Rogers and BCE Already Have the Apple iTV in Their Labs, Controlled with Voice and Hand Gestures

[pdxmacster]

Which user? We had 6 or more in the room on Sunday for the super bowl. I'm sure some had 20. Sounds cool, but I just don't know if anyone is there, yet.

My assumption is that the TV software will be able to detect and localize any number of users looking at the TV (same technology that is used for face recognition and red-eye correction in photo software) and possibly even be able to recognize specific voices. Depending on the settings, the TV will accept commands from either any user or from select users. There will likely be a command protocol that users will have to follow to invoke commands. This can be voice-based (e.g. commands have to start with "Siri, ..."), gesture based (point index finger to the TV set), or - most likely - a combination of both (similar to how we are used to call the attention of an instructor/speaker/waiter by saying "Sir" or "Miss" while raising our index finger).

When multiple users are yelling commands simultaneously, the TV will ask to repeat the command one at a time. Obviously, people who are watching TV in a group setting will have to adhere to a new sort of etiquette on controlling the TV.... not that different from how people currently share (or fight over) the remote control.

 

[ctdonath]

consider the popular Kinect doesn't have lots of rumors of a Kinect television swirling around it. Apparently that little box handles gesture processing just fine (no whole television purchase required).

There does seem a level of tolerance users will put up with. I just taped a Wii sensor bar to my TV; Kinect users have to position & fiddle the thing. Both work <shrug> but it's still a sub-optimal solution to a valid problem.
To wit: customers don't know any better so they don't complain. Apple is very good at precognitive telepathy - they know what customers are going to want when the now-unimaginable product becomes available.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

Wild (uneducated) guess:

The Apple TV will have multiple cameras and a microphone that will allow the TV to triangulate the user's voice, eyes and index finger. Siri voice commands will allow the user to either issue direct commands ("Siri, NBC please", "Siri, pause movie", "Siri, volume down", etc.) or to call up menus (programs, TV settings), that will appear as a semi-transparent on-screen overlay. At this point, you will be able to use your index finger to click buttons, move slider handles and even type a virtual keyboard, just by pointing at the on-screen menu elements. Based on the position and movement of the user's index finger, the Apple TV will be able to determine which menu elements (incl. buttons, sliders) the user is pointing at and clicking.

Interesting idea, but you're applying the "personal" (i.e. one user at a time) to the TV which I believe to be the wrong way of going about it. TVs are not "personal" devices in a way laptops/desktops, smartphones and tablets are. Those were designed with the premise that they would accept input from one user at a time. TVs are a bit different in that respect. This is why I said I would be very interested in seeing how Apple makes it work, truly work.

Also, if Siri-like functionality is to be at all included in "iTV", it better have some impeccable background noise cancellation to be able to distinguish between its own output, human-human conversations in the room and commands directed towards it.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I see. So then it's about trying to imagine really wanting to control the UI on the television with bodily motions vs. how we control it now. And if a cool friend is controlling his/her Apple Television that way, does it motivate us to want to be able to do the same? And do we feel strongly enough about that desire to replace the HDTV we have with the one Apple has built that works like that?

Personally, I have visions of sitting in the dark watching something, gesturing right to make something happen and poking a family member in the ear/eye/head: seems ripe for Three Stooges scenarios

 

[JAT]

Personally, I'm increasingly thinking that the Mini is THE way to go too. What UI did you choose? Plex, XBMC, Front Row, something else? And if not Front Row, does whatever it is work well with iTunes embedded movie posters and content descriptions (like TV)?

I have an EyeTV tuner on each for local channels. We do a lot of streaming from Netflix and Hulu right now. And we just look it up through regular OSX UI. Just haven't gotten to a front end. Planned to, decided against FR, liked Plex and probably would have gone with that, but the kids don't care and my wife uses her netbook more than anything else. And since EyeTV's software has been so bad (finally, they fixed something for Lion just this winter that seems to have fixed my problems back to SL), I went back to Tivo for a lot of TV. She just got an iPad to replace her netbook, so still probably won't use the Mini/TV.

Wireless input devices work great instead of just remote. They get used as computers for surfing or homework often, too. So the lack of a front end really doesn't impact us.

My assumption is that the TV software will be able to detect and localize any number of users looking at the TV (same technology that is used for face recognition and red-eye correction in photo software) and possibly even be able to recognize specific voices.

