rdowns
macrumors Penryn
That may be true but if they can't do it here, they won't do it elsewhere. They always begin in their home country which is still their largest market.
Competitors Already 'Scrambling' to React to Apple's TV Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That may be true but if they can't do it here, they won't do it elsewhere. They always begin in their home country which is still their largest market.
ImageWrangler
macrumors regular
Apple: The global tech industry's R&D department.
soco
macrumors 68030
Haha, well said!
algiris
macrumors 6502a
US is what? 200 000 000? Rest of the world is somewhat bigger. China is warming up.
Siri sync'd to TV
I don't think you'd actually have to tell Siri on the TV to change channels or whatever. I'd think it would be implemented on the iOS device on your hand that's sync'd to the new TV.
Imagine browsing the channel menu on your iPad/iphone and just clicking that instead of searching for bulky footlong remotes for each device.
Just speculating of course. My .02.
I don't think you'd actually have to tell Siri on the TV to change channels or whatever. I'd think it would be implemented on the iOS device on your hand that's sync'd to the new TV.
Imagine browsing the channel menu on your iPad/iphone and just clicking that instead of searching for bulky footlong remotes for each device.
Just speculating of course. My .02.
Here in the UK, the six largest TV channels, BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky, all have streaming services – BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD (Channel 4 on Demand), Demand 5 and Sky Go (formally Sky Player) respectively – that each have an iOS app.
Is possible that Apple could partner with these channels to provide content from all of their services from a single service via an Apple TV and iOS.
Apple could buy ITV which would give it rights to the name, the second largest TV channel in the UK and a large content library.
I don't think you'd actually have to tell Siri on the TV to change channels or whatever. I'd think it would be implemented on the iOS device on your hand that's sync'd to the new TV.
Imagine browsing the channel menu on your iPad/iphone and just clicking that instead of searching for bulky footlong remotes for each device.
Just speculating of course. My .02.
Whenever I hear people talk about integrating Siri into a TV I think of this episode from 30 Rock.
Neodym
macrumors 68030
At least on recent settop boxes for Satellite there is a search function, where you press one button to open a search dialog and then narrow everything down to the name of the channel you desire. Together with the "On Air" app on iPad as good and comfortable EPG that is a sufficiently comfortable makeshift solution until something better becomes available.
diamond.g
macrumors G5
I think they were speaking in terms of Profit. Apple makes more money from their home market than they do in foreign markets. (I am not sure that is actually true though).
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)
Similar things were said when Apple announced an iPhone. I don't understand why people can't understand that Apple is going to "reinvent" the TV industry, not just modify it - just like they did with every other industry they're in.
jhwalker said:
Similar things were said when Apple announced an iPhone. I don't understand why people can't understand that Apple is going to "reinvent" the TV industry, not just modify it - just like they did with every other industry they're in.
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)
Speaking of which, does everyone remember when everyone thought the iPad was going to cost $1000? Maybe the same thing for the tv models they have? Although I'm doubtful of an actual tv panel too.
Speaking of which, does everyone remember when everyone thought the iPad was going to cost $1000? Maybe the same thing for the tv models they have? Although I'm doubtful of an actual tv panel too.
Gaspode67
macrumors regular
There, fixed that for you. I hate to break it to you, but the NFL, MLB, NHL have very little draw outside of North America. There is a FAR larger market for truly global sports that Apple would probably not be able to even take a small bite out of. The TV rights for the English Premiership in football (that's soccer to you) for the UK and Ireland alone costs hundreds of millions of pounds alone. Add in the TV rights for broadcast to the rest of the EU, China, Korea, Japan, where football is *huge* and you can multiply that up. And that's just for one league. Add in the other leagues that draw vast international viewing figures, like Seria A, the Bundesleague, The Champions League, European cups, etc, across the different regions, and there's no way that *any* one company can afford to buy them all. And remember, these deals are only for a few years at a time. There's even rules enshrined in law in some locations that *prevent* any one broacaster being able to capture all the broadcast rights for a given market.
Remember, the EU alone has as large a market as the US and Canada. You're not talking about " a few losers" you're talking about mass market.
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
Attachments
ctdonath
macrumors 68000
Because "TV" isn't about the hardware product. It isn't about the software product either. It's about the experience.
TV hardware makers like Vizio want to sell you a monitor. They'll regale you with specifications which you don't care about. So long as resolution, size, frame rate, color depth, etc exceed your perception (or are close enough to not matter), who cares? Vizio, Sony, Samsung, etc. all compete on specs because they have nothing else to compete on. Apple will crash thru this paradigm with "here's a great monitor and other hardware needed - now let's get on with the REST of the TV experience."
TV software makers/distributors have the same issue. Comcast/u-verse/etc. want to rent you a content delivery pipe. So long as the bitrate and ping time is fast enough, who cares? They compete on channel count, packages, etc. because they have nothing else to compete on. They give you a free set-top box to unzip a bit stream into packages they con you into paying for, a menu which you're always complaining about having not enough of what you want and too much of what you don't. Apple is already crashing thru this paradigm with ATV2 saying "you've got satisfactory network bandwidth - now let's get on with the REST of the TV experience." So we look at content coming thru the pipe. iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc. are starting to get the content together, prying content access from the sole distributorship of the pipe owners. For a small flat rate and/or reasonable per-viewing price, you can get the content of your choice on demand - at least insofar as rights negotiations are being worked out and content creators realize there's more future money in internet video distribution than current cable & OTA conglomerates.
