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.
Steve Jobs on an Apple Television Set: 'I Finally Cracked It'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No better time to introduce an Apple TV. With Google's acquisiting of Motorola they'll easily be able to introduce their own services through the cable boxes. All of my U-Verse and Xfinity boxes are even made by Motorola. Hopefully they'll offer a multitude of dimensions. I'd hate if they only introduced a few sizes.
Not really i have internet but no cable, have been like this for now 2 years. I am sure I miss some things but who cares, Hulu+ and Netflix are enough fix that I save a 100 dollars every months. which in 6 months means another iPad is already allotted for purchase. I don't see many people doing this but its something that is not impossible.
I haven't been able to do this yet. Netflix and Hulu+ aren't enough to cover my viewing tastes. They have all the primary broadcast shows, but things like Mythbusters or even something like Pawn Stars are left in the dust (at least for viewing on TV)
I can torrent, but there is something to be said about watching the show on the TV, when it airs (or shortly after).
Because they're not in the hardware side of the media business... when it comes to media, they want to be in the content delivery side - paid content, that is - making money out from the delivery of what you see, hear, or use (when it comes to apps). They'll provide some hardware, but only if it leverages the sale of media. There is no money in making it easy for you to freely record, play and use content if it doesn't comes from or goes by iTunes or the AppStores, and they can take a bite off it.
And that's Apple's present business model.... integrating the hardware/software/content businesses. To really understand Mr. Jobs and Apple - as with any other CEO or corporation - just follow the money!
That's right. Because Apple has a pattern of significantly reducing the cost of media they offer in the iTunes store. TV shows are cheaper there than via other means (such as DVD or even other streaming sources like netflix).Movies are cheaper than- say- DVDs or BDs.
If we think about the average monthly bill for our television feed now at the usual $75-$125 or more, and then we fantasize that Apple's replacement is going to only cost about a third or less of that norm, why exactly are the current players going to allow that? And keep in mind that for anything to flow from iCloud to an Apple television, it has to pass through pipes usually controlled by the very parties that would suffer the revenue pain of everyone switching from cable/satt to an Apple subscription service. Why are THEY going to allow that to happen... through THEIR pipes?
But, it will be different this time... at least while we're dreaming about it.
Just like Apple did with the music business right? Pay the musicians directly? Oh yeah
Just like Apple did with the book business right? Pay the authors directly? Oh yeah.
Just like Apple did with the existing video offerings right? Pay the content creators directly? Oh yeah.
See the pattern here?
But, it will be different this time... at least while we're dreaming about it.
Obviously, I don't foresee an Apple television. Too many problems with it. What size is the best size to make? Your favorite is probably different than my favorite? LED vs. LCD vs. Plasma vs. Something Else? Apple target margins vs. television industry margins (where there is no 3G subsidy to help out).
But most importantly, unlike iPhones, Macs, etc, if there continues to be a cheapTV box as a standalone device, all the "wow" software can also run on anyone else's television. If the hardware & software are not exclusively inside an Apple-branded thing, the typical justification for paying up for the Apple-branded thing becomes much more hooked to the Apple brand itself... not the experience. If the software will also run on the exact same panel being supplied for the Apple television- and we all know that the same panel with someone else's logo on it is going to cost a lot less- then a cheap added purchase of an
Imagine if iOS and/or OS X was free to run on everyone else's hardware. That's a fundamental problem here. This particular Apple software would be available to run on everyone else's hardware via the set top box called
The model is to go al a carte. Let people buy exactly what they want. The 10 channels they want as opposed to 180 that they don't. And Apple did reduce the cost of music. Even singles were much more expensive than .99 before Tower Records and Sam Goodie closed. If you followed the rumors Apple has been working on getting a $30/month subscription service for a while. Cable companies by network access for individual channels for a few dollars for even the most sought after channels. $30 is doable. It's the tv hardware that I don't see being inexpensive enough...
AND then everyone else will come out with a very similar one. And Apple will sue, and hordes of people will say you can't patent that, you can't copyright that, the whole patent system needs to be eliminated. Because (insert innovation here) technology is just a normal evolution. You can't patent that!
The upside to this story as a stockholder is that Apple still has a few tricks up it's sleeve and I can hold on for awhile longer. The downside, is the tricks were all Steve.
Apple is really almost there when it comes to content. I did the math today, and even in the current incarnation (individual season passes) I would save money by killing cable and simply subscribing to the programs I watch individually.
