Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iTunes Creator Jeff Robbin Heading Apple Television Effort?

Before iTunes was SoundJam as most people know. There was also Audion. I had them both. There was SoundJam by Jeff Robin and Audion by Panic (written by Cabel Sasser & Co.) — Little know story: Steve Jobs wanted Audion, not SoundJam initially. The WHOLE STORY is fascinating and so is the fortune of Robbin who was the backup plan. A must-read.
 
HiRez said:
Apple has to control the distribution all the way to the consumer for it to work, and they need to use part of the massive pile of cash they're amassing to achieve it. It reminds me of when Apple decided to take control over their retail experience by opening Apple retail stores. They want no part of the cable companies. That leaves wireless. Current market caps:

• AT&T = $171B
• Verizon = $105B
• T-Mobile = $55B
• Sprint - $8B
Click to expand...

There is no reason for Apple to buy one of those if it wants wireless - they could simply buy bandwidth from them for whole lot less and not be tied into the infrastructure. If they want their own they could buy spectrum and rent tower space from Crown Castle and/or American tower.
 
Lots?

cpucrash0 said:
so I guess apple now is going from having few products to having lots of products again and isn't that what got them in trouble the first place?
Click to expand...

11? They just axed a MacBook and Servers. Seems like they're keeping it pretty lean to me.
 
kas23 said:
This is much different than the TV market, where there has been no stagnation. The TVs today are on the bleeding edge. .
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Sets themselves may be advancing (although none have a usable interface), but the part that hasn't advanced it 60 years is the experience itself. Its still largely a conglomeration of networks. There are just more than there were in the 50's.

If all this is is a new box, then its pointless. But the disruption has to come from upending the network-based/cable consolidation, and providing ala carte along with better search and scheduling.

Apple will aim at the model, not the box, just as they did with iTunes/iPod. Someone mentioned on 5by5 that the only point of an actual TV might be to expand AppleTV penetration.
But at some point, studios are going to HAVE to start picking winners in the streaming space. Comcast has them scared right now, but when the on-line pie gets big enough, it will change.
And that's the moment Apple is trying to push and be ready for.
 
noisycats said:
Seriously? Are you having a laugh?
Click to expand...

Well duh. 🙂

Aside from some new content distribution model and the nice interface, one does wonder what Apple would bring to the table. I'm guessing the remote would probably be along the lines of a magic trackpad. Some sort of touch cab able interface so that apps and games would be useable. Everyone wants games and apps on the AppleTV but I don't think many have actually considered how the heck they'd use them. Since they're all touch and gesture based. Remotes are basically limited to cursor movements and a few dedicated buttons. That's why current TVs are pretty limited in Apps. Mostly weather, stocks, hulu, netflix, those kind of apps. But to make it work with all the iOS apps somehow would be great. Maybe that's what he cracked.

But in the dark, I just want to grab my remote and press a button to get what I want. Not gestures or menus. So who knows. But when it's all done others will copy and everyone will say Apple didn't innovate anything - that everything in the AppleTV 3 is completely evolutionary.
 
Is it me...

...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.
 
Trian said:
...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.
Click to expand...

There may be nothing at all to this. The quote from Steve could just as easily be about the current :apple:TV box (which is rumored to have sold much better than version 1). Maybe that quote from Steve was captured before the release of the current :apple:TV and has nothing to do with some future device (anyone know the time referenced in that quote?). It's not like book marketers are afraid to release even out-of-context quotes to stir up interest in a book.

If you think Steve being alive was key to keeping Apple secrets from rumor boards, where have you been the last couple of years (here)? And why would the sole fortress of keeping Apple's secrets decide to pull back the curtain in his own biography (he knew the target date of release was soon)?

----------
jlc1978 said:
There is no reason for Apple to buy one of those if it wants wireless - they could simply buy bandwidth from them for whole lot less and not be tied into the infrastructure. If they want their own they could buy spectrum and rent tower space from Crown Castle and/or American tower.
Click to expand...

Is there even enough bandwidth in the 4G/LTE space to feed the mass adoption of Apple's cable-replacement solution? Setting aside the costs involved in the wireless bandwidth, if we all switched over in the next 12 months, would 4G/LTE be able to feed us all what we want to watch when we want to watch it? Does the wired Internet itself have enough spare bandwidth for that?
 
GQB said:
You're missing the point. Sets themselves may be advancing (although none have a usable interface), but the part that hasn't advanced it 60 years is the experience itself. Its still largely a conglomeration of networks. There are just more than there were in the 50's.

If all this is is a new box, then its pointless. But the disruption has to come from upending the network-based/cable consolidation, and providing ala carte along with better search and scheduling.

Apple will aim at the model, not the box, just as they did with iTunes/iPod. Someone mentioned on 5by5 that the only point of an actual TV might be to expand AppleTV penetration.
But at some point, studios are going to HAVE to start picking winners in the streaming space. Comcast has them scared right now, but when the on-line pie gets big enough, it will change.
And that's the moment Apple is trying to push and be ready for.
Click to expand...

