Sounds like another "hobby" to me. Could be fun if it's jailbroken, but otherwise I just don't see it as a big seller.
I also don't see them packing 1 TB drives or even allowing DVR functionality at all. It's just not their style. I'm sure they also won't let me play my non-Apple content (read: MKV) on their device.
And, of course, network content will be limited without a cableCARD setup, which also doesn't seem like an Apple thing to do.
Are people going to run out and buy an expensive Apple Television after watching Apple intentionally handicap older iPhones to encourage people to upgrade? Do you really want to be tied into a $2k TV only to have Apple tell you each year that you'll need to upgrade in order to get the best new features (even when most of the time there's not technical constraint)? No thanks!
Sounds like another "hobby" to me. Could be fun if it's jailbroken, but otherwise I just don't see it as a big seller.
I still don't get why it's so much better than the same stand-alone AppleTV box with an HDMI cable that works with any HDTV on the market today and in the future.
Why manufacture a giant "dumb" TV, ship it from Asia, store it in Apple stores (is there even enough room in some stores?) and have people carry it home from the store.
All coupled with thin hardware margins because I don't see what Apple can add that is unique. Kinect/XBox and Samsung already offer innovative solutions today for TV controls.
A good standalone unit and box can control the TV as well (for example, Logitech Harmony or the new Nintendo Wii U with its TV button on the gamepad). In Apple's case it could be any iOS device doubling as remote, EPG...Apple can add its special sauce there with new services, a nice UI and so on.
I don't see why Apple should manufacture a "dumb" giant TV set.
Also speaking as a shareholder, it would be bad for Apple's gross margins.
Last edited:
My taste is in accordance with apple's crown principle: simplicity.
Little box(s) around a big box isn't simple. Too many cables. Too much volume. Ergo the iTV will be Apple's flagship product in its market. And the little set-top boxes are left for developers and the unfortunate without an iTV.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a case where I really see more value in keeping the technology separate from the display (rather than integrating the two). That's why I like an idea of a beautiful Apple "monitor" for those who want it, coupled with a set-top box containing the core technology that runs the display that you can upgrade from time to time as new advancements become available.
If there is some elegant way that Apple can make the box attach/integrate with the display and can sell them as a package as one of the options - that's great. And for those who just want the box to hook into an existing TV - that's available too. And they can make the box in such a way, that even if you don't go for the Apple display now (just going to use your existing TV for a little while longer), you can add it later if you want.
A year ago my parents finally retired the TV they bought when they got married!
I guess 29 years of service is long enough...55" of HD is quite a bit nicer than 20" of tube tv!!
They are happy.While I believe Apple is working on a TV product, I believe that the reason for Steve Job's comment in the biography served another purpose.
By giving the world notice that Apple has cracked the code, in regard to TV, it has pushed other manufacturers to rush and come up with what they think apple has devised.
Now when Apple releases there answer to TV and its completely different then what others have done/created, they can unequivocally say that this was not a obvious idea. They gave the industry years worth of a head start and if they couldn't come up with the same result, well... I guess it wasn't so obvious.
This is in contrast to the phone market where they kept things hidden.
Would put an end to the argument brought up time and time again about the iPhone and it being so obvious.
By giving the world notice that Apple has cracked the code, in regard to TV, it has pushed other manufacturers to rush and come up with what they think apple has devised.
Now when Apple releases there answer to TV and its completely different then what others have done/created, they can unequivocally say that this was not a obvious idea. They gave the industry years worth of a head start and if they couldn't come up with the same result, well... I guess it wasn't so obvious.
This is in contrast to the phone market where they kept things hidden.
Would put an end to the argument brought up time and time again about the iPhone and it being so obvious.
Right, and the price of your "simplicity" is to endure extreme frustration each year as Apple handicaps your "last year's model" TV by intentionally limiting the exciting new features only to new models, eventually leaving your TV in the dust. Sound familiar? That's okay with a $200 phone that you can upgrade every two years. But not for something that will cost 10 times as much. No thanks, I'll take the STB.
Television display technology evolves slowly. Apps and features move quickly. I'll keep mine separate at the expense of one or two cables that can be very easily hidden.