I watch about 20 shows, and that's being very liberal, there's really only half a dozen I really care about. At an average of $35 per season I would spend $700 per year.
My current cable subscription runs around $85 monthly including premium channels which I only watch for their shows, not for movies. That's over $1000 per year. The only thing Apple TV doesn't offer is the ability to channel surf when bored, which could easily, and more effectively be replaced with the ability to web surf instead.
Other users might desire more sports content or local channel access, and there are budding solutions for those already. A move to provide 1080p content would be huge, because even on cable most networks don't actually deliver anything above 720p anyhow.
We'll see how it goes, but I think the days of watching TV in bulk are going to go the way of listening to music on the radio.
As for the interface, they already almost have it nailed with the Apple TV remote. The only thing that sucks about it is trying to enter information on the stupid letter grid thing. The iOS remote app solves that, but Siri would solve it even better. All it needs is the ability to power on the HDTV itself, then it would be the only necessary remote--which is far more appealing than the pile of plastic and buttons that get left lying around otherwise.
I can also see no reason why Apple couldn't or wouldn't offer both a connected box (like they currently do) and an actual branded TV. I agree with many here who have said that most consumers wouldn't buy a particularly expensive HDTV with so many cheap options on the market, but there are plenty who would. So why not do both? The Apple TV box, even with upgraded hardware is not a costly item for Apple to make. Selling it at the current price point would still allow lots of users to access the ecosystem and generate lots of revenue. Offering an "all-in-one" premium HDTV solution would also generate revenues from the people who would be interested in such a device.
I watch about 20 shows, and that's being very liberal, there's really only half a dozen I really care about. At an average of $35 per season I would spend $700 per year.
My current cable subscription runs around $85 monthly including premium channels which I only watch for their shows, not for movies. That's over $1000 per year. The only thing Apple TV doesn't offer is the ability to channel surf when bored, which could easily, and more effectively be replaced with the ability to web surf instead.
Other users might desire more sports content or local channel access, and there are budding solutions for those already. A move to provide 1080p content would be huge, because even on cable most networks don't actually deliver anything above 720p anyhow.
We'll see how it goes, but I think the days of watching TV in bulk are going to go the way of listening to music on the radio.
As for the interface, they already almost have it nailed with the Apple TV remote. The only thing that sucks about it is trying to enter information on the stupid letter grid thing. The iOS remote app solves that, but Siri would solve it even better. All it needs is the ability to power on the HDTV itself, then it would be the only necessary remote--which is far more appealing than the pile of plastic and buttons that get left lying around otherwise.
I can also see no reason why Apple couldn't or wouldn't offer both a connected box (like they currently do) and an actual branded TV. I agree with many here who have said that most consumers wouldn't buy a particularly expensive HDTV with so many cheap options on the market, but there are plenty who would. So why not do both? The Apple TV box, even with upgraded hardware is not a costly item for Apple to make. Selling it at the current price point would still allow lots of users to access the ecosystem and generate lots of revenue. Offering an "all-in-one" premium HDTV solution would also generate revenues from the people who would be interested in such a device.
Because DirecTV has an exclusive contract, and pays outrageous sums to keep it. They would rather die (or kill) than allow anyone else to get it.
That app is for paid subscribers to watch it mobile. If you subscribe, presumably you already watch DirecTV on your TV, pretty pointless to worry about a special "Apple TV" interface.
Your utopia won't happen soon. I've been antenna and internet only for a year, so I can give you some real feedback. Internet isn't ready. Networks on the net have crappy resolution, they all use Flash (really sucks, I assure you, platform independent), and they REFUSE to be live or match to "normal" timing. And yes, LIVE is important. Just like all the book nuts in this very thread whining about reading excerpts from the Jobs book at the wrong time.
Sports must be live, and people want to be able talk about "last night's episode", they don't want to wait a day.----------
Seriously, people. You want to read the book. What is wrong with reading (parts of) it here? Isn't this still reading? This is just a timing issue.That is no reason to post extracts everyday. Don't ruin the goddamn book
You're missing the boat, my friend. It's not a content issue (like Google TV was) it's a unification issue. If you're not familiar, google "cable cards" and you'll get the gist. Those failed because cable oeprators did everything they could to not support them shy of being fined as it was mandated by the govt for them to free access. I think the idea is that "one ring to rule them all" mantra. A simple remote and interface to circumvent teh cable box, the dvr, the blu ray player, etc.