The content providers / owners / networks still think that their end-game is aggregating and delivering their content themselves... ultimately they want more control than they have today and certainly don't want to be beholden to any middle-men, much less one that takes such a large share of revenues and demands as much control over the end-user experience as Apple.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:


----------



Is there even enough bandwidth in the 4G/LTE space to feed the mass adoption of Apple's cable-replacement solution? Setting aside the costs involved in the wireless bandwidth, if we all switched over in the next 12 months, would 4G/LTE be able to feed us all what we want to watch when we want to watch it? Does the wired Internet itself have enough spare bandwidth for that?
Click to expand...

No, not really. Spectrum is an increasingly scarce resource on mobile wireless networks. To deliver wireless bandwidth to the home comparable to what you can do over coax or FTTH, you'd really need a micro-cell architecture where you could subdivide spectrum at the neighborhood or street level (e.g. build fiber to the 'hood and use TDM multi-plexing antenna technology)... which basically ends up being fixed-wireless and even that has met with mixed results (e.g. Wildblue), a distant third on the desirability list after DSL and cable.

Apple buying a wireless (or wireline) company to deliver bandwidth to their devices makes no more sense than them buying a power company to deliver electricity to their devices. They would end up sending more money to Washington than they would make from subscribers trying to "compete" and "level the playing field" with the likes of AT&T and Verizon (and their loyal legions of elected and appointed Washington officials).
 
Deeper Surprise Needed ---

Unless Apple plans on using its $Billions$ to buy a cable/satellite company this product will not be able to differentiate itself enough to dominate the market as Apple does with most other products. This is because the cable box not the TV is what for the most part controls the user experience.

So PLEASE Apple spend some of that cash on buying a content provider and open a new world of quality user interfaces for us!!! 😀
 
Todisco said:
Unless Apple plans on using its $Billions$ to buy a cable/satellite company this product will not be able to differentiate itself enough to dominate the market as Apple does with most other products. This is because the cable box not the TV is what for the most part controls the user experience.

So PLEASE Apple spend some of that cash on buying a content provider and open a new world of quality user interfaces for us!!! 😀
Click to expand...


Buying a cable company would only serve people in its market. Cable companies are not free to offer service wherever they want. They sign deals (often exclusive) with local governments. Apple doesn't want to be a cable company, they want to sell you content and eliminate the cable company.
 
Mr. Gates said:
Oh my god !

You mean SJ isn't the only person behind the products ?

I am loosing faith in my god 🙄


Apple is going to be just fine.


The creative team is still there.


One less CEO means nothing.

He was pretty cool, but not the company or even the soul of the products.

Several cool ideas passed and more shot down by him, but he was nothing more than a guy doing the best he could with a whole bunch of talent.
Click to expand...
You miss the point! Of course Steve Jobs had many good and talented engineers and programmers who actually "made" the products. But Steve Jobs was a strong leader with intensive charisma who managed to make all the talents work together for a common goal. After his demise only time will tell whether the others will be able to continue on the path Apple is on or whether they will eventually risk everything in lousy trench warfares for power and influence...
 
Tilpots said:
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.
Click to expand...

Anybody who thinks of this as a traditional TV in it's current form is going to be wrong IMO.

This will be a small box and the only box you need that can project things to any size.
Buy a silver screen for better reflection like in the movies.
Integrated on the wall instead of a huge TV piece of furniture dominating the family room.

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

Remote via ipad/iphone or a small 6 x 4 remote that functions like an ipad.

The current ATV remote and letter by letter clicking is embarrassing!

All content via itunes/icloud. Free channels like CBS, NBC etc. via their websites

You buy what you want when you want it and anything on your iphone/ipad can be displayed via that projector.

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

Next step take out the drives from the MBP's and put that new Apple TV into the MBP's. Perfect for presentations and projecting anyplace.

All the people who complain can just stay with their old set up and all the connections.

This will all be done for around $ 899 and yes, we are very excited about this🙂
----------

Piggie said:
So he's the bloke responsible for iTunes?

Strange he does not look Slow, Fat and Bloated. 😀
Click to expand...

No need to diss Microsoft here🙂
 
Apple 3D Polorzied Projection TV, with Siri & Kinect

The Apple TV will not be your standard television, but a combination of technologies including that of the projector (a LED or laser based projector). There will be the projector unit/s, and an interface/camera unit. Siri will be integrated into the television and will recognize voice commands. Shows you wish to record/watch later will be stored in the icloud, playable on all your iDevices. There will be a proprietary Apple connector on the back of the unit, so when you wish to add useful devices such as HDMI/Composite/USB, you will have to procure the accessory (with built in smart chip so you have to get it from Apple) later. This port will probably be a Thunderbolt Port. Multiple projectors can be linked together to create an impressive display array or single 3D image using polorized optics. The camera system will be interactive, allowing you to interact with content both visually (Kinect) and audibly (Siri I need backup!). Two polorized projectors to the Apple TV, and easily aligned to utilize polorized 3D Glasses (cheaper and lighter weight than shutter glasses). The Mobile Genius Bar will install the system in people's homes, included in the price of the higher end 3D systems.

