iTunes Creator Jeff Robbin Heading Apple Television Effort?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That alone doesn't solve all the problems with regards to an Apple TV service though. Still have to get around the cable companies and convince content providers to stop being afraid of them (blocking content deals). Which is why I say BUY AND UPGRADE SPRINT WIRELESS. Instead of relying on all these squabbling jerkoffs, control the network yourself.

Please see the correct answer for this one in post #209. Ignoring that reality doesn't make an acquisition of Sprint solve this problem. For just the U.S. market, you'll need to see something like a strong rumor about Apple acquiring DISH or DirecTV (and that limits the market to just the places signals from DISH or DirecTV can reach). Else, you'll need to see a slew of rumors about many major- but regional- cable providers being acquired (along with the same all over the world if this is going to be a global product). Buying 4G/3G in a Sprint acquisition won't be enough for on-demand, what-I-want-when-I-want-it video distribution for all potential buyers of a "magical" Apple television.

Done with cable, boxes, DVR's etc., other than them being the pipe to get internet to your house.

I love the dream of much of what you (and others who are thinking like you) posted there. The biggest problem though is that between Apple's iCloud and a next gen TV or an Apple Television are these Internet pipes that are controlled by those very companies that you (and I) want to be done with. Because Apple doesn't have their own pipes, our link to iCloud is dependent on the likes of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc. There is NO WAY that they are going to allow Apple to eat their video subscription revenues by using their own cable internet pipes. No way.

If Apple somehow jumps a bunch of other hurdles that makes it possible for "us" to kill our cable/satt subscriptions, expect your Internet provider to make up the death of their video business by jacking up the fee for Internet access. Don't like the new higher fees? Where are you going to go? There's a very obvious reason why the big cable companies have bought out/crushed all competitors for local broadband. This dream can't be realized without them getting all the money they get now one way (existing cable revenues) or another (higher priced broadband service and/or tightened tiers for "heavy users," which would be everyone who replaces video via cable with video via Internet).

I don't like it one bit (either), but it's as obvious as it can be. Apple can't solve those problems with the most innovative television hardware & software in the world because the content for that television must still flow through pipes owned by companies that like their cake "as is" and will get it either way.

 

[klrobinson999]

I certainly see Apple retiring legacy hookups, like composite and component, but no way will they release a set without coax and HDMI.

Aren't there new TV sets with Time Warner Cable DVRs built-in? As long as Apple works with the cable companies, and not against them, things can happen. If only they could be solid-state hard drives....

 

[Thanatoast]

I wonder if this whole rumor has something to do with ATV not getting iOS5? Maybe it was skipped because iCloud integration (and more) is coming to ATV when iOS5 finally does hit?

 

[gnasher729]

...or now that Steve is dead people feel more loose to divulge Apple's secrets? I guess something that some people have been itching for ages to do.

I hope Tim slams down on this pretty damn quick, or else the moles will start being braver.

Well, _this_ whole particular rumour started with Steve Jobs' autobiography. Which was planned to be released about at this time anyway.

 

[mentholiptus]

Sounds like this guy is on to something.

http://joehewitt.com/2011/10/25/airplay-tv

 

[fpnc]

Guys, just read all 8 pages of this thread and I see lots of the same old stuff...

A nice post but too long to re-quote. I agree with almost everything you say.

About the only thing I would add (which I've talked about before, even months or years ago) is that I'm still waiting for the media-aware and iCloud-enabled redesign of the AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule. Give me one of those with a modestly updated Apple TV and I'd be more than happy.

For those who don't get it (AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule? What does that have to do with an Apple TV?) what I'm talking about is a device that can act as your centralized media hub for all of your iOS devices (and Macs/PCs if you'd like). This "flavor" of the AirPort Extreme would handle all of your content storage (including documents, iOS apps, etc.) and then stream or serve those to your iPads, iPhones, iPod touches, and Apple TVs. It would also offer an intelligent interface to iCloud (caching, etc.) so that iTunes Store content would just be waiting for you whenever you need it (pre-fetch shows which you are likely to watch or content that you've previously scheduled to watch).

