iTunes Creator Jeff Robbin Heading Apple Television Effort?

[cpucrash0]

I imagine apple tv set to have 60hz refresh rate and no component input and very few hdmi inputs and you got to wait till the following year to get 120hz or higher and it will probably not have 3D

 

[GollumBoy]

Makes you wonder if this is going to be completely different from any type of TV we've seen before, not just in terms of interface/design but possibly input.

Obviously, it won't have legacy ports like composite or component inputs, digital ATSC tuners, analog audio outputs, vga or DVI output, etc. (All typical standard ports on the back of your HDTV)

However, wouldn't it be interesting if it didn't have HDMI inputs either? What if it got all of its content strictly from iTunes?

Would that force Fox, Disney, Viacom and Universal to provide their content for it? Maybe.

That would be pretty wild.

BAD idea. Means you are unable to hook up a DVD/Blu-ray player or a PS3/Xbox 360.
Won't be able to do a lot - people would NOT like that. It would definitely need HDMI.

 

[something3153]

But having Apple TV as a separate box still gives the cable companies the upper hand. This is the whole problem that Jobs described at All Things D and why AppleTV as a box is still a "hobby". You can't compete with cable companies if people already have cable boxes with PVR's given to them for free. They're not going to go out and buy yet another box, even though the new price of ATV2 made it more attractive @ $99.

The way to beat the cable companies is for a customer to leave the Apple Store with a TV set, get home, plug it in, be prompted to sign in with their Apple ID and already have all their iCloud content on the tv and new content ready to be purchased directly on the tv, without ever involving the cable companies.

This will be controversial but I believe that an Apple TV won't have any of the commonly used ports. No coaxial, no RCA, no Component, and possibly no HDMI either, although Apple may relent on the latter. I expect that it will have Thunderbolt however. Apple is notorious for retiring established I/O in favour of the upcoming technology. Apple skates to where the puck is going to be.

None of the content will come from external boxes like BluRay or PVRs. All the content will come via iCloud and iTunes. Apple already offers to iTunes users all the content available to cable companies except for live tv.

Live TV fits into two categories: News and Sports. Sports are already essentially solved with ATV's already existing apps for NHL, NBA and MLB (NFL will eventually relent). Live news apps already exist on iOS. It's a matter of porting them to AppleTV. A CNN or MSBNC or Fox News (ugh) or any other 24 hour network news feed via an app is the solution here with many local stations offering their feed in iOS apps as well.

What Apple has to achieve is have customers ask these questions: Why pay for cable tv when I can pick and choose which shows I like to watch (not which channels)? Why schedule programs to be recorded on a PVR when I can simply select any of those shows and watch instantly, without scheduling anything? Why do I need a cable PVR box at all? I have iTunes and iCloud already built into my new tv!

I'm guessing that I'll probably get some negative votes from these predictions because a lot of people still hold on to the old way of doing things and want to record tv channels, but many other people including the new generation of consumers understands that content on demand is the future, not channels spewing out content on fixed schedules.

Steve Jobs quoted Henry Ford: "If I had asked costumers what they wanted, they'd ask me for a faster horse!"

You think people aren't going to go buy a $99 AppleTV because they have a free box from the cable company, but they ARE going to buy a full Apple television set that doesn't work with their game consoles and other devices for a lot more money?

 

[Peace]

I imagine apple tv set to have 60hz refresh rate and no component input and very few hdmi inputs and you got to wait till the following year to get 120hz or higher and it will probably not have 3D

It would be a TV not a computer. People need to stop comparing a TV with a computer.

This is why we don't run Apple.

 

[Friscohoya]

The thing that's different is the most expensive component is the screen, and only big brand companies have enough money to make those. I don't think Apple is going to be able to shake Sony or Samsung down to give them cheaper displays (and certainly not cheaper than their own HDTVs).

No, the value will have to be derived from elsewhere. The big question is what. And will people pay a premium for it?

If you can buy 46" flat screens for $600 then it's likely apple can get them for $400. Through in an apple tv for $60 costs and for $999 you have a high margin product with additional services to be sold.

 

[ipedro]

You think people aren't going to go buy a $99 AppleTV because they have a free box from the cable company, but they ARE going to buy a full Apple television set that doesn't work with their game consoles and other devices for a lot more money?

People will buy an Apple TV for the total of its features as a TV. They'll buy it to replace their old tv's. They'll buy it because it's well designed. They'll even buy it because it's cool and has an Apple logo on it.

On the other hand, Apple and all the other players are having a hard time cracking the cable tv market because customers are required to buy a box to replace a free box.

When they buy the Apple TV, they will already have the Apple experience embedded in the tv, no additional boxes required.

AppleTV 2 is a lot more successful than their original product because the price is so low but it's still not enough to break the cable industry's monopoly. An Apple television set will.

 

[monaarts]

I truly doubt that Apple is working on an actual TV. My money would be on the TV3, something that is much more fine tuned and smooth and has television programming. Maybe even an On-Demand streaming option to kill Netflix. We'll see soon enough, I suppose!