I just mean this won't be possible this year. If Apple has something to announce, it will be less than this. IMO.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also, if Siri-like functionality is to be at all included in "iTV", it better have some impeccable background noise cancellation to be able to distinguish between its own output, human-human conversations in the room and commands directed towards it.

This I can foresee Apple doing well. Unlike most noise canceling technology, the TV's output would be noise that would be entirely predictable. The system could know exactly what sound is going to play out of speakers. That's a much different proposition from not knowing noise from important sound and trying to make best guesses of what to somewhat filter.

Similarly, for the conversation vs. command problem, I think it would have to work with a precursor. On Star Trek, people had to say "computer" before giving the computer a verbal command. In this case, it might require a "Siri" before it listens for a command. Such a move might also trigger a "mute" to confirm it's ready for a command (and get rid of the TV noise for taking the command).

Of course, I believe that an implementation of Siri won't embed the microphone at the TV but in a handheld remote. This way the controlling voice would always be very close to the microphone. But what do I know?

 

[marksman]

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)

How is there no competition when all 2 of the 3 cable providers are available in my area? if we count satellite I have 4 options.

You are in the WAY minority. For most people there is ONE cable company, and satellite... and that's assuming there's no technical reasons one of the two can't be used.

There's a reason people have been getting excited about U-Verse and other IPTV services.

Nah with telcos and satellite nobody has just one option and most major areas have more than two. It is not 1987.

 

[marksman]

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)

Is it just me or is controlling a SIRI enabled TV ridiculous? Say i'm watching a movie at a decent volume but i want to mute it for a phone call or to yell at the kids or something? Do i have to yell MUTE as loud as i can so TV picks it up over the movie? Or i'm watching a basketball game at reasonable high volume but want to flick channels in the ads so have to yell them at top of my voice? Or even with hand gestures, one to bring up on screen menu, another to select volume then another to move the volume?

Sounds like a fad to me. Can't see how it can sensibly work for normal people.

That is why you are not a key player at the most innovative company in the world. If you could figure it out anyone could.

 

[pdxmacster]

Personally, I have visions of sitting in the dark watching something, gesturing right to make something happen and poking a family member in the ear/eye/head: seems ripe for Three Stooges scenarios

Obviously, the cameras will need to have night-vision capability (ie. low light cameras using active infrared or thermal imaging).

As for the gestures, the TV might be able to differentiate between single-digit, dual-digit (thumb-index or index-middle), and full-hand gestures.

Note: to move around menus or click buttons, you won't have to put your hand within your field of vision . Like with a traditional mouse-based GUI, you will not look at the pointing device (finger/mouse), but focus on the screen and whatever mechanism it uses for navigational feedback (e.g. on-screen pointer, highlighted button or menu item, etc).

 

[cere]

The voice control part doesn't concern me. Nuance has been demoing exactly this for some time and did more at CES. My concern is the level of control that the providers are going to have over the TVs themselves.

Apple changed the cell phone game by decreasing the amount of control the cell carriers had over our phones. I hope they don't do the opposite with TVs by giving the providers more control.

 

[benjs]

This I can foresee Apple doing well. Unlike most noise canceling technology, the TV's output would be noise that would be entirely predictable. The system could know exactly what sound is going to play out of speakers. That's a much different proposition from not knowing noise from important sound and trying to make best guesses of what to somewhat filter.

Similarly, for the conversation vs. command problem, I think it would have to work with a precursor. On Star Trek, people had to say "computer" before giving the computer a verbal command. In this case, it might require a "Siri" before it listens for a command. Such a move might also trigger a "mute" to confirm it's ready for a command (and get rid of the TV noise for taking the command).

Of course, I believe that an implementation of Siri won't embed the microphone at the TV but in a handheld remote. This way the controlling voice would always be very close to the microphone. But what do I know?

The very easy solution to this problem is that, when an iOS device is in the hypothetical Apple TV Remote app, have the standard Siri command (holding down the home button) mute the television, utilize the iOS device's mic, and send the command to the television.

 

[marksman]

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)

The cablecos are the de facto owners because it's the deals with the cablecos that make up such a huge percentage of business. The content owners can choose other distribution partners, but they don't want to upset their cable partners because they need the cable company contract as their bread and butter.

The streaming service market doesn't reach a large enough portion of their audiences to allow them to thumb their nose at the cable and satellite industry.