You could say that you can already do that (kinda) with a Mac/PC and iTunes. But what I'm talking about is a purpose-built device that simplifies the entire process and which likely would cost significantly less than a full-blown Mac (it will, after all, be built using a low-power, Apple-designed processor and it will run the iOS). It would also have no need for a display or screen itself, no need even for a graphics processor (since all of the interface elements -- the GUI -- would appear on your other iOS devices).

The further advantage is that you'd only need ONE of these for your entire household. If you have multiple TVs you just need to purchase another Apple TV2/TV3 (the Apple TV would continue to be a cheap and simple display adapter).

Think of this as iTunes in a box, totally media secure (the content providers will love that), and designed from the ground up for streaming content (either from the iTunes Store, or iCloud, or from local storage).

This is my vision for "cracking it."

 

[AidenShaw]

No connections possible, only audio out to hook it up to your stereo.

"Stereo?" You mean the HDMI out to connect the lossless 8-channel soundtrack to the surround sound system amplifiers, yes?

I certainly see Apple retiring legacy hookups, like composite and component, but no way will they release a set without coax and HDMI.

The AppleTV needs only one input - a jack for the Cat6 cable. (And maybe 802.11(x) for people willing to sacrifice quality for the convenience of wireless.)

It needs only one output - HDMI to the display or AV cross-bar. (Although HDMI 1.4 is current, it should auto-sense the actual capabilities of the target HDMI version and support reasonable older revisions.)

Assuming that the quote in the biography isn't referring to Apple TV 2 (which it very well could be until the timeline is known), it would be quite a stretch to imagine Apple making an AV hub. You wouldn't want the hub to be part of the display. You'd also want the hub to have many inputs, and very few outputs (HDMI to the display, and speaker outputs with at least a half kilowatt of power).

Attached is a diagram of the back panel of my AV cross-bar - 6 HDMI inputs, two HDMI outputs, and a boatload of analog inputs and outputs. Over 0.9 kW audio output power into 9 channels - the subwoofer is pre-amp output only, it assumes that the subwoofer has its own power.

If Apple is going to make a premium TV or AV hub - this is what's expected in that space.

If only they could be solid-state hard drives....

With current 1080p movies hitting the 50GB limit of BD, you'll probably want more storage than can be reasonably priced with SSD. Add a couple of USB 3.0 ports for external storage.

 

[Datalinks]

Televisions are soooooo complicated. Switching one on is a nightmare.

 

[HiRez]

Buying 4G/3G in a Sprint acquisition won't be enough for on-demand, what-I-want-when-I-want-it video distribution for all potential buyers of a "magical" Apple television.

No, that's why in my earlier post I said they'd need to spend a massive amount of cash upgrading and expanding the network (I said $25B, who knows what the figure is but that buys A LOT of upgrades and Apple has cash to spare). It would have to be far beyond what current LTE networks are in terms of bandwidth, load tolerance, and coverage. Sprint as it is today is just a starting point, it would be super cheap for Apple to acquire (they already owe Apple 2.5 times their market cap) AND it gives them the ability to control the network not only for home video, but for iPhones, iPads, and home internet as well. And keep all the profits from those as well instead of splitting them with, or ceding them to, other companies. All wireless, all controlled end to end by Apple...and you know how Apple loves control. DirecTV and Dish are possibilities, but much more limited (low upload bandwidth, no cellular coverage, big ugly dishes required).

So yes, this scenario would be US-only, at least at the start. But that's OK, you establish the system first in the US (which could be a great business by itself), and then expand globally if and when it makes sense.

 

[qaq]

Why come up super complex ideas

if Apple can take 4-5% of the market they'll add 3-5 billion annual profit not counting the content revenue. which will add 42-70 billion to their market cap.
And I doubt they would spend more then 100 mil on R&D. Not a bad ROI.