- Joe

 

[Swift]

Why a tv? Yes it will look nice but what do you think it will cost? Im betting at least $2000 for a 42" 1080 LED. While others sell the same thing for half that.

Stick with computers, phones, and OS X apple.

Yeah, forget insanely great. Never, ever build a tablet. Yuck.

Why such narrow, doctrinaire thinking?

I'm not convinced about an "Apple television." But they're still working on one, it seems. Bet there's a couple of big ideas in one, if they make it.

 

[monkeylui]

I'd like to just see the apple tv fleshed out more. Continue with fleshing out content deals, iCloud integration (so i don't have to always leave my Mac on), widgets/apps. Make it more ios like. His is one area I don't think they need integration with the hardware (tv) other than the little black box attached. It still has so much more potential. I like it because I can buy one for each room & it's not that much to have "home theater" integration.

 

[Friscohoya]

I imagine apple tv set to have 60hz refresh rate and no component input and very few hdmi inputs and you got to wait till the following year to get 120hz or higher and it will probably not have 3D

I actually appreciate that Apple ignores tech specs and just makes things that work. If the tech isn't mature or necessary don't include it. Android phones has all sorts of cool things that don't work yet such as the face unlock. I have a 120" screen on a 720P projector. People are always complaining about 1080P and the incremental improvement isn't worth the increased transmission time or download cost. Just make stuff with specs that make it work well!

 

[wikus]

This is the man responsible for all the bloat in iTunes? Someone should put him on a pedestal and shoot him.

I cant believe how much of a RAM hog iTunes has become.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Question regarding price:

Subsidized pricing has worked very well for the iPhone.

Why wouldn't the same thing be done with a TV?

Comcast and the like provide the classic TV experience, much like AT&T the like provide the classic phone experience, while Apple adds in the App Store and iTunes Store.

The TV really costs $2000 or so, but you're locked in for two years on a $100/month contract with Comcast and as a result you only pay $1000 to get the TV because Comcast subsidizes the other $1000.

Of course, I just made the numbers up, but you get the idea that I'm getting at.

 

[something3153]

People will buy an Apple TV for the total of its features as a TV. They'll buy it to replace their old tv's. They'll buy it because it's well designed. They'll even buy it because it's cool and has an Apple logo on it.

On the other hand, Apple and all the other players are having a hard time cracking the cable tv market because customers are required to buy a box to replace a free box.

When they buy the Apple TV, they will already have the Apple experience embedded in the tv, no additional boxes required.

AppleTV 2 is a lot more successful than their original product because the price is so low but it's still not enough to break the cable industry's monopoly. An Apple television set will.

Why won't people buy the AppleTV for the totality of its features, but will pay more for those same features when they're bundled with a television? This concept still requires the leap of faith that hiding an existing box in an expensive TV is a game-changer.

 

[ipedro]

Why won't people buy the AppleTV for the totality of its features, but will pay more for those same features when they're bundled with a television? This concept still requires the leap of faith that hiding an existing box in an expensive TV is a game-changer.

Because an AppleTV is only replacing the box they get for free from their cable company. I see your point and a lot of people do see that -- I bought several Apple TV's from the first generation and this one -- but the general consumer does not understand the whole box set up add on.

Can my grandma figure out a TV menu, buy an AppleTV, then find the source for that particular HDMI cable? Definitely not. Can she work an iPad without instruction? Yes. Can she work an AppleTv that is already set up and with the source connected? Yes, if the tv is already on. Give her a tv that when you turn it on is already set up with a simple menu like Apple TV, and most people will get it.

 

[mingoglia]

Ironically my kids just broke my 3 month old 60" LED TV with a dog toy about 15 minutes ago... hurry up and make me a TV Apple, I'm in the market now.

 

[Eminemdrdre00]

How far out do we think Apple is from actually releasing a TV set?

 

[MrSmith]

yeah and 90% of this forum didn't "get" the ipad even as close as a few months before its release.

Many of us still don't.

 

[AidenShaw]

I don't get why Apple fanboys hate on Blu-ray so much. I think it is fantastic, and definitely like it better than streaming 720p, or downloading 1080p over the Internet or something.

I'm honestly curious to know though. I can see why Jobs hated it (not Apple's own invention, therefore not proprietary enough, blah blah), but why do fanboys hate on it?

You answered your own question .

I truly doubt that Apple is working on an actual TV. My money would be on the TV3, something that is much more fine tuned and smooth and has television programming.

You get it.

I actually appreciate that Apple ignores tech specs and just makes things that work. ... I have a 120" screen on a 720P projector.

You don't get it.

Why won't people buy the AppleTV for the totality of its features, but will pay more for those same features when they're bundled with a television? This concept still requires the leap of faith that hiding an existing box in an expensive TV is a game-changer.

Right on. The pixel display device is not where you're going to change the game. Focus on the AV hub....

But, be sure that the AV hub has 4 or 5 additional HDMI inputs as well as the HDMI output to the pixel display device. And be sure that the AV hub has high quality scalers (can you spell "Faroudja"?). Also, be sure that the AV hub can send bitstream lossless audio to 7.1 audio amplifiers.

