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.
Tim Cook Speaks on Apple, iPhone, Apple TV
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If theTV had a DVD player, I'd get it. Why they didn't put one on makes me
. A good DVD player costs what, around $100? I'd pay an additional $100 or so to have extra functionality added on. As it stands I'd much rather have a Mac Mini instead of the
SERIOUSLY. that's a cool idea. It would look so much like a mac mini you would confuse it for one! But yeah, I think
TV is a mistake--it's foraging new ground in terms of online content on your TV, and DVD RIPPING is a total pie in the sky dream--labels would NOT deal with apple if they did that, but a player would be a FANTASTIC transitional feature, plus it would save all kinds of trouble. Moreover, a DVD player isn't near that much. I have a crummy $30 player that's progressive scan. I don't think the issue is the media reader, more the DSP that's going on... I am sure that there's enough of that crap on the
TV already...I think a lot of people are going to buy an iPhone regardless of how much it costs. You forget that the original iPod (10GB) was 500 bucks, and people still bought that, and it didn't do nearly what the iPhone can. Also, if you wait a couple of years, it'll only get better and cheaper (80GB iPod is now only 350)
Warning - Promotion of Microsoft product to follow (please dont kill me)
On the other hand, while I do love pretty much everything Apple makes, and theTV is no exception (I mean, just look at it ) the fact is, most people have thier movies either on DVD or in DivX format (yaaarrr!). These are of no use if you own an TV. I'd love to buy one, but I just cant justify the 300 bucks, when, for about 200, I got a used Xbox, modded it (no mod-chip), and tossed in a 300GB hard drive. It plays SD and HD video and easily stores all of my movies and TV shows. Sure it's big, ugly, and Microsoft, but it beats the pants off the TV in terms of overall functionality, and it's cheaper.
Warning - Promotion of Microsoft product to follow (please dont kill me)
On the other hand, while I do love pretty much everything Apple makes, and the
TV is no exception (I mean, just look at it ) the fact is, most people have thier movies either on DVD or in DivX format (yaaarrr!). These are of no use if you own an TV. I'd love to buy one, but I just cant justify the 300 bucks, when, for about 200, I got a used Xbox, modded it (no mod-chip), and tossed in a 300GB hard drive. It plays SD and HD video and easily stores all of my movies and TV shows. Sure it's big, ugly, and Microsoft, but it beats the pants off the TV in terms of overall functionality, and it's cheaper.I agree, I just want to hold it and work with it to see how all the features work, then ill worry about the price
Which is what I suspect most people will do.
And let's not forget, the industry isn't static. Expect to see many other companies copy features from the iPhone and offer competitive pricing especially with carriers other than AT&T.
oh i dont know about you, but i did not like the attitude of tim cook...
oh sure iphone might provide a bit more value than those sold at $0 (after rebate or not), but the difference not 500... it might be 50, 100 than some of them, but surely not 500... i dont know what's he cooking
provided the smartphones aren't cheap, they generally don't get that expensive with contract.
edit:
i was just reading the Q n A, he is so full of himself
he said why they had GSM, but he didn't mention a word about why no 3G... just completely avoided the question with all that junk
again, avoided the question... he pretty much said: if we were to choose a exclusive carrier, it'd be cingular because of the following reasons... but why exclusive carrier to begin with? he doesn't know
apparently he doesn't know his company well, i remember a mac calld mac mini, does he?
lets not forget how long it took them to ship portables with C2D
.. i think he's trying to be prideful, unsuccessfully...
oh sure iphone might provide a bit more value than those sold at $0 (after rebate or not), but the difference not 500... it might be 50, 100 than some of them, but surely not 500... i dont know what's he cooking
provided the smartphones aren't cheap, they generally don't get that expensive with contract.
edit:
i was just reading the Q n A, he is so full of himself
he said why they had GSM, but he didn't mention a word about why no 3G... just completely avoided the question with all that junk
again, avoided the question... he pretty much said: if we were to choose a exclusive carrier, it'd be cingular because of the following reasons... but why exclusive carrier to begin with? he doesn't know
apparently he doesn't know his company well, i remember a mac calld mac mini, does he?
lets not forget how long it took them to ship portables with C2D
.. i think he's trying to be prideful, unsuccessfully...
Interesting discussion. I'm quite happy with the way the iPhone is looking, I think it'll sell millions and the first revision will be fine. I know some are dubious of Apple's Rev A products, but actually the first iPod was fine, I still have one and never had any issue with it at all, so there's a Rev A that is fine. I also think the point that it's billed as an iPod in its own right is a point well made.