 

[Senseotech]

"Stereo?" You mean the HDMI out to connect the lossless 8-channel soundtrack to the surround sound system amplifiers, yes?




The AppleTV needs only one input - a jack for the Cat6 cable. (And maybe 802.11(x) for people willing to sacrifice quality for the convenience of wireless.)

It needs only one output - HDMI to the display or AV cross-bar. (Although HDMI 1.4 is current, it should auto-sense the actual capabilities of the target HDMI version and support reasonable older revisions.)

Assuming that the quote in the biography isn't referring to Apple TV 2 (which it very well could be until the timeline is known), it would be quite a stretch to imagine Apple making an AV hub. You wouldn't want the hub to be part of the display. You'd also want the hub to have many inputs, and very few outputs (HDMI to the display, and speaker outputs with at least a half kilowatt of power).

Attached is a diagram of the back panel of my AV cross-bar - 6 HDMI inputs, two HDMI outputs, and a boatload of analog inputs and outputs. Over 0.9 kW audio output power into 9 channels - the subwoofer is pre-amp output only, it assumes that the subwoofer has its own power.

If Apple is going to make a premium TV or AV hub - this is what's expected in that space.




With current 1080p movies hitting the 50GB limit of BD, you'll probably want more storage than can be reasonably priced with SSD. Add a couple of USB 3.0 ports for external storage.

This whole post is silly. Most people don't have that sort of setup, nor does it remotely embody Steve's passion for "simple, elegant" engineering. Its a giant cluster**** of I/O and cables. And the second someone buys this mythical Apple television, gets it home, and the old PS3 or 360 won't connect, its dead on arrival.

 

[fpnc]

Sounds like this guy is on to something.

http://joehewitt.com/2011/10/25/airplay-tv

I would guess that anyone who has used AirPlay "gets it" and therefore I can't see how "this guy is on to something." Yes, make AirPlay work better and all iOS users will benefit, but that's pretty much assumed for any product that evolves from the current Apple TV.

Whether Steve Jobs was talking about AirPlay when he said "I've finally cracked it" is anyone's guess. But I doubt that was the only thing he had in mind.

 

[sennekuyl]

Why are you people putting a price on something that you have no idea about? You're not a professional analyst so calm down everyone...

A 46" 1080P Samsung TV will cost $1,099.99 after $100 Off, that's straight from the Costco website. Why not have a TV set that has Apple TV built in, and a built in WiFi Card for $1300? Even $1500 would be pretty freaking amazing.

Besides, the investment is not in the actual TV set itself, it's in the UI. I would definitely invest in a $2000 TV if it allows me to get my channels on demand instead of paying for garbage bundles that I don't necessarily need.

:scratch: how does being a professional analyst change anything?

 

[AidenShaw]

This whole post is silly. Most people don't have that sort of setup, nor does it remotely embody Steve's passion for "simple, elegant" engineering. Its a giant cluster**** of I/O and cables.

Most people don't, but most anyone with surround sound has something similar even if not so complete - unless they bought (shudder) the Bose TV or (double shudder) one of the "surround sound bars" that sit under the TV.

Most people will, however, have multiple input devices. The BD player, the cable box, the TiVo, .... That means that the "new Apple TV" either has to have a number of inputs (and the "cluster***" of cables and UI mess to switch between them), or it has a single network input and an HDMI output to the AV system and it moves that complexity outside of Apple's control.

Note that many posts here have stated the assumption that Apple would go after the higher end market - where multi-channel sound and multiple inputs would be expected.

Any, by the way, my AV cross-bar makes my setup much "simpler and more elegant" than trying to use the TV as the switch.