Last edited by a moderator:
ok, thanks dad for correcting everyone.
geez, who cares what people call it? it's not even a real product yet.
as for me, i can't wait for the iTV, iTV, iTV!!!!
Uh to both of you, why would they only go to 48"? I would want up to 60"
----------
☝ Could not be more wrong
Same here. I bought my current TV about 3 years ago now and don't plan on replacing it any time soon. All the new TV's have to offer is better color/contrast and black levels...which honestly I could care less about on my TV. The resolution is the same and really the only other difference is thinness, but my TV is on a cabinet so it won't really make a difference for me. Maybe if I wall mounted it I might care.
I'd be happy with a new Apple TV box if it had a new input method (Voice/gestures?) and third party apps.
A device comparable to what this guy is suggesting would likely cost somewhere between $299-$499 depending on the amount of onboard storage. The onboard storage probably won't be easily expandable (similar to a Time Capsule) and will probably be used for DVR recordings and apps like FaceTime, Skype, etc. Who knows -- maybe it would be a Fusion Drive?
I suspect Apple will offer a STB solution like this for people who can't/won't buy a new TV just because it has an Apple logo on it. I mean, if I have a gorgeous new 60" Samsung LED TV, there's no way I'm selling it just to get a smaller, 1.0 version of an Apple TV. I would, however, put something like this on top of my 60" TV that I'm perfectly happy with.
If Apple ever manages to work out a deal on content with the networks, they'll likely offer packages of live content (or hopefully a la carte) through this device which will be paid for via a new iTV store and it will be the same 70/30 split that's common across Apple's other app stores.
I suspect Apple will offer a STB solution like this for people who can't/won't buy a new TV just because it has an Apple logo on it. I mean, if I have a gorgeous new 60" Samsung LED TV, there's no way I'm selling it just to get a smaller, 1.0 version of an Apple TV. I would, however, put something like this on top of my 60" TV that I'm perfectly happy with.
If Apple ever manages to work out a deal on content with the networks, they'll likely offer packages of live content (or hopefully a la carte) through this device which will be paid for via a new iTV store and it will be the same 70/30 split that's common across Apple's other app stores.
It's all about the buck
It's all right on and good thinking. Here's my hesitation: With the iPod and iPhone, a firehose of appealing content was necessary. And not just appealing, but cheap. And not just cheap but literally and specifically a buck.
I think this argument can be made: No buck a tune, no iPod. With the iPhone, Apple tripped but caught on quickly that "computers for the rest of us" are not sufficient. Apple needed the help of thousands of developers to succeed with the iPhone (much better, thinks Apple, than the help of one powerful partner like Adobe, as in the days of yore). No buck an app, no iPhone.
The same holds for the Apple TV and I hope Apple does not presume it's all about its shiny sassy gadgets, perhaps with this difference: I own tunes and apps (mostly: I cannot sell them), but I'd settle for streamed access to shows and films and perhaps to time-limited access. After all, we aren't yet at the moment where tons of great shows can be produced cheaply by very creative persons sitting at computers or pianos. Shows are not yet a cottage industry. Neverthe less it's all about the buck: So no buck a show, no iMax.
It's all right on and good thinking. Here's my hesitation: With the iPod and iPhone, a firehose of appealing content was necessary. And not just appealing, but cheap. And not just cheap but literally and specifically a buck.
I think this argument can be made: No buck a tune, no iPod. With the iPhone, Apple tripped but caught on quickly that "computers for the rest of us" are not sufficient. Apple needed the help of thousands of developers to succeed with the iPhone (much better, thinks Apple, than the help of one powerful partner like Adobe, as in the days of yore). No buck an app, no iPhone.
The same holds for the Apple TV and I hope Apple does not presume it's all about its shiny sassy gadgets, perhaps with this difference: I own tunes and apps (mostly: I cannot sell them), but I'd settle for streamed access to shows and films and perhaps to time-limited access. After all, we aren't yet at the moment where tons of great shows can be produced cheaply by very creative persons sitting at computers or pianos. Shows are not yet a cottage industry. Neverthe less it's all about the buck: So no buck a show, no iMax.
