Tim Cook at D10: Dodges Questions about TV, Is an Area of "Intense Interest"

[JHankwitz]

And where is that blu-ray player

It's in the big box in the basement along with the 300 baud modem, floppy disks, and 5MB Profile hard drive.

----------

Apple could easily double or triple their sales if they made a second model of the Apple TV with a Bluray player in it.

Apple TV is designed to provide convenience to the user. Bluray is bulky, combersome, and a huge space consumer. The discs take up a lot of space and are easily damaged. If you want to use bluray, get a bluray. Apple doesn't prevent you from going that route.

 

[tigres]

So, Apple tv is no longer a hobby-

 

[ChrisTX]

I'm starting to think this is going to be another iMac/iPod/iPhone/iPad moment and it has to be getting close considering all the chatter. Another January introduction with 6+ months of FCC approval to follow?

There were years of speculation about the iPad years before it's introduction, and every year we saw nothing. While I'm not saying that it isn't close, only Apple knows exactly when.

 

[gri]

"Many of us, the TV that we do watch, is almost exclusively on [the Apple TV]. That's what my TV watching is."

Easy for him to say, I bet he does not need to pay for the movies he is watching via iTunes...

 

[ZipZap]

...

 

[SBlue1]

I love my Apple tv. Just one thing: we want NFL!

 

[knemonic]

Her is my gripe with Cook. He doesn't have the philisophical approach to technology that Jobs had. He's a numbers guy. You can learn numbers, you can't learn passion at a philisophical level.

Frankly, before Jobs' passing, he should of pursuaded Ives to become more of a public figure for Apple. When he talks, it sounds like Steve, because his passion for design runs deep, which is what Jobs was known for.

 

[meecect]

I'll re-iterate my prediction...

..from a few months back.

Apple's position on the TV has always been that to make it big in the TV market you have to fundamentally change it. It's a tough nut to crack, as Steve said, but he intimated that they cracked it (in the lab, of course)

I don't think bringing Siri, or a higher definition panel, or facetime integration, is 'cracking the nut'. It enhances the experience maybe, but doesn't change the market.

The nut is, and has been for some time, the cable companies' absolute control over the input into your house. They are what balkanizes the TV market and something that Steve talked about quite a bit. I believe that is what he wanted to change. Remember, Apple does revolutionize products, but even more so, they revolutionize INDUSTRIES. They revolutionize MARKETS. The iPod wasn't revolutionary, but iPod + iTunes + $.99 songs was.

How could an AppleTV revolutionize the TV market? After all, everyone with a current AppleTV has to pay to support the existing market. They are still paying handsome amounts to Comcast, for example. Any market entrants have to fight with these internet providers who are also want to be content providers.

I think the latest iPad + the upcoming iPhone are going to see how far you can get with LTE, and my prediction is that the new appleTV will work without a cable subscription. It will be an LTE device, or something like that. I think Apple is working with the phone companies and directly with content providers to go in and eliminate companies like Comcast. They are getting ready to eat the lunch of the Comcasts and Time Warners and Dish Networks. It's a big, attractive pie, and right now, Comcast looks a lot like Nokia to me. A once-king that could see themselves completely eliminated in a few short years when Apple steals their market.

 

[Rocketman]

When I was reading the live coverage of the DX including Q&A on MacRumors there was an ad for a Samsung "smartTV" below it. I have gone on that site before to see what Samsung is doing to try to pre-invade Apple TV space with the inside information they obviously have as a panel supplier.

For all practical purposes "smartTV" is a device installed in the TV that acts as a cable box for services such as DirecTV, Comcast and others so you keep your subscription service and simply add it to the menu.

I presume AppleTV4 is a variant of that with an intuitive GUI and Siri as the primary interface. I also assume it being Apple it is an external box that talks to a remote server so the box can be dumb and have crippled assets and all storage and processing occurs remotely.

This will allow the box to act as a traffic cop or access point for a remote traffic cop to understand bandwidth limits attached to each device, iPod Touch on wifi, iPhone 3GS on 2G/3G, iPhone 5 on LTE, HDTV on DSL, 4KTV on Fios, whatever. That way the server can "sling" preformatted size optimized content to each pipe and device.

I for one hope devices continue to be able to cache entire shows for the period theuy are licensed, so a "stream" which is essentially a single use license, fully downloads to the device do you can rewind, start at the beginning or middle, all offline if needed, and then have the license expire after some sensible time or usage pattern.

Rocketman

 

[Blueflame1138]

Apple TV and the "go to market strategy"

Steve Jobs talked about the "go to market strategy" when asked about the future of TV at D8.

Having thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that it may not be all about having an Apple branded TV screen with associated Apple designed UI.

It seems to me that the two priorities are the User Experience and Content Delivery.

Here are my thoughts on the User Experience. (Content Delivery to come later)

I can imagine that Apple will come up with a stunning TV at a premium price range with a revolutionary UI. The problem with this is that it does not naturally follow that Apple will dominate the TV market. With a product as ubiquitous as the television you have to be able to produce a range of products that can fit the wallet of the majority of users.

