Damn. You just made me think of something about gaming. Apple could totally use their Apple TV product like a cloud gaming console like OnLive. Holy awesomesauce Batman.
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.
More Evidence for Apple TV Apps?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Damn. You just made me think of something about gaming. Apple could totally use their Apple TV product like a cloud gaming console like OnLive. Holy awesomesauce Batman.
Speaking of AppleTV and streaming video services, Blockbuster declared bankruptcy. THis should hep netflix and apple stock.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
For those wondering what 
TV apps might make sense, think about it like this: right now, this box is basically closed, limited to what Apple chooses to let it do. Apple still calls it a "hobby". I can tell you first hand that very little tangible add-ons (apps) came with the current generation of this hobby. Sure, they updated the UI a few times, and there were a few additions to what it could do. But it definitely felt like it was a hobby; I sometimes wondered if ANYONE at Apple was working on improving it.
An app store opens it up to third parties. That means it's potential is only limited to what anyone- and everyone- with programming skills choose to make it do (that will get through the app gatekeepers at Apple). On a fundamental level, apps would make it possible for those companies that don't want to hand complete control- and pricing- of their content over to Apple and iTunes, a way to serve/sell their content in whatever way they think best. Personally, I'd prefer to at least have an option to access their content than be locked out because Apple doesn't bother making such content available or because those content producers don't want to play ball through Apple's tight grip on iTunes.
Every kind of media service out there could conceivably package up an app forTV, delivering content that is not in iTunes. Through their own app, they could price content better than iTunes too.
Now, these people who believe that existing apps are going to be there, might want to rethink that belief. First, as we saw with early iPad (migrated) apps, the resolution differences don't always look that great (scaling up from iPhone res to HD res might be an exercise in blurry pictures). Second, the whole gaming dream seems to always forget that interacting with a touch-screen game requires you to look at what you are touching: it's not going to work to watch the game on the big screen and control/interact with it on your iPhone/Touch, unless it's a game that doesn't involve virtually pushing any buttons.
I'd be enormously encouraged if Apple would "open" up the newTV to third party apps, following the well-proven path they take with every other major bit of hardware they offer. I'm 100% confident that third parties could fill the many software holes that Apple doesn't want to cover with in-house resources. It would immediately make this box far more appealing than it is today.
TV apps might make sense, think about it like this: right now, this box is basically closed, limited to what Apple chooses to let it do. Apple still calls it a "hobby". I can tell you first hand that very little tangible add-ons (apps) came with the current generation of this hobby. Sure, they updated the UI a few times, and there were a few additions to what it could do. But it definitely felt like it was a hobby; I sometimes wondered if ANYONE at Apple was working on improving it. An app store opens it up to third parties. That means it's potential is only limited to what anyone- and everyone- with programming skills choose to make it do (that will get through the app gatekeepers at Apple). On a fundamental level, apps would make it possible for those companies that don't want to hand complete control- and pricing- of their content over to Apple and iTunes, a way to serve/sell their content in whatever way they think best. Personally, I'd prefer to at least have an option to access their content than be locked out because Apple doesn't bother making such content available or because those content producers don't want to play ball through Apple's tight grip on iTunes.
Every kind of media service out there could conceivably package up an app for
TV, delivering content that is not in iTunes. Through their own app, they could price content better than iTunes too. Now, these people who believe that existing apps are going to be there, might want to rethink that belief. First, as we saw with early iPad (migrated) apps, the resolution differences don't always look that great (scaling up from iPhone res to HD res might be an exercise in blurry pictures). Second, the whole gaming dream seems to always forget that interacting with a touch-screen game requires you to look at what you are touching: it's not going to work to watch the game on the big screen and control/interact with it on your iPhone/Touch, unless it's a game that doesn't involve virtually pushing any buttons.
I'd be enormously encouraged if Apple would "open" up the new
TV to third party apps, following the well-proven path they take with every other major bit of hardware they offer. I'm 100% confident that third parties could fill the many software holes that Apple doesn't want to cover with in-house resources. It would immediately make this box far more appealing than it is today.