TV? monitor. bit pipe. content.
What's missing?
The experience.
"Cable/OTA TV" sucks because there's 500 channels and nothing's on. You spend too much time scrolling thru a cheesy interface finding something to watch, or juggling hack-job gizmos to auto-switch and auto-delay a proliferation of streams to somehow resemble what you want. The profusion of ads doesn't help, save only to make the price low enough that most viewers won't consider other alternatives (as Jobs lamented, the free set-top box is powerful incentive to adhere to a crappy model).
"Streaming/on-demand TV" is an improvement, but still sucks because you have to THINK about everything you watch. That's great when you know what you want to watch, and have taken the time/energy to fill out a queue to select from later. That's OK when you're in a mood for scrolling thru a few hundred suggestions. But it SUCKS when all you want is the brain-dead "here we are now, entertain us" mood most TV viewers are in most of the time.
Notice that the prior two paragraphs say nothing, save in passing or implication, about the TV and support hardware itself. The experience isn't about the hardware, save only that it be good enough to deliver the experience.
One piece of hardware is under-discussed, and it sucks too: the remote. Most viewers have no appreciable idea what it can do, save only volume & channel selection. The big wad of buttons just...sucks. It's all specification-oriented, not experience-oriented. The Apple remote is trying to improve by discarding most buttons and applying it to a decent menu, but it's still in effect 7 buttons on one stick plus another stick for volume etc.
Viewers aren't getting the experience they want. A close approximation, suitable insofar as they have no other options and don't know any better.
What's the solution?
What's the experience?
I don't know.
I've an inkling, something about fusing on-demand with brain-dead content selection, and dumping the whole current interface for something which technology couldn't deliver before. The big guess is it revolves around Siri, letting viewers just say "I want to watch Scarface" or "amuse me" or "I need some background noise".
Whatever it is, it's not about the hardware in an "Apple vs. Vizio" way.
It's about the experience.
PracticalMac
macrumors 68030
I wonder if it will Apple be more successful license out iTV to select partners, since Apple has very little experience in making TV's.
I don't think you'd actually have to tell Siri on the TV to change channels or whatever. I'd think it would be implemented on the iOS device on your hand that's sync'd to the new TV.
Imagine browsing the channel menu on your iPad/iphone and just clicking that instead of searching for bulky footlong remotes for each device.
Just speculating of course. My .02.
I already do that with the Time Warner Cable app on my ipad. Of course, the interface is clunky and limited...
DudeAbides59
macrumors newbie
Can't wait to spend $4,000 for a TV set that others sell for $1,000...
I would think that Apple will do as they ususlly do, have suppliers build to significantly higher standards and then, of course, charge what's needed to pay for the increase in quality. People won't pay extra for any old regular commodity, but they will pay more for known quality and vaue. We all expect to get paid more if we provide more value to our customer (boss).
I don't think you'd actually have to tell Siri on the TV to change channels or whatever. I'd think it would be implemented on the iOS device on your hand that's sync'd to the new TV.
Imagine browsing the channel menu on your iPad/iphone and just clicking that instead of searching for bulky footlong remotes for each device.
Just speculating of course. My .02.
Except you can already do that, and to me at least, it sucks. Granted it's not Apple's programming, it's Comcast's, so that says a lot. But, the tv remote is one device where the tactile feedback is extremely useful.
As for Siri integration, I've found that any decent background noise makes Siri choke. I'm not going to use the remote to mute the tv to then use Siri to then do something else on the tv.
I would think the Steve's vision was well beyond Cable Cards.
Televisions do not have a common, open standard protocol to behave as a suitable monitor for Apple's purposes. They would need to be able to power up & down based on a signal from a controlling device, and they would need to have some way for the controlling device to automatically select the input source. There are probably more missing pieces that aren't coming to mind at the moment. Televisions today simply have too many flaws that would get in the way of a good user experience. Essentially, almost every thing you can do with your televisions's remote would need to be exposed as an API to a controlling device.
The tacit assumption here is that Apple expects consumers to re-purchase every Apple product every year or two. Aside from a few that who always have to have the latest, most customers skip generations, and even those who do not re-sell their old products to recoup costs when they upgrade.
diamond.g
macrumors G5
Which basically confirms what I was saying about the TV makers not really having a lot to worry about. If Apple can get folks to give up their cable subscriptions and still get same results (whatever show they wanted to watch is watchable) then that helps everyone. It would be likely that the system to watch said content would be open (enough) that other hardware could be used. Really the folks that would have the biggest issue is the advertisers. They would need to fall back into heavy product placement to recoup the loss of eyeballs.
It would also change the dynamic of Americans love of Superbowl commercials...
Oletros
macrumors 603
Conventional wisdom for uninformed people