Steve Jobs on an Apple Television Set: 'I Finally Cracked It'

[theluggage]

One thing about having a TV remote, it's just a TV remote

The typical TV remote has 50 buttons, looks like a 1970s pocket calculator and, on a modern set, you still have to do many things via on-screen menus. So, one way Apple could go is to replace the fugly TV remote with something more like the current Apple remote (Joypad + 2 extra buttons) as the "fall-back" controller.

For more advanced use, bring your own iDevice. Downside: it needs to be charged; Upside: well, you get a better UI but most of all its all personalised - with your own viewing schedule/series passes/playlists etc.

Look at it this way: your iDevice is now the TV. The big screen in the lounge is just that: a big screen which your iDevice can use when you're sitting on the sofa.

...and if you want a dedicated iPod to If you're on an economy drive you're probably not going to buy a TV from Apple, so what's another $200 for an iPod Touch to keep docked besided the TV?

 

[apolloa]

But you have to go to the store to buy it or wait for it to ship in the mail. I'll be watching it when I want. On any device I want. With a file saved in less space than a dvd or even in the cloud. The difference in quality between a 1080p download and a Bluray isn't that much.

If it can be digitized, it will be available online. That's what the Internet has accomplished. Incumbents can fight it but they will eventually lose.

The difference is bog when you have high end components mate, ask anyone who's spent thousands on a setup and the only way they use digital is when they have losslessly put a BluRay onto a media server.

Like I said, convenience at the cost of quality. And plenty of people are able to make the effort of getting out there and buying physical media or are patient enough to wait. In fact if I want to watch anything of the net, I can't watch it instantly as my connections too slow!
Don't get sucked in by Apple's reality field mate, ask any audiophile what the think of the quality of music purchase of iTunes and they state a CD is vastly superior, which it is. It's the exact same with video.

But anyway, if Apple followed Apple and entered the T.V. market they will cost so much they will be at the very high end where the competition is VERY tough and the quality of displays will show the poor quality of streamed media even more!

 

[PhilipOrr]

I can never actually see Apple producing a television set of their own. It would be so much of an uphill struggle for them, with numerous other companies with fantastic sets already in the channel. It isn't like the mobile era where smart phones were "not so smart", as Steve mentioned.

What I do see the having the technology built into a set-top box and that technology licensed out to others. Something similar to Thunderbolt, a project working together with Intel, and A/V equipment manufactures with Airplay built in. It should be a system that syncs apps back to iCloud across all your devices, including AppleTV for the home environment. We're already seeing the Apple TV merge into the iOS eco-system, and it's software's keeping up with the iOS software releases.

What I would ultimately expect from Apple, is to have SIRI listen for a request to record a broadcast series and have it schedule recording times, perhaps allowing it to skip advertisments at the same time. This can then be watched from anywhere where you have an internet/3G/4G connection, or tell your SIRI equipped TV to pause a live show, while you answered the door, without the need to fumble for a remote, find the right key, realise you've pressed it twice, and meanwhile your ordered chinese delivery is getting cold on the doorstep, or worse, the delivery person thinking it's a hoax call, and leave.

 

[apolloa]

I can never actually see Apple producing a television set of their own. It would be so much of an uphill struggle for them, with numerous other companies with fantastic sets already in the channel. It isn't like the mobile era where smart phones were "not so smart", as Steve mentioned.

Hmm, email check, SMS check, camera WITH FLASH check, bluetooth check, touch screen check, WiFI check, full internet check, flash check, MP3 check, Sat Nav check, video recording check, calendar check, appointments check, 3D games check, apps check, upgradable storage check, 3G check, Video Calling check.....

Wow, I had all those before 2007! Yeah smart phones were sure dumb BEFORE the iPhone!!

 

[janstett]

People, stop, let's think this through. TVs are a minefield for Apple to enter -- I really have a hard time seeing this as anything more than Apple TV built in to a set, perhaps with live TV integrated in somehow (like Google TV).

First, the hardware. Apple doesn't manufacture its own computer displays, so the chances are NIL that they'll manufacture their own TV displays. They'll be produced by someone else. When you're a videophile choosing the right display, on top of the right display technology, is important (e.g. I spend months researching before I picked out my Panasonic Viera plasma). Apple will likely source a plain-old "good enough" LED display with local dimming. Why is this a better solution then buying the best display you can find with an Apple TV?