In particular, the Logitech Harmony programmable touch-screen remote makes it all very simple for the "wife" to handle. I pick up the remote (I'm the "wife", my husband sets up the remote), and touch "activity -> start 'Windows Media Center'". The remote

• sends an infrared command to the HTPC to wake it from sleep
• sends a "power on" command to the XBR screen
• sends a "power on" command to the STR cross-bar switch
• sends a "use HDMI 1 input" command to the XBR display
• sends an "input HDMI 4" command to the STR (input HDMI 4 on the cross-bar is connected to the Nvidia GT5xx card in the HTPC)
• "input HDMI 4" implicity means "send the HDCP video signals from HDMI 4 input to HDMI A output, upscaling and transcoding if necessary" and "send the bitstream lossless 8.1 audio from HDMI 4 input to the audio decoders and then to the audio amplifiers"
• remap all of the remote buttons (play, pause, volume, ...) on the remote to send the proper infrared codes for Windows Media Center

When I click "off" on the remote, it

• sends a "go to hybrid sleep" command to the HTPC, putting the quad Core i5 Windows 7 x64 system to sleep
• sends an "off" command to the XBR, turning off the display
• sends an "off" command to the AV cross-bar, turning it off as well as everything connected to the switched power outlets on the AV cross-bar

I'm not trying to brag about my setup, I'm just trying to help people understand that people who spend a few thousand on high end HD TV setups have some requirements and expectations that an Apple TV embedded in a 42" flat panel with few or no inputs will not meet.

On the other hand, as KnightWRX (in particular) and others here have posted - an enhanced Apple TV external box as an input to any generic system will let Apple add value to whatever system you decide to build. I doubt that Apple will be foolish enough to decide that it needs to push pixels and drive audio power amps. Cat6 in - HDMI out.

And the second someone buys this mythical Apple television, gets it home, and the old PS3 or 360 won't connect, its dead on arrival.

You called my post "silly" for describing the need for multiple inputs - then you say that this "mythical Apple TV" will be DOA without multiple inputs....

 

[KnightWRX]

I would guess that anyone who has used AirPlay "gets it" and therefore I can't see how "this guy is on to something." Yes, make AirPlay work better and all iOS users will benefit, but that's pretty much assumed for any product that evolves from the current Apple TV.

Whether Steve Jobs was talking about AirPlay when he said "I've finally cracked it" is anyone's guess. But I doubt that was the only thing he had in mind.

If it's just Airplay, again, why does it need to be attached to an Apple branded monitor ? The current set top box does Airplay just fine.

That's not it. Either Apple is not making a TV at all, just updating their set top box or they have come with a feature that requires them to actually sell you the monitor part of any TV setup.

Airplay, iTunes content, iOS apps, none of that actually requires Apple to sell you a full blown TV and they serve a broader market with the 99$ AppleTV box there.

 

[Senseotech]

Most people don't, but most anyone with surround sound has something similar even if not so complete - unless they bought (shudder) the Bose TV or (double shudder) one of the "surround sound bars" that sit under the TV.

Most people will, however, have multiple input devices. The BD player, the cable box, the TiVo, .... That means that the "new Apple TV" either has to have a number of inputs (and the "cluster***" of cables and UI mess to switch between them), or it has a single network input and an HDMI output to the AV system and it moves that complexity outside of Apple's control.

Note that many posts here have stated the assumption that Apple would go after the higher end market - where multi-channel sound and multiple inputs would be expected.

Any, by the way, my AV cross-bar makes my setup much "simpler and more elegant" than trying to use the TV as the switch.