Actually that's not true on multiple levels. That's why carriage agreements fail, not all MSOs carry the same channels, why cable companies can only offer some programming on demand and why some shows are not even available to watch online. There are plenty of networks that don't give a damn if cable isn't carrying them if it doesn't agree with their terms. That's why the NFL Network isn't available on any Time Warner Cable systems, despite the customer base wanting that channel.

Content providers have the final say in what happens to their content. If they don't get a deal they want, cable companies don't get to use their content. Major networks hold the cards not the individual cable companies. Having a channel is an advantage for them. There are plenty of other MSOs that content providers can deal with.

It's also why the network DVR has been a failure for over ten years and why networks are reluctant to use any services which allow MSOs to store their content on systems which do not belong to them.

Cable companies don't own anything they don't create and broadcast themselves. They distribute the content. That is all.

This is wrong. The cable company has leverage. If they all stop carrying the nfl network because the nfl network goes around them, the nfl network is screwed.

It would probably take close to ten years to break the current system to have access to enough content to be a viable outsider.

Apple is not going to wait for that to happen

 

[marksman]

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)

The cablecos are the de facto owners because it's the deals with the cablecos that make up such a huge percentage of business. The content owners can choose other distribution partners, but they don't want to upset their cable partners because they need the cable company contract as their bread and butter.

The streaming service market doesn't reach a large enough portion of their audiences to allow them to thumb their nose at the cable and satellite industry.

Actually that's not true on multiple levels. That's why carriage agreements fail, not all MSOs carry the same channels, why cable companies can only offer some programming on demand and why some shows are not even available to watch online. There are plenty of networks that don't give a damn if cable isn't carrying them if it doesn't agree with their terms. That's why the NFL Network isn't available on any Time Warner Cable systems, despite the customer base wanting that channel.

Content providers have the final say in what happens to their content. If they don't get a deal they want, cable companies don't get to use their content. Major networks hold the cards not the individual cable companies. Having a channel is an advantage for them. There are plenty of other MSOs that content providers can deal with.

It's also why the network DVR has been a failure for over ten years and why networks are reluctant to use any services which allow MSOs to store their content on systems which do not belong to them.

Cable companies don't own anything they don't create and broadcast themselves. They distribute the content. That is all.

By the way time Warner chooses not to carry nfl network because they don't want it on its basic tier.

 

[LordVic]

another thing along these lines.
In canada, BCE (Bell Canada) and Roger's, are not only the two largest Providers of Network Television.

They're the two largest ISP's

They're the two largest owners of most of Canadian broadcast telivision

They Own and control the majority of content created, distributed. how it's distributed, and how it's consumed.

Aside from USA network stations. Bell and Rogers completely dominate the Canadian Media near start to finish. INCLUDING owning sports franchises in which they broadcast! (BCE and Rogers both own Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. Bell owns also part of the Montreal Canadians. Roger's owns the Blue Jays).

Trust me. If BCE and Rogers are claiming they have this in their hands and are working on developing a strategy around it. This doesn't bode well for the Canadian Consumer

 

[gorskiegangsta]

This I can foresee Apple doing well. Unlike most noise canceling technology, the TV's output would be noise that would be entirely predictable. The system could know exactly what sound is going to play out of speakers. That's a much different proposition from not knowing noise from important sound and trying to make best guesses of what to somewhat filter.

Similarly, for the conversation vs. command problem, I think it would have to work with a precursor. On Star Trek, people had to say "computer" before giving the computer a verbal command. In this case, it might require a "Siri" before it listens for a command. Such a move might also trigger a "mute" to confirm it's ready for a command (and get rid of the TV noise for taking the command).

Of course, I believe that an implementation of Siri won't embed the microphone at the TV but in a handheld remote. This way the controlling voice would always be very close to the microphone. But what do I know?

Right. My problem is, even with the precursor how would you effectively direct commands at the TV in the noisy room. Even though "Siri" (e.g. "Siri, do this" and "Siri, do that") is a specific name, the embedded mic would have to be very sensitive to pick up normally spoken (i.e. non shouted) commands at distances of ~15ft in noisy room. A remote with embedded mic would certainly solve much of that but certain simple functions as volume up/down, mute and even channel change are more easily accomplished by simply pushing a button rather than speaking at the TV. IMO certain, specific hand gestures for simple functions like volume/channel controls, detected by the TV's built-in camera would work best. Although, there's still the issue of one having to be in front of the TV to execute those. IDK, will see what happens.