Second, the problem of inputs. Maybe I'm mistaken, but this has to mean handling external video sources, most notably cable/satellite set top boxes and more intricately DVRs. Steve himself complained about the Balkanization here and he's right. People have been doing TV tuners on computers for decades and there are two ways to do it -- an actual tuner (like Elgato EyeTV) or control and capture (like SlingBox). Both are severely flawed (having your own tuner does not allow access to encrypted channels that require a cable set top box, and Sling only remotes the set top box's interface.

Maybe he's not actually being this ambitious and the TV will actually just be something with a built in AppleTV and maybe add in OTA stations with a rudimentary schedule/guide. And like his "dumbed down" approach in home theater, specifically ignoring true multichannel audio over HDMI until very recently, and ignoring Blu-Ray, in favor of his over-simplified low quality iTunes centric world view, maybe he'll just extend that to the TV world and just ignore the cable/satellite providers altogether and make the first TV set meant for cable cutters, entirely IP based. But again, why do I need anything more than AppleTV to do that?

 

[theluggage]

its funny. when apple introduces the retina, its magical - and oh, don't get me started on the difference. other screens are sooooooo bleak.

then, when its about media, all of a sudden theres no visible difference between 720p and 1080p.

edit: Anyone care to run the math, and confirm my suspicion here? :- )

Well, if you choose the size of your TV and the layout of your room correctly then it should be just too far away to see the individual pixels - same as the Retina display held at a typical reading distance. If you can see the pixels then you're too close and you bought too big a TV for your room.

Also bear in mind that different devices are used for different media: you're not going to try and read a book off your TV screen. In particular, you're less fussy about picture quality when its rushing past at 24fps: 1080p video looks great, but in digital still camera terms that is only 2 Megapixels.

My feeling is that 720p isn't a huge improvement over a well-upscaled PAL (576i) picture (maybe the difference is more noticeable if you're comparing it with NTSC). I'm not saying I can't see the difference - just that I stop noticing it after a few minutes, especially if I don't bother to push the comfy chair closer to the screen. 1080p, especially from DVD, starts to feel like a different viewing experience.

 

[janstett]

I'm definitely going for the hard back, just because I want to add it to my Apple collection.

Agreed. I still have a stack of about 20 physical books to read, and I've been making an effort to switch over to the iBooks/Kindle/Nook stores from now on, no more dead trees.

But I'm making an exception for this book, I have a feeling it will be one of those special ones.

 

[Blakjack]

Delete

 

[janstett]

Which is unfortunate because plasma looks so great and is still superior to LCD as far as being able to produce colors. Night and day difference between my cheapie Emerson Plasma and my expensive Samsung LCD TV.

I agree and plasma still gives the best picture and black levels (I did my homework last year and ended up getting a 65" Panasonic VT25 plasma around $4k last year).

However, they suck power, generate a lot of heat, and aren't as sleek as LCD/LED sets. They also still have a burn in problem (thanks, Madden 11). If we've learned anything about the "new" Apple it is that having the "best" quality is not important (e.g. lack of Blu-Ray, 720p, poor quality of iTMS content, lack of HDMI) but sleekness and convenience are what's important.

 

[Judas1]

Sorry, you're a ****ing idiot. Because someone can recognize the benefits of streaming, that makes them 'sheep'? (not 'sheeps'- kids learn that in grade 2) You're a damn troll.

How about, I don't know, not having to physically go out and rent the disk, then physically return it? Of browsing selections in the comfort of your own home, and being able to watch instantly? Being able to watch on nearly any device with internet access, be it an HDTV, laptop, desktop, Tablet, phone, etc? Not having to worry about managing physical media? Those aren't advantages to you? Why are rental chains all closing shop and going bankrupt, because of Apple fanboys? No, because the mainstream have moved to streaming. And most people who have broadband have the bandwidth/download limits to handle streaming. Grow up, and stop accusing people of being sheep because of something you're somehow incapable of comprehending- it's you that has an agenda. You're completely out of touch with reality and what consumers want.