I would say this is more than likely, as iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch hardware all has a combination wifi/bluetooth chip.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
My TV doesn't have an accelerometer
I bolted the TV to the Wall
TV screen is not a touch surface
46" is a bit big to tilt around for control, I might drop it
convergent said:
My TV doesn't have an accelerometer
I bolted the TV to the Wall
TV screen is not a touch surface
46" is a bit big to tilt around for control, I might drop it
FaceTime
FaceTime. I run a webcam off my Mac Mini HTPC and it's pretty awesome to have a 46" skype call with the whole family across the country for holidays and time to time. Just add a new 'iSight for AppleTV' accessory.
FaceTime. I run a webcam off my Mac Mini HTPC and it's pretty awesome to have a 46" skype call with the whole family across the country for holidays and time to time. Just add a new 'iSight for AppleTV' accessory.
yea, this could be really big! having 100's or thousand's of devs working on apps for that "hobby" will certainly be faster than what apple has done so far.
j
While that is technically feasible, the original Apple TV ran a variant of Tiger on a 1GHz Pentium M processor. Developers aren't going to support a 5 year old OS with a tiny install base, and that processor couldn't run anything more modern. Don't get me wrong - I love my Apple TV - but any attempt to sell it as an app platform would flop.
Every kind of media service out there could conceivably package up an app for
Errr...to quote Boundin': That gets a nope. Current iOS developer agreements specifically prevent any payment mechanism other than in app purchase. iPhone devs dance around this by handling purchase in web apps (see: Kindle app). And that trick won't work on AppleTV, as it's unlikely to include a full browser.
You can visualize external subscription mechanisms (a la Netflix), but it's an unwield experience.
This has been the killer for newspaper/magazine subscriptions. Not just the 30% cut that Apple takes, but the lack of sharing of subscription data.
I can get on board with the Apple TV app idea. But they have to be different than that of the iphone and iPad so apps need to be made exclusively for it. An iPhone app blown up on the tv would look ridiculous.
I reckon developers could end up making some great apps exclusively for the Apple TV.
I reckon developers could end up making some great apps exclusively for the Apple TV.
GIF file format
I was trolling through the Apple TV tech specs, and wondered why is the GIF image format still specified here? It's unlikely to be used for photos I guess. Would this likely be a format for use within the ATV menus?
I was trolling through the Apple TV tech specs, and wondered why is the GIF image format still specified here? It's unlikely to be used for photos I guess. Would this likely be a format for use within the ATV menus?
No need for the 'iSight for AppleTV', just use your iPhone/iPod touch as the pass around mobile camera and AirPlay the video to your AppleTV.
You're right, it's all about the content and you are missing the obvious. Any app that provides the aforementioned content would be great on Apple TV. Video streaming apps would be the biggest apps to start. All I want is an NHL app to watch my hockey games.
Apple TV is also just game controller away from becoming a console once it gains apps. Apple could create one that all apps could use or a third party could create one for their apps, or they could simply release a controller app for the iPhone much like Scrabble for the iPad allows your iPhone to hold the letter tray.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If you're correct then, why should anyone with any valuable media suitable for an
TV want to offer an app? An TV app store must resolve this problem so that the incentive to deliver content suited for TV is realized. Otherwise- if you are right such that things stay exactly as they are- only those wanting to give their content away, or those happy to be paid for the cost of the app, will play. That should be a very quick way to kill lots of app upside. Apple can't be stupid or overly greedy about this. I'm guessing that Apple is getting tired of the lack of interest among the video industry to just roll over in a way similar to their music industry cousins. Apple wants to dictate what their (video) content should cost, and the video players are wanting to price their products as they wish. The music guys argued passionately that all songs are not of equal quality and thus should be able to be priced accordingly. However, they were already under Apple's thumb, and Apple dictated that all songs- be that a #1 hit or the worst filler track ever made- should all cost 99 cents. The video players don't want to end up under Apple's thumb (too), and Apple doesn't have as much leverage to pressure them to accept Apple's demands. Think about it. Should a Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc be priced at exactly the same price as the rottenest or rotten tomato ranked films?