However I think it's a shame he wasn't pressed more on a couple of other points, in particular;
1) If Apple are so opposed to DRM, then why do all tracks on the iTunes Store have it when giving content providers/ independent music labels the option to go DRM-free would provide a great opportunity to proved to the biggies that sales can go up as a direct result of being DRM free.
It's easy to speculate that there may be good reasons as to why this isn't the case right now - maybe the big companies dictated to Apple that all tracks must have DRM if they wanted to sell theirs. Maybe it's a user experience thing and Apple wants an easy, clear-as-possible policy on the DRM they have to use right now and don't want to confuse the issue by having to explain which tracks do and don't have DRM. It would just be nice to get an official comment on this issue, because I think it's a very common reaction to Steve's 'Thoughts On Music' and does seem strange.
2) The TV issues everyone has already raised since its preview but weren't properly addressed either - the strange limitations on connectivity and video format playback don't jive with the "21st century DVD player" tag.
Cook says "We're all about taking the content already on your Mac or PC and watch it on your TV." but really it's more like they're 'partially about taking some of the content on your Mac or PC and watch it on your TV as long as it's an oddly specific mid-range HDTV'
-Why no proper SDTV support when current iTunes video isn't even HD in any way?!
-At the other end of the scale, why limit the HD output to 720p when 1080p TVs are out there already? Maybe 1080p on the iTunes Store is a distant prospect, but the thing does photos which are way past that and hey, some nice upscaling chips for future HD content of any description at 1080p would be a nice selling point regardless.
I think the concept of TV is great but as others have said I think it's a little underdeveloped. Maybe Apple is banking on selling enough of this version to plough money into future updates. But I think the limitations of even this first version are just baffling to many of us. It's not a "21st Century DVD player" yet - it's more like a 20th Century media player with H.264 playback and HDMI output right now.
However I think it's a shame he wasn't pressed more on a couple of other points, in particular;
1) If Apple are so opposed to DRM, then why do all tracks on the iTunes Store have it when giving content providers/ independent music labels the option to go DRM-free would provide a great opportunity to proved to the biggies that sales can go up as a direct result of being DRM free.
It's easy to speculate that there may be good reasons as to why this isn't the case right now - maybe the big companies dictated to Apple that all tracks must have DRM if they wanted to sell theirs. Maybe it's a user experience thing and Apple wants an easy, clear-as-possible policy on the DRM they have to use right now and don't want to confuse the issue by having to explain which tracks do and don't have DRM. It would just be nice to get an official comment on this issue, because I think it's a very common reaction to Steve's 'Thoughts On Music' and does seem strange.
2) The
TV issues everyone has already raised since its preview but weren't properly addressed either - the strange limitations on connectivity and video format playback don't jive with the "21st century DVD player" tag. Cook says "We're all about taking the content already on your Mac or PC and watch it on your TV." but really it's more like they're 'partially about taking some of the content on your Mac or PC and watch it on your TV as long as it's an oddly specific mid-range HDTV'
-Why no proper SDTV support when current iTunes video isn't even HD in any way?!
-At the other end of the scale, why limit the HD output to 720p when 1080p TVs are out there already? Maybe 1080p on the iTunes Store is a distant prospect, but the thing does photos which are way past that and hey, some nice upscaling chips for future HD content of any description at 1080p would be a nice selling point regardless.
I think the concept of
TV is great but as others have said I think it's a little underdeveloped. Maybe Apple is banking on selling enough of this version to plough money into future updates. But I think the limitations of even this first version are just baffling to many of us. It's not a "21st Century DVD player" yet - it's more like a 20th Century media player with H.264 playback and HDMI output right now.Something that will end Apple in near future - it is limitless arrogance and assuming that they know better than the customers , what they should use.
Component input didn't EXIST in 1991, so no, it doesn't.
Which ones? There are no consumer SDTVs with Y-Pb-Pr component video to my knowledge.
I think you are all confusing component video with composite video. Component video consists of 3 RCA-style jacks for video only, with one red, one green, and one blue plug. Alternately, a VGA DB15 plug may be used.
This is DIFFERENT from the red-yellow-white set of RCA audio inputs plus composite video (the yellow RCA plug).
He's horrific. If this were a job interview on why he should be CEO then he just failed the interview.
I left shortly after he arrived and it's not a surprise that this gets passed for being "insightful."
How about, "Since we were in transition many of our current offerings weren't able to capture our current base and new user base at a level we were comfortable with; and instead of cannibalizing our profit margins we decided to integrate peripherals to increase our selling power. The peripheral that optimized our profit margins and increase sales was an integrated camera. This way we could leverage FrontRow out-of-the-box and hint at our future directions in Home Entertainment.
