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.
New York Times: Apple Gearing Up to Take Apple TV to the Next Level
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't want to stream. I want to record and playback locally, with the ability to transfer recorded programs to my computer. AKA a TiVo. But Apple could do it better
Then you want another product, and not this one. You want a Tivo, which already exists, which is why Apple will never produce a Tivo-like product.
I want a product that streams digital content from my Mac, which is the ATV - I got rid of my cable over 2 years ago and haven't missed that monthly payment once.
If they are working on a tv I hope it's a plasma and they bought the intuletual know how from pioneer. Though pioneer and panasonic had a intellectual property sharing thing. So the new panasonic plasmas should be sweet. Any how no crap tbs like the dodgy iMac 27" screens please. If this is true which I think it's no.
You might be right, it's hard to say. BD adoption has picked up steam. I can assure you that there are more BD owners in the US than iPhone owners. Does that make iPhone a niche product? Hardly.
Apple has really stuck their head in the sand on this one in my opinion, but I've been down the road of this argument before. BD might be the "last" optical format that will get any traction but it DOES have traction and is likely to survive for a good long time, at least for the AV enthusiasts out there (of which there are millions).
Holy. Crap. Wasn't there another recent rumor that Sep would bring cameras to two iOS devices? iPod touch and .. AppleTV? iPad would be the obvious second, but that would be an awfully quick update.
Apple TV
Apple needs to use it's own content for a netflix watch instantly like service. I would gladly pay $30 a month to listen to Itunes music, watch TV shows, and movies instantly. As a iPhone, iPad3g, and Mac owner it would greatly increase the value of these devices to be able to access great content on the go via an apple branded service.
Apple needs to use it's own content for a netflix watch instantly like service. I would gladly pay $30 a month to listen to Itunes music, watch TV shows, and movies instantly. As a iPhone, iPad3g, and Mac owner it would greatly increase the value of these devices to be able to access great content on the go via an apple branded service.
That's a terrible idea. This type of paid-prioritization, if widespread, would effectively mean the end of the internet as an equalizer, and it's exactly what companies like Comcast are angling for.
This is why net neutrality is important - so your content can reach end users with the same speed and efficiency as content from Apple, etc. Otherwise, the internet becomes TV.
This may sound completely out of left field but....
They should make it black.
If Apple is aiming for the high end, discerning buyer (and they are) they are aiming for those people for whom aesthetics is just as important as the functionality.
Not saying that it would boost sales through the stratosphere, but it could help sway the fence sitters.
Nintendo, Microsoft, DirecTV. All these companies that make hardware for entertainment center shelves have released black models. Odds are Apple won't...but they should.
They should make it black.
If Apple is aiming for the high end, discerning buyer (and they are) they are aiming for those people for whom aesthetics is just as important as the functionality.
Not saying that it would boost sales through the stratosphere, but it could help sway the fence sitters.
Nintendo, Microsoft, DirecTV. All these companies that make hardware for entertainment center shelves have released black models. Odds are Apple won't...but they should.
There is something that I don't get; All of these content over the internet guys are forgetting that ISPs have data caps. Netflix , Apple , Hulu , ABC etc etc are pushing towards more content. Problem is that if I go over 250g a month I get charged of ultimately dropped as a customer from my ISP.
Its not like I have 10 ISPs to choose from . I have 1 .
I have four people in my house and I with the XBox's , Netflix etc etc we already use on a not so consistent basis I approach 150 - 180 gigs a month.
I will not buy anything like this because of my fear of being banned from the only ISP I have. I know I am not alone in this issue either.
Its not like I have 10 ISPs to choose from . I have 1 .
I have four people in my house and I with the XBox's , Netflix etc etc we already use on a not so consistent basis I approach 150 - 180 gigs a month.
I will not buy anything like this because of my fear of being banned from the only ISP I have. I know I am not alone in this issue either.
I think you're way, way off base on that one. The newest numbers I can find publicly available are from Jan 2009 (I know .. it's old) but even then it was only 9.4M blu ray device sold total world wide. 8M of those were PS/3. While I know many PS3 user watch blu ray, that's not typical. That means 1.4M dedicated blu ray players. At the same point Apple had sold over 20M iPhones. That a factor of 10. So yes. I'd say by comparison blu ray is a niche.
I just bought an apple tv last year. I hope they make it a software update AND new hardware. I want some of that functionality. I know it's running an Intel chip though so that might not happen
Hope I can get some more use out of it.
Hope I can get some more use out of it.
Reading into Steve's comments from D8:
"The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set top box for free. So no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us... ask Google in a few months.