As far as content is concerned, you'd probably just have a built in channel that runs that Apple TV software. That's not a problem. Google got in hot water by bringing the internet onto the tv via a full Chrome browser that networks blocked. Apple sells content which is totally different.
None of us have read the full book yet, but nothing that you've seen is new. Saying he cracked it isn't saying how, and all his other comments he has said publicly before about what the hurdles were with their vision for TV.
Even the article about Johnny Ives wasn't anything you couldn't have read about before for years. Most of that was all said when his Visa was expiring. Apple was going to in a worse case scenario build an entire design campus in England and move the entire team there if his Visa couldn't get renewed.
I love Steve Job, and may he RIP, but he's an ego maniac. If he has nearly 4 years worth of development still in their product pipeline, from the grave he's still going to be living on in the tech world for some years yet. I think Steve would freaking love that, and wouldn't give that all away. Nor would I want him to.
Somebody gets it.
$5K iTV
$1K remote
$200/mo. iTunes bill.
Needs five adapters to play BD movies.
Apple TV is great, but I wouldn't call it "there" just yet. Until I can replace my TiVo (DVR and programming) and cable (subscription package), it's not there for me.
Replacing a PS3 or XBox is option, but it seems a shame to waste all that technology and not have games.
I think the aspect that would need to be cracked is monetization of ala-cart content in line with the model the existing cable providers use.
He cracked, Commercials. Think iAds for tv.
Also don't expect there to be any sort of recording features. You'll buy all your content, over and over again.
other than a voce activated intelligent remote ( which they already sort of have) I don't see an issue where the TV needs to be cracked - aside from how Apple can get between you and the content and charge a fee for access.
And you do realize, in time, they will lock out all the content you currently posses, right? Of course you can pay the fee and "match" it.
He cracked, Commercials. Think iAds for tv.
Also don't expect there to be any sort of recording features. You'll buy all your content, over and over again.
other than a voce activated intelligent remote ( which they already sort of have) I don't see an issue where the TV needs to be cracked - aside from how Apple can get between you and the content and charge a fee for access.
And you do realize, in time, they will lock out all the content you currently posses, right? Of course you can pay the fee and "match" it.
I'm sure Siri will be involved. What I don't understand is why Apple worked so long and hard to get Siri's "personality" right when Barbara Eden honed the right assistant personality to a "T" decades ago.
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)
Good idea Steve. I look at all my TVs now and they all have terrible interfaces that are all completely different from each other.
I could see an opening for apple comparable to the smartphone market. Especially if the can integrate the ecosystem.
Good idea Steve. I look at all my TVs now and they all have terrible interfaces that are all completely different from each other.
I could see an opening for apple comparable to the smartphone market. Especially if the can integrate the ecosystem.
I don't know. Those LED Samsungs are pretty damn sexy. Let me guess. The Apple TV will have a unibody aluminum bezel, with an apple logo stamped on it, costing twice as much. I love Apple products, but there's a reason I didn't get their LCD's. Dell Ultrasharps FTW (big win).
Now, if they could make a 24" retina display...........
Now, if they could make a 24" retina display...........
This. Quoted for truth.
Maybe you should have waited till the thing was actually released. Or at least not put all this on the website front page. MacRumors readers are having a harder and harder trying to wait for the book spoiler free.
I know there will probably be more in the book then these little bits put on this website. But look like some of the best bits. Stuff people want to read from the book and not here.
********************
And I think this is not an Apple Television set. I think this is about the TV. And saying how he cracked to make the TV we have now. I think he was referring to the TV interface he cracked. Something Apple can one day port to a TV if they so wish.
But MacRumors makes us want to believe they know what it means.
Guys feel free to post in my thread in feedback section the more of us who post in there the more likely they'll do something about it
You hit on exactly the key without even realizing it.
You're not really shelling out only $200 every 20 months. You're paying $200-$300 up front and a premium every one of those additional 20 months to pay for for your ~$700 device.
Note that Steve's quote specifically highlights cable companies and set top boxes as the hurdle.
It is an absolute certainty that what he "cracked" is going to involve content distribution deals which will allow for a (relatively) competitive initial investment to consumers but a HUGE back end for both Apple and it's content partners.
Whether or not those deals get struck and whether the product makes it to market as originally envisioned is another story.