Hey sheep, I was talking about streaming only with no option to use a physical disk. I don't want to eliminate streaming at all because it has its benefit over physical disks. Its Apple that wants to eliminate physical disks all together. And idiot sheeps support Apple even if it doesn't benefit them one bit to have less options.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

With all these tidbits leaking I'm wondering if I'll need to even read the book now. Ha. Of course, I will, but will I learn anything new? Or is this lead up like one of those trailers that synthesizes the movie so well you don't have to see the movie. Wondering...

Oh, and as for an Apple TV, devil's in the details. If it took Jobs this long to "crack it," I doubt anyone in this forum has yet. We'll just have to watch Apple for the next 4 years. Haters will hate, dreamers will dream.

 

[squirrellydw]

I got it.....

It will be a TV with a full blown computer in it that you hook up to the cable. No set top box is required since it will be built in. You still have to pay for cable like you do now BUT you can watch whatever you want when you want. iTunes is now your DVR, you select your favorite shows and once they have aired you can watch them, either live or later.

something like this??

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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. 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...

For those that believe this, how do you resolve the problem that an Apple television subscription service via iCloud is going to have to stream through pipes likely owned by the same companies currently delivering those 180 channels for a lot more than $30/month? This is always ignored by those fantasizing that Apple is going to be able to kill off 60-70% of the cost of a cable/satt subscription (which, while that is cost to us consumers, it's otherwise known as added revenue & profits to those cable/satt and content creators) AND maybe the commercials too (which is another very big source of revenues & profits for the existing parties).

Unless Apple finds a way to actually own the pipes between their iCloud and our television or Apple television (bypassing the middleman), there are toll booths with names like Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc through which that data must flow. If we dream about a big reduction in (our) cost (their revenues) from- say- $100/month to $30 month, can we not see that Comcast/Cablevision/Time Warner will just up the cost of monthly Internet to replace those revenues? Notice how most of us have already been transitioned from a theoretical unlimited plan to tiered plans. Do you not think those tiers will increasingly tighten should this appear to be coming together (what would you do if you owned Comcast, etc)? Did we not learn anything from "unlimited" data plans on iPad's release that were very soon after converted to tiers (watch how long it takes for the Sprint unlimited data plan in iPhone 4S to flip into tiers).

The dream of massive savings for our video fixes courtesy Apple's super-cheap replacement service is challenged because Apple must depend on others for delivery. This is very much like how the cost of an iPhone is not really as little as (3GS) free but is in fact the out-of-pocket PLUS the service. Apple could nearly give iPhones away but they can't do much at all about the (middleman) cost of 3G/4G service plans. Yet somehow we imagine that this will be different. Why?

 

[hipnetic]

One thing about having a TV remote, it's just a TV remote, it doesn't do anything else. And that means that it will be where the TV is. Having an iPhone, iPod, or iPad as the remote means that that "remote" needs to be around the TV, so either everyone needs to have their own iProduct with them all the time or you'll end up buying one to use just for the TV.
I believe that's basically a TV remote.

Also, what's the standby time for a regular TV remote? What's the standby time for any iProduct?

The current Apple TV comes with a basic remote and a simple UI that anyone in the living room can use. The iDevice that you own is how you search for things (without annoying anyone watching TV), utilize your iOS device keyboard for faster text entry, or use Siri to let it find things for you. And the iDevice is always charged regularly, otherwise how useful is it to you for doing other things? So how long the standby time is is a non-factor.

Edit: Also, about using Siri instead of any kind of remote be it a regular TV remote or an iProduct. If you remove the remote then Siri needs to work 100%, because you won't have any other way to control the TV.
And we're not there yet.
With Siri in 4S, if Siri doesn't get what you want to do, you can still do things manually.

As I mentioned above, using Siri to control the Apple TV will be done via your iOS device, though I also won't rule out the possibility that Apple could come out with another simplified Apple TV remote that has a dedicated Siri button and microphone built-in.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I think in the end, Apple will NOT produce its own TV set.

The reasons are simple: 1) the profit margins for flat panels nowadays are razor-thin and 2) who'd want something where the flat panel technology will be obsolete in about year?

What I see is a much-enhanced Apple TV box that plugs into any TV that accepts HDMI 1.3a connections, so anyone who has a decent quality flat panel TV (e.g., Panasonic plasma, Samsung LCD/Plasma, Sharp AQUOS Quattron, etc.) can enjoy the Apple TV benefits.

 

[newdeal]

...