In particular, the Logitech Harmony programmable touch-screen remote makes it all very simple for the "wife" to handle. I pick up the remote (I'm the "wife", my husband sets up the remote), and touch "activity -> start 'Windows Media Center'". The remote

• sends an infrared command to the HTPC to wake it from sleep
• sends a "power on" command to the XBR screen
• sends a "power on" command to the STR cross-bar switch
• sends a "use HDMI 1 input" command to the XBR display
• sends an "input HDMI 4" command to the STR (input HDMI 4 on the cross-bar is connected to the Nvidia GT5xx card in the HTPC)
• "input HDMI 4" implicity means "send the HDCP video signals from HDMI 4 input to HDMI A output, upscaling and transcoding if necessary" and "send the bitstream lossless 8.1 audio from HDMI 4 input to the audio decoders and then to the audio amplifiers"
• remap all of the remote buttons (play, pause, volume, ...) on the remote to send the proper infrared codes for Windows Media Center

When I click "off" on the remote, it

• sends a "go to hybrid sleep" command to the HTPC, putting the quad Core i5 Windows 7 x64 system to sleep
• sends an "off" command to the XBR, turning off the display
• sends an "off" command to the AV cross-bar, turning it off as well as everything connected to the switched power outlets on the AV cross-bar

I'm not trying to brag about my setup, I'm just trying to help people understand that people who spend a few thousand on high end HD TV setups have some requirements and expectations that an Apple TV embedded in a 42" flat panel with few or no inputs will not meet.

On the other hand, as KnightWRX (in particular) and others here have posted - an enhanced Apple TV external box as an input to any generic system will let Apple add value to whatever system you decide to build. I doubt that Apple will be foolish enough to decide that it needs to push pixels and drive audio power amps. Cat6 in - HDMI out.




You called my post "silly" for describing the need for multiple inputs - then you say that this "mythical Apple TV" will be DOA without multiple inputs....

Its not so much a slam against your post as it is a slam to this whole ridiculous notion. There are so many more solutions to this problem than making the whole TV, which opens up a whole world of hurt, confusion, and complexity thats unnecessary headache. People need to simplify this equation. The problem isn't that a TV's interface itself is kludgy, its that the method and interface by which we access media, be it TV, movies, etc. on that TV is messy. By creating an Apple Television, there would still be a whole mess of interfaces to compete with, and overlays on top of overlays and it would just get difficult. The ideal solution is something akin to the ATV2, a breakout box that works in your existing setup, that delivers iTunes purchases and rentals seamlessly like the current model does now, and then either build in something akin to Cablecard or some form of way to passthrough a signal, overlaying the Apple-style UI we all know and love. Baking that into something like a TV, which has a completely different stigma as far as price, replacement times and obsolescence goes, and you're dropping a large part of the market. Make it a simple middle-man box, and you've got the best of both; a device that makes accessing what you want simple whether its IP based or on the old CTV system, and at the same time, making an affordable product that anyone with any HDTV can benefit from.

 

[JAT]

Still on this subject?

An $1,800 TV with a built-in AppleTV 2?

Honestly?

The only LCD I would consider for a main TV starts at $1700 far as I can tell. (on Amazon, 46" model) Samsung LED/LCD with micro-dimming. Other brands have similar tech, usually more expensive.

My main TV was actually right at $1800, IIRC. (projector)

----------

This whole post is silly. Most people don't have that sort of setup, nor does it remotely embody Steve's passion for "simple, elegant" engineering. Its a giant cluster**** of I/O and cables. And the second someone buys this mythical Apple television, gets it home, and the old PS3 or 360 won't connect, its dead on arrival.

So...you want to be most people? Icky.

I have a setup like that. Roughly.

 

[srf4real]

Uggh. As hard as I find it shopping for music in iTunes.. I'm not ecstatic to hear this news. In my opinion the iTunes store is a messy fiasco with nothing but promotion in mind when designed. I would not want a tv like this. Sure iTunes is a fine library manager for music as long as you like stuff where Apple says it should be..

 

[Senseotech]

The only LCD I would consider for a main TV starts at $1700 far as I can tell. (on Amazon, 46" model) Samsung LED/LCD with micro-dimming. Other brands have similar tech, usually more expensive.

My main TV was actually right at $1800, IIRC. (projector)

----------


So...you want to be most people? Icky.

I have a setup like that. Roughly.

Stuck up much?