From the response it is clear our choice has proven to be a winning strategy."
I'm glad I did Engineering and Professional Services. The Reality bull**** spewing from his thoughts is mind-numbing in the worst sense.
I got my RAZR for about that. And my usage pattern is (I think) pretty typical... I use it for texting and for phone calls. I messed around with the camera a couple times, just to check it out... it wasn't too hard to use, but nothing spectacular.
But the more I use my RAZR, the more I think that its UI was designed by high schoolers. the Address book is god-awful. things as common as having multiple numbers for the same person are HORRENDOUSLY un-thought-out. the date book and alarm are ridiculous: you can't set event alarms to ring at the time of the event, or more than a single ring, the ring doesn't go off if your phone is on vibe (mine often is, as much as I am in class). If you set up an alarm, you have to disable it to make it stop ringing, and then navigate through the menu to it to re-enable it if you want it to go off the next day. It's got about as much consistency as homework scraped together right before class. the UI really is trash. Texting has that great word-guessing feature that is a superb time-saver, but it's not very consistent that you enter that mode (e.g., when you're entering someone's name in the address book, or the subject line). Calling has all these stupid things about it that you just have to memorize. Bleh. It really puts me off of using any of the phone's other features, which is money lost for cingular.
Personally, I am looking for something a little bit taller, wider and skinnier than the Motorola SLVR--no huge data capacity, no camera (i keep dreaming), just a sweet phone, with some basic email/web/SMS capability... although I could go for an all-in-one when 32GB flash becomes doable and affordable, 2 years from now.
In any case, you call it the same way Cook does, with more caveats: your caveat is, damn, that thing is expensive. But you're basically saying, a bunch of people talk like they want this, and it remains to be seen if they will put their money where their drooling mouths are, yeah? It should be interesting.
I think Apple just needs to sell a small number at first. 10 million is more than enough. enough to have people on the streets using them (making people jealous), raving to their friends how cool and worth it they are, and also demoing their features to friends. I know that Wi-Fi is going to be a jealousy-inspiring feature for me! Then they need to get some market control, leverage their iPod-massive-supply influence to negotiate favorable component pricing, etc, to drive price down. hopefully in 1-3 years we'll see some much more decent, direct competitors (I think the phone market will be much more robust than the MP3 Player market), along with a very affordable, wide range of iPhones. Like others, I am an optimist about this
Try Sony Ericsson. I just got the W880i in black, for free. 3G, great battery, 2MP camera for snaps, instant blogging, push email, 1GB M2 card in box (expandable) headphones and adaptor, oh - and it's less than 1cm thick. INSANE. Weighs about 70-80 grams. Got the best UI out there in my opinion, uses Salling clicker (google it), bluetooth remote, isync ready... need I say more...
In the UK we still have to wait ages for the iPhone, but I am not sure I want to go forward in some features (touch screen etc) to go back in others, GSM only (3G on the way is a good thing) and the size of the handset. This SE is so small it's perfect. A normal 2MP camera (if you can still buy them) wouldn't be this small.
Anyway, it's awesome so get one whilst you wait for iPhone.
No offence but you are wrong, component inputs on SDTVs do exist. Google it yourself and you'll find some. Try the Samsung TX-R2035 for starters if you like. Also component is not HD only (wiki it, it ranges from 480i (not HD) right up to 1080p)). I own two (SD, non upscaling)) DVD players with component outputs on myself, not that my TV has component inputs, but why would they be there otherwise? Anyway, I'm sure some of the previous posters could tell you the models of TVs they have if you still don't believe it.
Thanks for the link. The only other sets I'd been aware of are the Sony WEGA (not strictly SDTVs). The Samsung you indicate does not support the Apple TV, however, nor does it have any reason to have component inputs as it cannot display any progressive signals. The one possibility is that in the past two or three years there have been changes made to accommodate digital tuners.
Most DVD players have them because they're capable of progressive scan (480P)--there is no benefit to their use otherwise over S-Video. Any television set capable of resolutions starting at 480p are high definition sets (or EDTV in some cases if you need to be absolutely specific). DVD players should be expected to have component outputs, but traditionally there have not been SDTV sets with component, as SDTV sets are incapable of progressive scan and max out at 480i at best. Certainly none of the analog SDTV sets produced through the 1990s would have had component inputs.
The fact remains Apple TV requires 480p or better--it is not compatible with SDTV sets.