So all you can do is ADD a box to the TV. You just end up with a table full of remotes, a cluster of boxes... and that's what we have today. The only way that's going to change is if you tear up the set top box, give it a new UI, and get it in front of consumers in a way they're going to want it. The TV is going to lose in our eyes until there is a better go to market strategy... otherwise you're just making another TiVo."
There are two ways you could read this:
1. STBs isn't the way to go, you'll never dominate the market with a STB. His snark directed at Google would lend credence to this; even with the Logitech Revue being a device that sits "inline" with the HDMI connection to the TV, he's still down on STBs. They alternatives to STBs would be for Apple to get into the TV business. While it seems unlikely at first (why get into such a low margin business), I could see them making a run for it. The question is, what would that product look like.
First I'd think you'd see it come in limited models, say 32", 46", and 55". It would have a Project Natal like interface control for gesture based interaction and/or something like the Wii/Playstation Move remote. It would have a camera for FaceTime. Internally (or via some sort of upgradeable slot interface) it would have a an iOS device running on an ARM processor (but something faster than the A4). Reason I could see an upgradeable slot is that even Apple is going to realize people aren't going to update their TV every year or every 2 years. I don't think you'd see them partner with anyone to provide an interface for other manufacturer's TVs; they learned their lesson from the ROKR.
2. The other way to read it is that they just don't think anyone has done the STB right, and that the new iTV will be an STB companion box done right. Again, that would make sense because TVs are low margin, and people generally won't be upgrading them annually. The new iTV would be small, again running iOS with an ARM processor faster than the A4. It'd have some sort of companion device, lets call it an iSight, that would have a camera for FaceTime and the necessary hardware to accommodate the gesture based interface. It'd sit above or below a TV similar to a Wii Sensor Bar. The device would have two HDMI ports: one in, one out, and would overlay its interface on top of the signal coming into the TV (similar to the Logitech Revue).
Either way it goes, the interface itself would probably be similar to the current AppleTV interface, but modified to accommodate the new gesture interface. Similar to other iOS devices, out of the box it would only play iTunes content. It would have a web browser, YouTube application, and would support FaceTime. It would also have the App Store, so that people like Hulu and Netflix would be able to build their own interfaces for the iTV. Similar to the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, the killer app is going to be applications. That's where the Google TV is missing the mark right now, they're merely marketing it as a... well its a search for web content and... it controls your devices?
Imagine some of the cool applications that you could have. Of course there are games and the like, but imagine something like an interactive ESPN or CNBC ticker that overlays on whatever is on the screen at any given time. Or Growl style alerts for things like emails. Plus maybe a Dashboard for small widget apps, with an look and feel similar to OSX's implementation.
I'd also imagine that you see some sort of cloud based iTunes that goes alone with it. Buy once, play anywhere sort of thing. You'd still have your local files, but they'd also be available to play anywhere from the cloud.
"The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set top box for free. So no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us... ask Google in a few months.
So all you can do is ADD a box to the TV. You just end up with a table full of remotes, a cluster of boxes... and that's what we have today. The only way that's going to change is if you tear up the set top box, give it a new UI, and get it in front of consumers in a way they're going to want it. The TV is going to lose in our eyes until there is a better go to market strategy... otherwise you're just making another TiVo."
There are two ways you could read this:
1. STBs isn't the way to go, you'll never dominate the market with a STB. His snark directed at Google would lend credence to this; even with the Logitech Revue being a device that sits "inline" with the HDMI connection to the TV, he's still down on STBs. They alternatives to STBs would be for Apple to get into the TV business. While it seems unlikely at first (why get into such a low margin business), I could see them making a run for it. The question is, what would that product look like.
First I'd think you'd see it come in limited models, say 32", 46", and 55". It would have a Project Natal like interface control for gesture based interaction and/or something like the Wii/Playstation Move remote. It would have a camera for FaceTime. Internally (or via some sort of upgradeable slot interface) it would have a an iOS device running on an ARM processor (but something faster than the A4). Reason I could see an upgradeable slot is that even Apple is going to realize people aren't going to update their TV every year or every 2 years. I don't think you'd see them partner with anyone to provide an interface for other manufacturer's TVs; they learned their lesson from the ROKR.
2. The other way to read it is that they just don't think anyone has done the STB right, and that the new iTV will be an STB companion box done right. Again, that would make sense because TVs are low margin, and people generally won't be upgrading them annually. The new iTV would be small, again running iOS with an ARM processor faster than the A4. It'd have some sort of companion device, lets call it an iSight, that would have a camera for FaceTime and the necessary hardware to accommodate the gesture based interface. It'd sit above or below a TV similar to a Wii Sensor Bar. The device would have two HDMI ports: one in, one out, and would overlay its interface on top of the signal coming into the TV (similar to the Logitech Revue).