 

[Widashy]

I love the idea of an "iTV", I think it would create a perfect ecosystem between iPhone, Apple TV, iPad(Do I sound like Steve Jobs?!). It would certainly become another great product but their remains one important question, Would it be painfully priced??

 

[Sackvillenb]

His previous credentials would make him very appropriate for an apple television...

I was always very skeptical of Apple making an actual tv... but with Steve supposedly saying that he "cracked it", who knows what the future might hold!

I just hope it's actually good, if it ever comes out.

Unless they make a device that can play back all standard media files (and not just iTunes content and streaming), I'm not very interested. It's kind of like the quicktime program. I find it does what it does very well... but it won't play 70% of video file types, thus negating it's own purpose. What's up with that?

I still like the apple tv (i.e. the small black box). If I had money to burn I'd probably get one... but I have yet to find a good media box that isn't an actual computer. I think I mentioned this once before, but if VLC can play every media file type in the universe, why can't a physical device do the same?

 

[jlc1978]

Anybody who thinks of this as a traditional TV in it's current form is going to be wrong IMO.
All content via itunes/icloud. Free channels like CBS, NBC etc. via their websites

Done with cable, boxes, DVR's etc., other than them being the pipe to get internet to your house.

Several problems with that:
1) There is a lot more content that people want to watch that is not available for free via the web; and cutting deals with a myriad of content providers will not be easy, especially if the see it threatening their traditional cash generating business model.
2) Cable companies own a lot of the content providers and will not go gently into the night.
3) Let's assume Apple can kill cable - do you really believe the cable companies will provide cheap internet access unless they can extract money from it in terms of fees to deliver content? They will fight tooth and nail to protect their revenue stream.

I don't doubt that Apple is aiming at the content delivery business - that's where the money is - but it won't be easy; and the outcome not certain.

 

[glennquagmire]

Now you know why the statement about ASSume came into play. Never had a palmpilot, no need for it but feel free to keep assuming. Still not even close to the same thing.

you seem to have a hard time connecting the dots, so let's try this:

cell phone + pda = smartphone. since you claim to never buy a combo device, you can't possibly own a smartphone, ergo my comment.

the "i assume" in that context is an idiom, while palmpilot as a specific device has no relevance.

not a big picture guy, are you?

 

[jlc1978]

Netflix has gone from a $16 billion company to a $4 billion company.
Apple should open up the piggy bank.

Why? Netflix is at the mercy of the content owners - they decide what, when, and for how long, Netflix has access to content. Apple already has iTunes to stream content - if they want to go to a monthly rental model that can use that to cut deals with content providers - Netflix adds zero to that equation.

I don't get it.
Why would I need a DVR when I can just stream programing from the cloud?
Why would I need to record Modern Family to my local DVR when Apple can have a copy in the cloud I can stream, pause, fast forward, ect?

Because you can actually watch stuff when you have no net access? I can transfer Tivo'd shows to my Mac and watch them on the go - no need to have net access.
The cloud is nice - when you have net access. I'd love to be stream what I want instead of having to store fit on my disk, but until everyone has always on, unlimited fast access the cloud will be a greta, but unrealized, idea.

 

[217833]

What I've heard over the years

2001 Stick with computers

2007 Stick with computers, OSX and iPods

2010 Stick with Computers, OSX, iPods and iPhones

2011 Stick with Computers, OSX, iPods, iPhones and iPads

2000-2011 Apple grows to be most valuable tech company in the world by ignoring what you say

We can even go further...

2012 Stick with Computers, iOSX, iPods, iPhones, iPads and iTV

2013 Stick with Computers, iOSX, iPods, iPhones, iPads, iTVs and iGames

2015 Stick with Computers, iOSX, iPods, iPhones, iPads, iTVs, iGames and iCar-Radios

2017 Stick with Computers, iOSX, iPods, iPhones, iPads, iTVs, iGames, iCar-Radios and iHome-Automation

20xx Stick with "insert your favorite thing you can't imagine Apple could do"