To quote Jobs at D8 again, when speaking about how they worked out the deal with AT&T for the first iPhone. "...carrier you worry about the network, we'll worry about what's on the phone..."

How about if Apple were to licence out the UI (with their usual ultra-control) to the TV set manufacturers and let them get on with building the actual TV sets?

It becomes "Manufacturer, you worry about making great TV's, we'll worry about giving the user a great experience."

Of course you can't expect for every manufacturer to embrace the fact that their TV will operate exactly the same way as everyone else's. Bang & Olufsen compared to Bush. So they get to play with colours, font's etc, but the fundamental layout of the way the TV is operated stays the same. You trade up to a better TV and don't have to spend half the day working out how to use it. And if you have a consistent UI across all major brands this means you need only ever have one remote control to operate ANY TV.

Blueflame

 

[d21mike]

"Many of us, the TV that we do watch, is almost exclusively on [the Apple TV]. That's what my TV watching is."

Easy for him to say, I bet he does not need to pay for the movies he is watching via iTunes...

Even if he paid double he could afford it. My question when I read this is does he not watch the NEWS or any other live shows that do not come via ATV. Unless he is using the "New???" Apple TV where it is a front end to ALL Media he can't simply be almost exclusively on ATV. Maybe for things like new movies then yes.

I still feel the ATV needs to be the front end for all media. It really is all about the content. We all have our TV Viewing needs. Some it is all about sports and for me it is mostly network TV. Right now, I view mostly via my FIOS DVR.

 

[3282868]

I've owned every AppleTV since day one, even hacked the first with a CrystalHD card for 1080P content (and handled large Blu-Ray DTS mkv encodes very well). After I bought the third gen, I returned it.

I have a NAS with all my ripped media (spent a year converting my DVD's to digital, learned a lot about encoding/containers, Handbrake became my best friend). Jailbreaking it is the only way I can make use of my setup, otherwise my NAS and unsupported codecs are useless. Plus iTunes 1080P movies aren't any better than their 720P (compared my 1080P encodes, Apple's and the original Blu-Ray's, 'course BD's won but my encodes blew iTunes away, especially with DTS). I bought a Mac Mini with Plex, plays beautifully through my Pioneer AVR, B&W speakers and newly purchased Samsung 8000 LED. Sure, it's 6x more, but well worth it.

(Fun little trick a friend showed me, rent two DVD's through Netflix a day, setup "RipIt", send DVD's back, rip and repeat, man's gotta have 1,000+ movies on his system )

 

[Rocketman]

(Fun little trick a friend showed me, rent two DVD's through Netflix a day, setup "RipIt", send DVD's back, rip and repeat, man's gotta have 1,000+ movies on his system )

I am assuming since this has been going on for years now there are disk images somewhere of pre-ripped movies.

 

[chirpie]

Blu rays aren't cheaper.

More like "It depends." If you buy your movies when they aren't on sale, sure, that'll run you 25-30 bucks. Deals can be had.

If you add the amnount of TVs and players I would need to match the ability to play the content anywhere that I have with iTunes it costs way more.

How do you figure? A semi-decent blu-ray player runs $80. Apple doesn't make a device that cheap. Sure, it's not as portable, but it's not more expensive.

And as for quality the blu rays are less compressed but it's hard to tell the difference I'll take the ability to take my movies with me any day over the legacy disk model which requires dedicated hardware

There are way more manufacturers of blu-ray products than Apple. I don't think you should use "dedicated hardware" as a strike against Blu-ray as you MUST have an iPod, iPhone, iPad, or desktop running iTunes. All controlled by Apple. That's pretty much as dedicated as a desktop that has a blu-ray drive, or a Blu-ray player that can also stream Hulu or Netflixs.

Having said all that, I can't deny the actual convenience. And that's all that matters in this debate... wether the convenience is worth the trade off in quality.

 

[RemE]

Here is the cracked code in my mind, the UI. Gesture control on the TV

Currently there is a device that has something like 200 times the resolution of the X-Box the scans the user and can track your movements to fractions of an inch.

If I could sit on the couch and gesture my way thru the TV with a matching semi-transparent UI on screen that showed up as needed......

I'd be getting a new TV.

Couple that with some Siri quiry capability, and apps, icing.

I use little to none of Apple's content and will most likely never buy an iTunes movie so I hope they aren't spending a lot of time on that. Let's see some revolutionary hardware!

 

[Waxhead138]

..from a few months back.

Apple's position on the TV has always been that to make it big in the TV market you have to fundamentally change it. It's a tough nut to crack, as Steve said, but he intimated that they cracked it (in the lab, of course)

I don't think bringing Siri, or a higher definition panel, or facetime integration, is 'cracking the nut'. It enhances the experience maybe, but doesn't change the market.