Either way it goes, the interface itself would probably be similar to the current AppleTV interface, but modified to accommodate the new gesture interface. Similar to other iOS devices, out of the box it would only play iTunes content. It would have a web browser, YouTube application, and would support FaceTime. It would also have the App Store, so that people like Hulu and Netflix would be able to build their own interfaces for the iTV. Similar to the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, the killer app is going to be applications. That's where the Google TV is missing the mark right now, they're merely marketing it as a... well its a search for web content and... it controls your devices?
Imagine some of the cool applications that you could have. Of course there are games and the like, but imagine something like an interactive ESPN or CNBC ticker that overlays on whatever is on the screen at any given time. Or Growl style alerts for things like emails. Plus maybe a Dashboard for small widget apps, with an look and feel similar to OSX's implementation.
I'd also imagine that you see some sort of cloud based iTunes that goes alone with it. Buy once, play anywhere sort of thing. You'd still have your local files, but they'd also be available to play anywhere from the cloud.
That's 20M iPhones sold internationally.
As to Blu-ray, Jan 2009 numbers are probably less than 1/10 of what they have now for an installed base. At that time a Blu-ray player cost $300. They are $75 now and fly off the shelves of the local big box stores.
Avatar sold 1.5 million copies on BD on opening day. Does that sound niche? How many copies do you think Apple have sold on iTunes?
Blu-ray is in no danger of dethroning DVD but it's moved way past niche status, although if The Steve is looking at 18 month old sales data like you are then it's easy to see how he has confused Blu-ray with SACD or DVD-Audio.
What, don't you use the buttons on a remote exactly the same way you use a touchscreen phone?"based directly on the iPhone 4"
BBBWWWHhahahahahahhahha!
Give Us Control. Learn to Mute Cable TV Commercials
Assuming we cannot get rid of cable service and are stuck listening to commercial junk, then I'd like the "box" to become a filter or interface between the cable signal and my TV so it can "learn" when to mute itself for those annoying commercials. Apple, please give us respite, give us some control back from local cable company advertising - that alone would make me buy Apple TV whatever the unit is.
It's a sad part of life that, despite actively pruning mailing/catalogs via DMA, Do Not Call Lists etc., we remain almost constantly bombarded with advertising: grocery check out ladies hit us up for donations (when we can clearly see the signs ), people look for handouts on the street corners, highway billboard messages, catalog mailings, needing to be on do not call lists. I HATE the intrusion of another commercial comes on for viagra, laxatives, scooter chairs, real estate, pit bull lawyers etc. and have to hit the mute button every time.
Assuming we cannot get rid of cable service and are stuck listening to commercial junk, then I'd like the "box" to become a filter or interface between the cable signal and my TV so it can "learn" when to mute itself for those annoying commercials. Apple, please give us respite, give us some control back from local cable company advertising - that alone would make me buy Apple TV whatever the unit is
.It's a sad part of life that, despite actively pruning mailing/catalogs via DMA, Do Not Call Lists etc., we remain almost constantly bombarded with advertising
: grocery check out ladies hit us up for donations (when we can clearly see the signs ), people look for handouts on the street corners, highway billboard messages, catalog mailings, needing to be on do not call lists. I HATE the intrusion of another commercial comes on for viagra, laxatives, scooter chairs, real estate, pit bull lawyers etc. and have to hit the mute button every time.As of Feb. 2010, Sony has sold 33.5 million PS3's.
http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/02/04/news-sony-33-5-million-ps3s-sold-worldwide.aspx
Trying to find standalone sales now...but you get the picture? By comparison, Blu-ray is not niche.
What would be really cool would be if the set-top box would have some sort of modular functionality whereby you could take movies on and off the box. That way you could lend them to friends, give them as gifts or sell them on ebay if you felt you'd watched them too many times.
Without being limited to the internet connection for uploading movies, you could have higher resolution, higher bitrate files and the quality would be visibly much better than HD tv broadcasts, DVDs or, worst of all, "HD" digital downloads. It would also open up HD videos to a market of people who have stringent download caps on their broadband or, worse yet, live in areas where high-speed internet is limited.
Something like that could really take off.
Without being limited to the internet connection for uploading movies, you could have higher resolution, higher bitrate files and the quality would be visibly much better than HD tv broadcasts, DVDs or, worst of all, "HD" digital downloads. It would also open up HD videos to a market of people who have stringent download caps on their broadband or, worse yet, live in areas where high-speed internet is limited.
Something like that could really take off.