 

[ABernardoJr]

The very easy solution to this problem is that, when an iOS device is in the hypothetical Apple TV Remote app, have the standard Siri command (holding down the home button) mute the television, utilize the iOS device's mic, and send the command to the television.

I like that idea, I also think that'd be one potentially optimal solution to the voice commands. Maybe the TV could come with an iPod Touch as well or something along those lines to serve as a remote (and an iPod) out of the box. It'd be a nice bonus lol

 

[jbuck777]

Bell: 4GB/2Mbps base plan
Videotron: 5GB/3Mbps base plan
Rogers: 15GB/3Mbps base plan
Telus: 30GB/1Mbps base plan
Sasktel: unlmtd?/256Kbps base plan

Don't toot your horn with lies. All other ISPS are third parties relying on the above, with exception being that they have UNLIMITED caps (for the most part) but they match speeds on the low end so no, your ISP DOES NOT serve a minimum 125GB with a base speed of 10Mbps.

Third party? What are you on about?
Shaw is not a third party service provider. They offer many speeds of internet service, one which is 250Mbps with a 1TB data cap.

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/

Please do your research before assuming that you know all. Thanks

 

[leroypants]

So basically apple saw a few Kinect commercials and decided to steal the idea.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The very easy solution to this problem is that, when an iOS device is in the hypothetical Apple TV Remote app, have the standard Siri command (holding down the home button) mute the television, utilize the iOS device's mic, and send the command to the television.

Making iOS devices the remote only works for singles living alone. If you live with people, they'll be very unhappy if you take the "good remote" with you when you go out. And if someone doesn't have an iOS device, then this new Television (that no one argues will be a low-price leader) comes with an asterisk that would say "*at least $199 iPod/iPhone/iPad required to be the remote control".

Lots of people think of their iOS devices as the ideal remote. But that only works in the single, living alone scenario.

 

[LxHunter]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Bell: 4GB/2Mbps base plan
Videotron: 5GB/3Mbps base plan
Rogers: 15GB/3Mbps base plan
Telus: 30GB/1Mbps base plan
Sasktel: unlmtd?/256Kbps base plan

Don't toot your horn with lies. All other ISPS are third parties relying on the above, with exception being that they have UNLIMITED caps (for the most part) but they match speeds on the low end so no, your ISP DOES NOT serve a minimum 125GB with a base speed of 10Mbps.

Third party? What are you on about?
Shaw is not a third party service provider. They offer many speeds of internet service, one which is 250Mbps with a 1TB data cap.

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/

Please do your research before assuming that you know all. Thanks

Where do you see the 250Mbps plan from Shaw?

http://www.shaw.ca/Internet/Compare-Plans/

 

[thatsallfolks]

another thing along these lines.
In canada, BCE (Bell Canada) and Roger's, are not only the two largest Providers of Network Television.

They're the two largest ISP's

They're the two largest owners of most of Canadian broadcast telivision

They Own and control the majority of content created, distributed. how it's distributed, and how it's consumed.

Aside from USA network stations. Bell and Rogers completely dominate the Canadian Media near start to finish. INCLUDING owning sports franchises in which they broadcast! (BCE and Rogers both own Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment. Bell owns also part of the Montreal Canadians. Roger's owns the Blue Jays).

Trust me. If BCE and Rogers are claiming they have this in their hands and are working on developing a strategy around it. This doesn't bode well for the Canadian Consumer

We love ROBELLUS up here. Hope you guys like being chained to your provider...

My best guess is that they're trying to cell-phonize the cable industry meaning - get ready to see long-term-freedom-of-movement-stifling contracts and locked-to-provider TV sets.

This was bound to happen with the movement to HD and the end of over-the-air broadcast signals.

Eventually we're going to get to a point where your toaster is going to have a contract and you'll need to pay a penalty to get rid of it.

 

[Lara F]

Trust me. If BCE and Rogers are claiming they have this in their hands and are working on developing a strategy around it. This doesn't bode well for the Canadian Consumer

My Dad has Bell ExpressVu satellite service as his TV provider, yet can't use the Bell Mobile TV app because they only allow it on iPhones or iPads with Bell 3G cellular service.

So yeah, I don't think it bodes too well either if true.

btw, those caps scare me if I want to move back to Canada - I checked with Comcast and I used 213 GB in January, 32 already this month. Yikes. Americans might complain about 250 GB but that's pretty darn good considering how much I've been streaming this year.