I have occasionally posted feature and GUI requests for Apple TV over the years. Users probably have little impact on main features and visual appearance, but as for software capability I would not be at all surprised if there is an active program to listen to user and prospect feedback to refine the shipping version.
Whatever they ship will have the typical high 35% manufacturing margins and probably add a typical 15% net retail margin. That 15% represents very significant dealer and distributor margin compression compared to a decade or two ago of over 50%. More retailers now are self-distributing, selling online, or otherwise not using the traditional manufacturer-distributor-retailer meme. That meme had a 40/25 margin requirement (55% net).
Whatever they ship will have the typical high 35% manufacturing margins and probably add a typical 15% net retail margin. That 15% represents very significant dealer and distributor margin compression compared to a decade or two ago of over 50%. More retailers now are self-distributing, selling online, or otherwise not using the traditional manufacturer-distributor-retailer meme. That meme had a 40/25 margin requirement (55% net).
I have always said that Apple needed to create a DVR as a "stop-gap" measure. The device I envision is just a black cube with WiFi and Ethernet, two F connectors for antenna and cable, a cablecard slot and a power cord. Inside, it has a massive hard disk and the appropriate digital ATSC/QAM tuners.
Critically, it would not connect to the TV at all, nor would it have any user interface. Instead, it would provide access to current cable programming over the network.
There are only two alternatives to doing this:
1. Take on the content industry in a full-blown war in order to obtain programming rights to all the cable content people want without raising the cost to the end user. In other words, take on DirecTV. Apple has enough money to try this, but I see it as tilting at windmills.
2. Apple TV remains a hobby. Even with an "app store" - which Roku has already tried.
Critically, it would not connect to the TV at all, nor would it have any user interface. Instead, it would provide access to current cable programming over the network.
There are only two alternatives to doing this:
1. Take on the content industry in a full-blown war in order to obtain programming rights to all the cable content people want without raising the cost to the end user. In other words, take on DirecTV. Apple has enough money to try this, but I see it as tilting at windmills.
2. Apple TV remains a hobby. Even with an "app store" - which Roku has already tried.
If this comes out next year then surely the top end standard will be 4K resolution and OLED? To upscale content for 4K it will need a hefty processing engine in it as well. I think people are going to surprised at how much this thing is gonna cost!
The success of the Apple TV is going to be more about the services side and taking on the cable companies, firstly, they are going to have to get the live sport or they have nothing.
The success of the Apple TV is going to be more about the services side and taking on the cable companies, firstly, they are going to have to get the live sport or they have nothing.
I think he's on the mark with them offering a set top box. People don't replace their TV's often enough and also, the profit margins on TVs are low and the market is really competitive. They may offer a box and a TV, but if they did just a TV it would take a LONG while to make an impact. The TV is just the screen, thats not what matters. What matters is the content, the interface and the experience. That can all be done with a set top box connected to whatever TV you already have.
Also if they want to take a chunk out of the hardcore gaming market they will most likely need a controller of some sort thats not 100% touch based. Touch games are easy enough to play, but you have to be looking at the touch screen. It would be hard to play a console game, while looking at the TV but using an iPad/magic trackpad like device to control the game.
Also if they want to take a chunk out of the hardcore gaming market they will most likely need a controller of some sort thats not 100% touch based. Touch games are easy enough to play, but you have to be looking at the touch screen. It would be hard to play a console game, while looking at the TV but using an iPad/magic trackpad like device to control the game.
The problems start right here for AppleTV via traditional distribution (cable, satellite...).
Apple sells more than 50% outside the US and that percentage keeps growing (China...). Asia and Europe have tons of different TV/cable standards.
In my view, Apple would have distribute all of its content over the Internet. This would in turn create problems in some countries with bandwith limitations/caps.
Same for exclusive live content (Sports...) that is legally tied for years to another company XYZ. As others pointed out, there is no incentive for many customers to switch unless all the exciting content also is on AppleTV.
Speaking of exciting, many countries have more liberal laws in terms of erotic content, some are much tougher than the US regarding violence on TV. What would be allowed/blocked on Apple TV?
It's all a mess both in terms of tech and content/distribution rights.
Hope Apple can solve it one day without producing its own TV sets.
Last edited: