Steve Jobs on an Apple Television: No Need for 'All These Complicated Remote Controls'

[whooleytoo]

If you buy three new TVs and three new BD players from Apple, and send everything that you currently own to the toxic ewaste dump.

Or, buy a $200 Logitech Harmony remote and keep your existing kit.

I have this image in my head of some Apple exec reading this post and being utterly confused.

"Keep your existing kit? When you could just dump it all and buy a 100% Apple solution? Why would you do such a thing?

There's no denying there's massive scope for improved integration between home theatre devices, but does anyone believe Apple is likely to provide such a solution which plays nice with your existing devices?

----------

You already own it. The Apple TV remote.

Please, no. Thank God for the iPad Remote app as the AppleTV remote is horrible. It doesn't even handle its limited functionality well.

The 'arrow' buttons are too flush with the Select button, meaning you'll be constantly hitting that instead of hitting your desired direction. Try entering a Wifi password with it, it's a nuisance. And the menu button is almost flush with the remote face, so you have to look down to find it. But at least it looks nice.

Your other ideas are good, but please Apple don't use that remote control!

 

[mentholiptus]

Please, no. Thank God for the iPad Remote app as the AppleTV remote is horrible. It doesn't even handle its limited functionality well.

The 'arrow' buttons are too flush with the Select button, meaning you'll be constantly hitting that instead of hitting your desired direction. Try entering a Wifi password with it, it's a nuisance. And the menu button is almost flush with the remote face, so you have to look down to find it. But at least it looks nice.

Your other ideas are good, but please Apple don't use that remote control!

So how would the average consumer, with no iDevice, navigate their TV then?

----------

What? Call me when I can go from channel 2 to channel 30 in less than a minute pushing up, up, up,...

Channel "bookmarks", or favorites.

 

[KnightWRX]

You already own it. The Apple TV remote.

If I already own it, it doesn't justify an Apple TV Set that doesn't exist then does it ? I think you need to re-read my post and understand the context of the question.

How does a "different" remote require an Apple TV set to be produced ? Remember : This rumor is about Apple needing to make an Apple TV set for this new "replacement" for "All these complicated remote controls".

And the Apple TV remote is a not a solution to "All these Complicated remotes". It's quite a useless piece of junk to control my TV.

 

[Oletros]

Channel "bookmarks", or favorites.

It doesn't resolve changing channels.

Apple Remote is one of the less useful remotes I have used in my life

 

[mentholiptus]

If I already own it, it doesn't justify an Apple TV Set that doesn't exist then does it ? I think you need to re-read my post and understand the context of the question.

How does a "different" remote require an Apple TV set to be produced ? Remember : This rumor is about Apple needing to make an Apple TV set for this new "replacement" for "All these complicated remote controls".

I don't need to re-read anything you've written. This isn't about you, anyway. It's about the MR article.

Does the current remote work with any other TV as I've described? Does any other TV operate this way, or have a remote that functions as I've described?

If the answer is yes, then I guess you don't need an apple tv.

The idea is to make a TV easier and intuitive. I'm sure there's a lot more to it, but this seems like a logical foundation. I'm sure down the like, streaming TV and other functions would make sense, but imagine the stress on "teh webz" if everyone in every household wanted to stream all their television (a device most people leave on for 8 hours a day) all the time. It just won't work today. You'll have ISP's capping data like the cell providers.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't need to re-read anything you've written. This isn't about you, anyway. It's about the MR article.

Yes, the MR article about Steve saying "No need for all these complicated remote controls" when describing the reason Apple is going to make an Apple TV Set.

The Apple remote you pointed to is thus not what he's alleging to since they already have it, it works fine with an Apple TV, thus you've failed to make a link to requiring an Apple TV Set.

 

[mentholiptus]

Yes, the MR article about Steve saying "No need for all these complicated remote controls" when describing the reason Apple is going to make an Apple TV Set.

The Apple remote you pointed to is thus not what he's alleging to since they already have it, it works fine with an Apple TV, thus you've failed to make a link to requiring an Apple TV Set.

I can't tell if you're kidding or serious (or worse). Just think about it for an hour or two.

*edit* Think about how the remote interacts with the set, as I described. The set is definitely necessary...so you can stop splitting hairs over how I originally worded my response.

 

[diamond.g]

Same thing could be said about Voicemail on smartphones. People couldn't even imagine what would make it usable and friendly, then Apple made visual voicemail and people were like 'Ohhhhhhh,'

There's a solution for every problem and Apple loves to solve them. As long as tech industry creates complicated, messy technology Apple will always come up with a better solution.

Unless you want to forward that voicemail...

The downside to using Siri or Facetime for control is proximity. And what about low light conditions? Kinect stinks in low light scenarios. Also, my child likes to scream, how will Siri know to ignore him and listen to me?

 

[KnightWRX]

I can't tell if you're kidding or serious (or worse). Just think about it for an hour or two.