So maybe Apple has decided that if they want to sell a lot of hardware, they're going to need to approach video content in a different way. Apps would be a way to allow the "greedy" content holders to price themselves out of the market if they so wish. But it would probably also be a better way to allow market forces to find the right price for various qualities of video content. More simply, apps with a way to pay for content through them is much more likely to significantly expand the utility of the new
TV. Provide that feature to content owners, and Apple gets to pitch wide utility of great third-party apps to the base to sell more hardware.Apple cheerleaders will cast the video content owners as the greedy villains in any comments along these lines. But I wonder what they would do if Apple showed up at their companies wanting to price their company's products as Apple sees fit... especially if such prices were lower than what their company felt was the right price. These other companies want to make money too... not just help Apple make more money.
So, I hope you are wrong in the future when an app store might be announced. If the players aren't going to roll over to Apple mandates via iTunes, an app model (with some kind of in app purchases/subscriptions) is the best way to add a lot of utility & content availability to this new box.
The iphone wont be a good controller because you would have to look at it to use it and take your eyes off your tv. Now some games would be fine if the iphone is used like a trackpad. Maybe a game pad attachment, the attachments brings in hard buttons and we can still use the screen as a trackpad.
Subscription based apps would be fine, even if you had to sign up on another device.
I'm sure people could figure out how to navigate to hulu.com to sign up for Hulu+.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There has to be operational RAM on this new
TV. Since it's not an iDevice to go out on the road with us, it wouldn't have to store all of it's apps on board. An app could stream from a Mac just like a video could stream. Stream an app into operational RAM and it would run just like it was stored on board.
I have said it before, will say it again. Keep it simple. AppleTV is just a box for streaming. You got the apps already in your hand ios device. Right where you would need an input device.
The iPhone would just be a quick in for developers. It wouldn't be optimal and it would limit their audience to iPhone/iPod Touch owners, but you know they would use it.
A far better solution would be my first suggestion (which is why I listed it first), a gamepad for the Apple TV. Requiring users to own an iPhone and a gamepad adaptor for the iPhone (like you suggested) to play an Apple TV game is probably a little much.
I think you are right that it's all about the content. I guess one vision is that an app just gives you a portal to a specific type of content, in lieu of traditional channels. There would be an App for each individual show or sports team, and perhaps individual movies would get an App (especially movies that are a series, like James Bond, Indiana Jones, etc.) The App for The Office could tap into your own personal collection as well, so it will not only show you what's on tap for this week (e.g., if you want to rent the next episode from iTunes), but also if you have any episodes of The Office stored locally, it will bring all that up, too. I'm beginning to see it. One major question will be who gets to control the content - would a 3rd party have to get a license from Fox to create a Simpsons App? I'd imagine the hollywood studios will get first crack at creating apps for each show, just like a 3rd party can't just buy up "thesimpsons.com" without Fox's permission.
I think there's also potential in local Apps, too - you buy the App, and local restaurants and stores that are in your neighborhood can give you coupons, etc.
Bottom line, this Apps for Apple TV has the potential to be much more than video conferencing and sports. It's about connecting you interactively to the content you are specifically interested in, and about connecting businesses and local services directly to you. You heard it here first!
The networks themselves would probably have to bring the content to the Apple TV, much like they offer streaming on their websites. This wouldn't happen right away, and when it did, I doubt it would be free.
Alot of content would be available with a hulu+ app though.
The networks are terrified of concepts like this because it kills cable, but as subscription rates drop they'll have to adapt. In time streaming will be far superior to cable. Instead of the fox channel, you could have the fox app. Instead of one show playing in a certain time slot, you could choose any of their shows, and play pause, skip forward or back as you please.
I usually think you are pretty much on the money, arn... But with all due respect, I think you are reading a little too much into this... I'm not saying that the new Apple TV won't have apps... In fact, it probably will... But I don't think this should be considered evidence of that one way or the other... Besides... Even if this was compelling evidence... Couldn't this have been a hoax anyway? I mean, I could replicate this LinkedIn page right now...
TheYankees1903
I think this is a bit of a stretch as well.. who knows what the summer intern really meant... we are reading tea leaves here.