Do away with the remote, make the tv loaded with apps like weather etc, have it access the itunes store and stream content, make it voice controlled with siri, sell it at cost and make the profit on the content as set top providers do

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As I mentioned above, using Siri to control the Apple TV will be done via your iOS device, though I also won't rule out the possibility that Apple could come out with another simplified Apple TV remote that has a dedicated Siri button and microphone built-in.

If there is to be a Siri remote for any new Apple television or TV, the latter MUST be included. All the fantasies that revolve around an iDevice being in the mix seem to forget that when the owner of the iDevice leaves the house, he/she takes it with them. Anyone who lives with more than 1 person knows that you can't take the remote out of the house and have happy roommates/family members when you get back home.

iDevices and functions like airplay that depend on iDevices will always have to be just bonus options- NOT primary options for controlling the home theater. Otherwise, it only works for single people living alone (thus, no one to care that the "good remote" is out & about with you).

 

[klrobinson999]

At the very least, I would like to see a full APP STORE brought to the AppleTV. There's no reason why so many of our favorite apps, especially games and video/movie apps, couldn't be upscaled. Obviously this isn't touch-based, so Apple would have to come up with a better controller than their simple remote.

Definitely would like to see a full Safari browser brought to the AppleTV. I know there's always resistance to this, but many people do like to surf the Internet from their sofa with their HTPCs.

Of course, I would prefer the whole-screen concept. Display technology does not change at the pace of other tech, and people can be expected to only upgrade their TV maybe twice a decade, if that. Still, I feel the resistance to the current Apple TV - and the bind that keeps it as "only a hobby" - is the lack of knowledge by the average consumer about what the device could really do for them. They know what a full TV screen is; there's no difficulty in wrapping their head around the concept like a streaming box. A lot of this is about educating the public at large, of course, but I think AppleTV, GoogleTV, and all the rest will continue to remain small potatoes until killer features (Siri?) are added, or the companies wrap everything up in nice, complete packages.

----------

I got it.....

It will be a TV with a full blown computer in it that you hook up to the cable. No set top box is required since it will be built in. You still have to pay for cable like you do now BUT you can watch whatever you want when you want. iTunes is now your DVR, you select your favorite shows and once they have aired you can watch them, either live or later.

something like this??

I hadn't thought of this -- iTunes as the DVR! That is a killer concept! Would love it! Add all those apps (Netflix, Facebook, etc.) and you'll have a winner. Sign me up now, please.

 

[SVegard]

Sorry, you're a ****ing idiot. Because someone can recognize the benefits of streaming, that makes them 'sheep'? (not 'sheeps'- kids learn that in grade 2) You're a damn troll.

How about, I don't know, not having to physically go out and rent the disk, then physically return it? Of browsing selections in the comfort of your own home, and being able to watch instantly? Being able to watch on nearly any device with internet access, be it an HDTV, laptop, desktop, Tablet, phone, etc? Not having to worry about managing physical media? Those aren't advantages to you? Why are rental chains all closing shop and going bankrupt, because of Apple fanboys? No, because the mainstream have moved to streaming. And most people who have broadband have the bandwidth/download limits to handle streaming. Grow up, and stop accusing people of being sheep because of something you're somehow incapable of comprehending- it's you that has an agenda. You're completely out of touch with reality and what consumers want.

I wonder why people are getting dumb, fat and lazy...

 

[Kwill]

The next Tupac Shakur

This could get interesting. Much like the series of Tupac albums released posthumously, we'll continue to have Steve Jobs inventions released for years to come.

 

[divinox]

Well, if you choose the size of your TV and the layout of your room correctly then it should be just too far away to see the individual pixels - same as the Retina display held at a typical reading distance. If you can see the pixels then you're too close and you bought too big a TV for your room.

Also bear in mind that different devices are used for different media: you're not going to try and read a book off your TV screen. In particular, you're less fussy about picture quality when its rushing past at 24fps: 1080p video looks great, but in digital still camera terms that is only 2 Megapixels.

My feeling is that 720p isn't a huge improvement over a well-upscaled PAL (576i) picture (maybe the difference is more noticeable if you're comparing it with NTSC). I'm not saying I can't see the difference - just that I stop noticing it after a few minutes, especially if I don't bother to push the comfy chair closer to the screen. 1080p, especially from DVD, starts to feel like a different viewing experience.