*edit* Think about how the remote interacts with the set, as I described. The set is definitely necessary...so you can stop splitting hairs over how I originally worded my response.

How is it ? I have the Apple Remote today, it works fine with my Apple TV connected to my Sony TV set.

How is introducing that remote to control your TV something that requires Apple create an actual display ?

 

[whooleytoo]

So how would the average consumer, with no iDevice, navigate their TV then?

Likely: A standard remote. Just not the AppleTV one.
Better: iOS & Android apps, so we can control all the devices with just our phone.
Best: One universal app (conforming to an open standard) for controlling all the devices. For each home theatre device, you download a plugin (more of a configuration file) specifying which codes to send to control the device, and which GUI controls to display.

I actually previously worked on a similar concept to the 3rd option; a generic phone app that would communicate via Bluetooth to embedded chips in 3rd party devices which broadcast their control UI. So, in theory, you could control just about any device from your phone, as long as it had the required Bluetooth chip.

The 1st is most likely. In practice, interoperability isn't a top priority for device makers. They don't want to be left out, but they'd rather tie you in to their proprietary solutions.

 

[KnightWRX]

Better: iOS & Android apps, so we can control all the devices with just our phone.

Am I the only one that likes a little tactile feedback when I use a remote so that I don't have to look at it ?

 

[szolr]

It's about time. Remote controls for TVs are very complicated, and there are so many of them (TV, DVR, cable, etc.).

I know; we've got 4 remotes in one TV room at home and 3 in the other. Siri on the TV, or generally anything that'll replace all those remotes would be great. Whatever the solution is, I'm sure it'll be so simple, intuitive and obvious that everyone will be asking themselves "why didn't I think of that?" after it's released.

 

[whooleytoo]

Am I the only one that likes a little tactile feedback when I use a remote so that I don't have to look at it ?

Tactile feedback is nice (for many things), but I have a family of remote controls around me these days as I watch TV/Blurays/games, there's no way I could just pick up the right one and and press the right button without looking; so (for me at least) there's little difference.

I guess for repeat presses - such as pressing "Channel Up" - I don't need to look at the remote; but the convenience of just having one remote would far outweigh any benefit of tactile feedback for me.

Still, I don't expect any such universal remote any time soon; more's the pity.

 

[KnightWRX]

I know; we've got 4 remotes in one TV room at home and 3 in the other. Siri on the TV, or generally anything that'll replace all those remotes would be great.

Siri on your TV controls your TV. It doesn't replace all your other remotes.

If you want to replace all remotes with 1 remote, either you get a universal remote or you get devices that adhere to CEC over HDMI so that one device can control all your other devices.

Again, not something an "Apple TV set" solves.

 

[JAT]

Am I the only one that likes a little tactile feedback when I use a remote so that I don't have to look at it ?

Nope. That's why physical button remotes are the most popular.

 

[AidenShaw]

Nope. That's why physical button remotes are the most popular.

...and probably why the Logitech Harmony's combination of touch screen (to select devices) and physical buttons (to control the device that you've selected) is so powerful.

 

[mentholiptus]

How is it ? I have the Apple Remote today, it works fine with my Apple TV connected to my Sony TV set.

How is introducing that remote to control your TV something that requires Apple create an actual display ?

You said it yourself. It only controls one device that's plugged into a sony set.

Exactly why the set needs to be aware of the remote, and the devices. The TV is the hub. Pretty simple stuff here.

This would control most devices that aren't game consoles. The remote is your UI to the TV, whose software controls the other devices, and does away with the input switching as we know it. I'm sure an iPhone app would work too, but the remote is key. It will ship with each set.

Will it be the exact same remote that's currently shipping? Maybe. I imagine they'd need to add another button or two, unless they introduce double clicking on a couple of them.

I'm sure it (TV) will be ready for future services, and able to run specialized apps.

Maybe an easier way to think of it would be if the current AppleTV were also a receiver or hub that you plugged your devices into so you used the AppleTV to switch between A/V sources. Everything thru one device, with one simple remote.

 

[KnightWRX]

You said it yourself. It only controls one device that's plugged into a sony set.

Exactly why the set needs to be aware of the remote, and the devices.

Uh ? But how does that require Apple to build a TV Set ? They could simply add CEC over HDMI to the 99$ Apple TV box and control all your devices from there.

The TV itself does not need to be aware of the remote control, nor can it remote control your other devices magically. Any HDMI box that supports CEC can remote control other devices HDMI, no matter if it's the actual display or not.

You either don't understand or don't quite know enough about this stuff.

Again, how do we reconcile the idea that the "Remote" is the reason Apple needs to build an actual pixel array ? You have failed to even show why this is so, you're not even close with your "apple remote with 3 buttons".

 

[mentholiptus]

You either don't understand or don't quite know enough about this stuff.