 

[SeaFox]

There are plenty of networks that don't give a damn if cable isn't carrying them if it doesn't agree with their terms. That's why the NFL Network isn't available on any Time Warner Cable systems, despite the customer base wanting that channel.

NFL Network is a bad example. It isn't on Time-Warner because their contract terms are stupid. They insist they be an analog station even though they're a specialty network. They want to be paid for every single video subscriber an MSO has regardless of of how many want to actually watch them. The MSOs generally want them in a digital sports tier with the more obscure ESPN spinoff stations and FOX's multitude of regional sports channels.

 

[marksman]

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)

Have you looked at the patents that Apple have filed for the LCDTV? Its insanely great. A set top box cant achieve that kind of stuff.

and

but it will have Apple design and chipsets in it that allow unique functionality.

Please enlighten us on what a big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can contain that an Apple set-top box hooked to someone else's big, thin metal & plastic box with a large screen can't. I'm serious. All along, I've been looking for the answer to "why do they have to build a whole television?" and all I seem to get are software-oriented answers that would work just as well in an TV3.

What chipset functions can only function in a whole TV? What unique functionality is only possible in a whole TV?

That's the fundamental problem with this rumor. If you separate the software from the hardware (assuming an TV3 is also available), the hardware must win buyers on its merits alone. Siri is software. Apps are software. iTunes is software. The hypothetical cable subscription killer is software. Why do they have to build a whole television that can't be done in an TV3?

You keep saying integrated cable box. But the cablecos don't like that. They tried it once, do you see any such TVs available for sale now? No. Before that, the analog cable got merged into TV tuners, they hated that and were very happy to upgrade to digital that worked differently, even though it still had the same crappy picture. (digital <> HD) Then they were forced into cablecards, which they hate and do their best to not enforce, although the FCC does force them from time to time.

This is a major, major hurdle for anyone to overcome.

Exactly right. As usual- HERE- people just imagine whatever is necessary to make the rumored Apple thing work, ignoring the realities that other companies don't want to just cut their own throats to make Apple's new offerings fly. Particularly in this case- where the choice of cable supplier is often a SINGLE entity (or 3 if you count SATT players), what motivation do they have to pay Apple a subsidy to make this television a cheap purchase for us consumers? After all, if the rumor is that Apple will partner with ONE player in a market, you'd have to sign on with that ONE player if you wanted the subsidized price. Personally, I have DISH network as my video supplier but Comcast is the ONLY cable player in my area. If Apple bundled with Comcast to offer this TV at a subsidized price, I wouldn't want to switch from DISH to Comcast to get it (even if I was interested).

As I've said over and over. This television rumor is a mess. There needs to be something more to it than we're getting/dreaming. There needs to be something bigger than just another TV with a built-in TV3 giving us Siri and gesture options. And I mean something a LOT bigger that somehow can't be done in a set-top box OR the set-top box dies and the only way to get an TV3 is inside of this Apple Television. To me, that seems the most plausible play by Apple (to reunify Apple software with Apple hardware in an exclusive way), but Apple admitted with the gen 2 device that the price of gen 1 was too high for mass adoption. This concept would make the gen 3 version incorporate the cost of a whole HDTV. Total mess.

You really need someone to spell out how an integrated product would be able to do things an attached box could not do?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You really need someone to spell out how an integrated product would be able to do things an attached box could not do?

Yes. A big question in all of these Apple Television rumor threads is why do they have to build a whole television instead of an TV3? The general answers in support of an Apple Television tend to be heavy on the software side of things- stuff that would work just as well in an approx. $100 set-top box attached to ANY HDTV. There have been very few tangible offerings of speculation about hardware innovations that couldn't also work in an TV3. Of the latter, it's been ideas like OLED, 4K, etc which will make the related rumor of a 42" screen at only(?) $1499 be nearly impossible. In this thread, there's been discussion of building in a camera or two for capturing gesturing controls (which is proven to work in the Kinect set-top box) and building in a microphone for Siri (which would easily work just as well in an TV3).

Point being: though the question has been asked over and over again, there seems to be exceedingly little answers to it that also considers obvious sticker shock at $1499 for a 42" screen HERE (where the bulk of this group is Apple-centric). So, without imagining hardware innovations that are likely to significantly jack up the price of that rumored 42" screen to something much higher than $1499 (which apparently is still too high for many here), what are those "whole TV required" innovations that just can't work in an TV3? If you think you know, please enlighten us.