 

[Tilpots]

It's pointless to make a whole TV when you can make a one size fits all box for a tenth of the price and ten times more of an audience. TVs last decades, but a box can be updated frequently. The hardware grants access to Apple's new content distrobution scheme.

 

[UWF404]

Apple TV sounds good to me. A beautiful panel running iOS and seamlessly in sync with all your devices (iphone, ipad, macbook, etc). iCloud keeping all your media in sync and you can use the iPad/iPhone as your remote. Maybe Apple is working to sign up the networks and soon you can ditch legacy cable providers. Maybe that large data center in North Carolina will soon be serving up TV/Movies and all kinds of goodness. Doesn't Apple have 80 billion in cash reserves? Isn't Time Warner worth only 36 billion? couldn't Apple bust up the old school?

 

[Lennholm]

But having Apple TV as a separate box still gives the cable companies the upper hand. This is the whole problem that Jobs described at All Things D and why AppleTV as a box is still a "hobby". You can't compete with cable companies if people already have cable boxes with PVR's given to them for free. They're not going to go out and buy yet another box, even though the new price of ATV2 made it more attractive @ $99.

The way to beat the cable companies is for a customer to leave the Apple Store with a TV set, get home, plug it in, be prompted to sign in with their Apple ID and already have all their iCloud content on the tv and new content ready to be purchased directly on the tv, without ever involving the cable companies.

This will be controversial but I believe that an Apple TV won't have any of the commonly used ports. No coaxial, no RCA, no Component, and possibly no HDMI either, although Apple may relent on the latter. I expect that it will have Thunderbolt however. Apple is notorious for retiring established I/O in favour of the upcoming technology. Apple skates to where the puck is going to be.

None of the content will come from external boxes like BluRay or PVRs. All the content will come via iCloud and iTunes. Apple already offers to iTunes users all the content available to cable companies except for live tv.

Live TV fits into two categories: News and Sports. Sports are already essentially solved with ATV's already existing apps for NHL, NBA and MLB (NFL will eventually relent). Live news apps already exist on iOS. It's a matter of porting them to AppleTV. A CNN or MSBNC or Fox News (ugh) or any other 24 hour network news feed via an app is the solution here with many local stations offering their feed in iOS apps as well.

What Apple has to achieve is have customers ask these questions: Why pay for cable tv when I can pick and choose which shows I like to watch (not which channels)? Why schedule programs to be recorded on a PVR when I can simply select any of those shows and watch instantly, without scheduling anything? Why do I need a cable PVR box at all? I have iTunes and iCloud already built into my new tv!

I'm guessing that I'll probably get some negative votes from these predictions because a lot of people still hold on to the old way of doing things and want to record tv channels, but many other people including the new generation of consumers understands that content on demand is the future, not channels spewing out content on fixed schedules.

Steve Jobs quoted Henry Ford: "If I had asked costumers what they wanted, they'd ask me for a faster horse!"

What? The purpose of a TV is to display whatever is connected to it, it doesn't have to be a cable box.
Not even Apple could convince people of: "We don't think you should deal with cable companies, so here is our single-purpose display that doesn't even make that, or connecting any of your other devices like DVD-players and gaming consoles, possible. Please buy it for more than a regular TV".

Apple TV sounds good to me. A beautiful panel running iOS and seamlessly in sync with all your devices (iphone, ipad, macbook, etc). iCloud keeping all your media in sync and you can use the iPad/iPhone as your remote. Maybe Apple is working to sign up the networks and soon you can ditch legacy cable providers. Maybe that large data center in North Carolina will soon be serving up TV/Movies and all kinds of goodness. Doesn't Apple have 80 billion in cash reserves? Isn't Time Warner worth only 36 billion? couldn't Apple bust up the old school?

There's absolutely no reason all of that couldn't be done on the existing Apple TV connected to a regular TV. The Apple TV already does everything except display the pixels.

 

[MisterK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

This is what the big money in their savings is for. They will do their own tv... From scratch. No samsung or anyone else. Boom!

 

[brewcitywi]

very cool

I'd be totally excited about an Apple TV!

I do agree that the screen itself, being such a huge part of the deal, is problematic...do they need to own all that real-estate just to have an end-to-end product?

However, if they can integrate it with iCloud, Netflix, Siri (no remote), Facetime, extra content from somewhere...maybe make TV more interactive than it is now....then it could be amazing.

I guess I agree that there should be 1 or 2 hidden things that would make it a completely new category of experience.

 

[glennquagmire]

The same reason I never buy a combo anything. No VHS/TV combo, no DVD/tv combo, no DVD/surround system combo all in one and no Apple TV/LCD combo.

still rocking ye olde flip phone and palmpilot, i assume. how's that working out for you?

 

[jmpnop]

And that doesn't require a 1800$ TV Set, it just requires an Apple TV set top box and a Airport Express connected to an Internet connection.

Yeah, $1800 sure going to turn down a lot of people...