More Apple stores will be opened, more people converted, and the Apple monopoly will continue to expand its influence in the marketplace. The Apple TV will be a theatre in a box, both figuratively and literally. iTunes will bring "in Theatre" movies, operas, and broadway shows, sports, into the home like no other broadcaster could/can. Apple will compete against NBC/CBS/etc for exclusive broadcaster rights to sporting events, etc.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty obvious there's incredible opportunity here, in terms of making one's television viewing an easier/simpler experience. The killer is the cable company, which forces you to install an extra box and buy packages of channels that you may or may not want. The ideal would be able to buy individual programs and series (as they are released, not later as a box set) and watch what you want, when you want, including live events. Add to this any movie or interactive internet content, and put it in a set that has 2 wires (power & ethernet) or even 1 wire (assuming wi-fi can carry enough bandwidth.) But the key is managing to wrestle out the cable companies while depending on them for internet - no easy task.

Dave
 
I completely agree with everyone that has stated that hardware is a very small piece of this pie. Of course Apple can build a screen with speakers - the real opportunity is in the delivery of content. Here is what I invision:

  • Apple will not kill the set top box version of ATV. Both a TV and STB will co-exist. It doesn't make any sense to alienate folks that are happy with their current TV or aren't willing to pay for an Apple-branded HDTV.
  • The idea will be to remove as many components and cables from the equation as possible. If you buy an Apple HDTV, it will include everything you need, including an interface with your cable provider and DVR functionality (think TiVo). It will likely have bluetooth so that it can act as a wireless receiver for a sound system, etc. Theoretically you will have two cables - a power cable and a coax if you still subscribe to cable/satellite (plus any HDMI systems like an Xbox, etc).
  • Apple will strike the necessary deals with content publishers and bring the content into a store as they do now with some TV shows. Obviously the library needs to expand exponentially if they are ever going to cut cable providers out of the equation.
  • You will use Siri to search for, select, and control content.
  • Because most of the content will be on-demand and pay per view or season, commercials will be addressed in a Hulu fashion - you can watch one long commercial before your show (say 2-3 minutes) or smaller commercials peppered throughout (4-5 1-minute commercials). Advertising will never go away completely.
  • Live content like sports, news, and so forth will be handled via subscription like MLB, NHL, and NBA are today on ATV.
  • All content offered will be 1080p (other than items produced prior to that tech, obviously).
  • The interface will be stupid simple. Available to Watch (cable DVR, iTunes, Movies, other recorded items), Live/Streaming (MLB, NHL, NFL, ESPN, CNN, Netflix), Gaming (all of your downloaded apps), and Other Sources (flickr, radio, iTunes music). You will no longer browse a list of channels. Instead, you will browse a list of available content from all sources that you have configured. So, if you have cable, YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, and Vimeo you will simply see a list of all available content that you can watch on-demand. Simple.
  • The full array of iCloud, iTunes Match, AirPlay, and Home Sharing will be available. They will simply expand upon the services currently offered here.
  • Gaming - Game Center integration with apps designed to run in full 1080p. Control will take place via optional remote, iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch, or possibly Kinect-style.
  • A "Watch Together" feature that allows you to watch a show in real-time with friends in other locations. Perhaps a chat box or something similar on a portion of the screen for discussion of the content.
  • Apps, apps, and more apps.
  • Notification Center - "The Yankee/Red Sox game starts in 10 minutes", "House is now available to watch", "Tim has invited you to play Tiger Woods PGA 2012", "New iMessage from Scott", "The National Weather Service has detected severe weather in your area. Take shelter".
 
Netflix has gone from a $16 billion company to a $4 billion company.
Apple should open up the piggy bank.

----------
Patriot24 said:
If you buy an Apple HDTV, it will include everything you need, including an interface with your cable provider and DVR functionality (think TiVo).
Click to expand...

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?
 
I don't think Apple will make a TV. It just doesn't make sense.

Apple does not even make its own screens for its laptops.

Its more likely that Apple will release an Apple TV 3 with more IOS features - App Store, Browser, Siri, iCloud, and games.

Apple could also partner with a particular TV brand with direct access to iCloud movies and tv shows.
 
ptysell said:
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?
Click to expand...

If you are still connected to cable or satellite. They have to know that some people simply aren't going to give up their current ecosystem. It makes sense to have provisions for those kinds of setups. If Apple can handle what the cable box does today much better, that alone may be a selling point for some folks (again, think TiVo).
 
ptysell said:
Netflix has gone from a $16 billion company to a $4 billion company.
Apple should open up the piggy bank.
Click to expand...

I agree, it would be great for Apple to pick up their subscribers and add all those content deals. Netflix investors have been devastated, I don't think you'd need to put much of a premium on the stock to pick it up right now. If Apple doesn't buy them, someone else, like Amazon or Microsoft, will. $4B seems like a relative bargain and wouldn't even put a dent in Apple's cash reserves.

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back