Well, if you hold your phone far away bla bla bla. Just like the so called retina display allowed us to view a screen at distance x without noticing pixels, so will increasing resolution of the TV allow for a bigger picture in closer proximity. Do you even have a point here?

As for your opinion, i really don't care. 720 is huge over 576. So is 1080 over 720. Of course, garbage in leads to garbage out, but once you put things to the test, the difference is clearly perceivable to most.

Point remains. Its mind-boggling how (for some) pixels do matter when Apple makes a high PPI-screen, and resolution doesn't when it comes to TV.

p.s. once more, if anyone cares to do the math and find out at what distance 1080 is retina, where 720 is not (say for a 42" display) please do. would be fun to have the hard facts right on the table.

 

[vitzr]

Why don't you post the whole book already?

No one cares that much of the book has already been revealed.

The dialog surrounding this odd, narcissistic man will go on ad nauseum.

 

[klrobinson999]

720p is fine for most people, given the size of their TVs and their viewing distances. HD shortened the needed viewing distance...with old CRT tube technology, people had to sit farther away, usually 10 feet or more. For HD, you can sit as close as 3 feet and not experience pixel creep. However, typical viewing distance hasn't changed, even as the screen size for most TVs has grown larger.

720p is the maximum rez for cable anyway. 1080i is still common, although that is lower rez than 720p, I believe, given the differences in interlacing and progressive scanning.

 

[Dmunjal]

The difference is bog when you have high end components mate, ask anyone who's spent thousands on a setup and the only way they use digital is when they have losslessly put a BluRay onto a media server.

Like I said, convenience at the cost of quality. And plenty of people are able to make the effort of getting out there and buying physical media or are patient enough to wait. In fact if I want to watch anything of the net, I can't watch it instantly as my connections too slow!
Don't get sucked in by Apple's reality field mate, ask any audiophile what the think of the quality of music purchase of iTunes and they state a CD is vastly superior, which it is. It's the exact same with video.

But anyway, if Apple followed Apple and entered the T.V. market they will cost so much they will be at the very high end where the competition is VERY tough and the quality of displays will show the poor quality of streamed media even more!

I'm really not talking about Apple here. I think they're one of the few that could pull this off. But it be Amazon or even Google.

Again, I believe you and your high cost components are the minority.

Most people have chosen convenience over quality. Cell phones vs land lines. MP3 vs DVD audio. Streaming lower quality video vs high bit rate video on a piece of plastic. Fast food vs good food?

Can you not see the overall trend here?

It may not be right but the masses want it.

 

[Dmunjal]

For those that believe this, how do you resolve the problem that an Apple television subscription service via iCloud is going to have to stream through pipes likely owned by the same companies currently delivering those 180 channels for a lot more than $30/month? This is always ignored by those fantasizing that Apple is going to be able to kill off 60-70% of the cost of a cable/satt subscription (which, while that is cost to us consumers, it's otherwise known as added revenue & profits to those cable/satt and content creators) AND maybe the commercials too (which is another very big source of revenues & profits for the existing parties).

Unless Apple finds a way to actually own the pipes between their iCloud and our television or Apple television (bypassing the middleman), there are toll booths with names like Comcast, Cablevision, Time Warner, etc through which that data must flow. If we dream about a big reduction in (our) cost (their revenues) from- say- $100/month to $30 month, can we not see that Comcast/Cablevision/Time Warner will just up the cost of monthly Internet to replace those revenues? Notice how most of us have already been transitioned from a theoretical unlimited plan to tiered plans. Do you not think those tiers will increasingly tighten should this appear to be coming together (what would you do if you owned Comcast, etc)? Did we not learn anything from "unlimited" data plans on iPad's release that were very soon after converted to tiers (watch how long it takes for the Sprint unlimited data plan in iPhone 4S to flip into tiers).

The dream of massive savings for our video fixes courtesy Apple's super-cheap replacement service is challenged because Apple must depend on others for delivery. This is very much like how the cost of an iPhone is not really as little as (3GS) free but is in fact the out-of-pocket PLUS the service. Apple could nearly give iPhones away but they can't do much at all about the (middleman) cost of 3G/4G service plans. Yet somehow we imagine that this will be different. Why?

Because Apple has shown more innovation than the cell phone carriers or cable companies.