The nut is, and has been for some time, the cable companies' absolute control over the input into your house. They are what balkanizes the TV market and something that Steve talked about quite a bit. I believe that is what he wanted to change. Remember, Apple does revolutionize products, but even more so, they revolutionize INDUSTRIES. They revolutionize MARKETS. The iPod wasn't revolutionary, but iPod + iTunes + $.99 songs was.

How could an AppleTV revolutionize the TV market? After all, everyone with a current AppleTV has to pay to support the existing market. They are still paying handsome amounts to Comcast, for example. Any market entrants have to fight with these internet providers who are also want to be content providers.

I think the latest iPad + the upcoming iPhone are going to see how far you can get with LTE, and my prediction is that the new appleTV will work without a cable subscription. It will be an LTE device, or something like that. I think Apple is working with the phone companies and directly with content providers to go in and eliminate companies like Comcast. They are getting ready to eat the lunch of the Comcasts and Time Warners and Dish Networks. It's a big, attractive pie, and right now, Comcast looks a lot like Nokia to me. A once-king that could see themselves completely eliminated in a few short years when Apple steals their market.

I think you're close....but not via LTE...at least not provided in todays form via the wireless companies....with the caps already in place, and almost gauranteed to get even more restrictive in time....that would be murder on a wallet.

However....(this is just 10 sec of brainstorming, bash or add as you'd like) I could see something along the lines of anyone that has an Itunes account would have direct access to programming from the source...hopefully at a deeply discounted rate (perhaps based on bulk consumption) If the middle man cable / satellite providers are circumvented, these discounted rates would be acheievable, and theoretically a win / win. The content manufacturers get their money directly, and we get content. The only pitfall I can see under this theory is that once everyone starts scrambling to pay for internet only service....you'll either see an increase in rates for just Internet, and / or the same evil data cap system we have now we be reinvented full force.

 

[Avatar74]

How about if Apple were to licence out the UI (with their usual ultra-control) to the TV set manufacturers and let them get on with building the actual TV sets?

It becomes "Manufacturer, you worry about making great TV's, we'll worry about giving the user a great experience."

Except this both violates Apple's core (no pun intended) strategy and the analogy you just gave. The set manufacturers are not the content providers. They're the hardware manufacturers. Apple is an integrated hardware/software manufacturer. So, as much as I didn't see it coming before, I think Apple's foray into the living room with a set is inevitable... as they have come to realize a couple of things:

1. The user experience doesn't end with the personal computer.

2. Computing platforms don't end with the personal computer.

Consumer electronics devices like televisions behave like a dummy terminal. They have no computing platform of their own.... they receive content from the provider, without much flexibility or interactivity.

There was for a long time this notion that putting a computer in the living room was the trick. But devices like iPhone and iPod show that interfaces have to be tailored to form factor and viewing experience (ever try to use Windows on a mobile device?)

So, now, the television could be a computing platform... in the sense that the iPhone is a computing platform, but keeping in mind a slightly different scope/purpose.

And the only way it would work is if the user experience were controlled, end to end, by Apple. Content is a different matter.

 

[Imhotep397]

...I'll take the ability to take my movies with me any day over the legacy disk model which requires dedicated hardware

The problem with this is that there will never be a one single streaming option and there's aggregator (i.e. Netflix, iTunes etc.) that will get permanent streaming rights for films. Considering iTunes more or less dropped sales of digital downloads it proved that customers are unwilling to pay a purchase price for a "Virtual Product." All of the content companies are too protective and greedy too cooperate on a consumer satisfaction oriented service.

Here today, gone tomorrow will be the calling card for streaming movies probably from here on out which makes for the most compelling argument for maintaining optical discs for movies. You own, you watch whenever you want without having to dial in or watch at the behest of some ephemeral arrangement between your streaming service and a studio. You also don't have to buy into multiple streaming services with multiple monthly fees to get access to a few movies that you would prefer to rent individually or purchase on disc.

My guess is that SONY may in fact take the next round of the battle for the living room. Games, DVR, Multiple streaming services, DVD and BluRay capability, probably wireless printing, probably wireless audio connectivity and probably email, possibly Slingbox like functionality, television control and hopefully a somewhat reasonable price in a single black box.

 

[Rocketman]

Here today, gone tomorrow will be the calling card for streaming movies probably from here on out which makes for the most compelling argument for maintaining optical discs for movies. You own, you watch whenever you want without having to dial in or watch at the behest of some ephemeral arrangement between your streaming service and a studio.

I think what will evolve is a third party asset storage system where along the lines of iTunes Match, the service will determine by asset scan or affidavit you have the rights to a particular title through a previous purchase in some media and you will be entitled to BOTH store a copy locally on a storage drive AND have cloud access.

They could be in the business of selling offline commodity price media storage.

I doubt the current Apple model by either policy or contract would allow this because they actually like being a gatekeeper.

But third party, and even a fully legal variant of torrent could do this. How many different people actually need to run Handbrake? The current world says tens of thousands, while the logical and legal answer is one.

Rocketman