Regardless of the motivation, I was merely pointing out that such TVs do exist, as I'm not actually sure people are confusing component with composite, and I can't see any reason why Apple couldn't have made the
TV work with such TVs.Hmm... Personally I think it's a nonsense to call 480p HD. Otherwise that makes the SD DVDs we've been buying for years HD already. I just don't know why Apple didn't make it compatible with CRTs as well, it seems a pointless limit on potential customers at this point, especially when they don't have any content that goes above 480p yet! I don't mind the EDTV term so much, but it's not HD, and I don't think the difference between 480p and 720p is small enough to call it being 'absolutely specific'. But I guess it's just down to what you consider HD.
My iBook G3 can output video to a CRT at 480i (albeit over a composite lead), so why can't this? In fact I can output video at 576i (PAL here in the UK) on my very-much SD CRT TV, so that's more than HD resolution according to Apple. I don't think so. It's just my opinion maybe, but I think HD should mean 720p and up. I think the same about Apple's HD movie trailers when they have them at 480p - they used to be 'large' trailers, now they're HD, apparently.
Apple TV is a nice idea with many limitations though.
Can please someone explain to me why Apple Tv has an optical output for sound? The mp4 container format DOESNT support Dolby Digital and DTS!
Apple TV can only play mp4 files in a very limited way...
Now, Apple says the AppleTV is for widescreen TVs. Why then does it mainly support 640x480???? Is it just me thinking that the Apple TV is a total failure???
Why should I give up my DVDs with DTS sound for the Apple TV? Please don't tell me that it is convenient. I like the idea of having everything controlled by a small set top box, but I won't accept inferior quality products. I do not want Stereo or Dolby Surround sound, I want Dolby Digital and DTS. I dont want to have two devices to handle all my Media, I want one!!!
When the Apple TV grows up, I will consider buying it.
Can please someone explain to me why Apple Tv has an optical output for sound? The mp4 container format DOESNT support Dolby Digital and DTS!
Apple TV can only play mp4 files in a very limited way...
Now, Apple says the AppleTV is for widescreen TVs. Why then does it mainly support 640x480???? Is it just me thinking that the Apple TV is a total failure???
Why should I give up my DVDs with DTS sound for the Apple TV? Please don't tell me that it is convenient. I like the idea of having everything controlled by a small set top box, but I won't accept inferior quality products. I do not want Stereo or Dolby Surround sound, I want Dolby Digital and DTS. I dont want to have two devices to handle all my Media, I want one!!!
When the Apple TV grows up, I will consider buying it.
TheRegardless of the motivation, I was merely pointing out that such TVs do exist, as I'm not actually sure people are confusing component with composite, and I can't see any reason why Apple couldn't have made the
TV uses progressive signals to display its interface, aside from 1080i (since it does not currently support 1080p). It is aimed at people with expensive HD sets as a high-quality interface. 480i and lower outputs are of abysmal quality, with fuzzy text and washed out color from digital sources. I'm sure they could have come up with something that would work with older analog sets, but they've chosen not to bother. An iPod will sort of fill the gap for people with SDTVs.
I also do not consider 480p to be high-definition; it is, however, an HDTV standard. The whole situation is a mess. SDTV technically refers only to the successor to NTSC/PAL/SECAM--though people, including myself, often use it to refer to any old analog set. "HD" is generally 720p/1080i/1080p, but then that leaves 480p undefined, and all progressive scan resolutions are technically part of the HDTV set. EDTV has this sort of nebulous definition that might include 480i and 480p depending on who's answering.
It boils down to this: component video has no practical use for anything less than 480p; it does apparently exist on late-model CRT sets to connect ATSC tuners (but since the sets do not support progressive scan, there's no reason to connect anything else to that input), but it was introduced around 1999 as an HD connection method, which has been supplanted by HDMI. The
TV requires a television that does at least 480p. That is, a progressive scan CRT or an HDTV with either Y-Pb-Pr component inputs or an HDMI input.
That's all I'm saying dude! Which means every potential customer who doesn't have a HD TV yet is going 'meh'. Steve Jobs himself made the point that an iPod hooked up to a TV looks watchable when he introduced the 5th Gen iPods, didn't he? But not through an
TV it seems.I just don't believe it would have harmed profit margins that much to have supported pretty much any TV at this stage. On the contrary, I think it would have improved total sales. By all means when Apple are actually selling HD content (by which I mean 720p +!) then use it as an incentive for people to upgrade to HDTVs to enjoy that content, but I just think it's kind of putting the cart before the horse to block off what might well have been half the sales of the 1st
TV because they didn't want to put in a chip that did less than 480p.At the other end of the scale, I'm looking to buy a 1080p HDTV this year sometime, but the fact the
TV won't support that high a resolution puts me off it for that.I was quite positive about the
TV when it was introduced, and I still think it has a lot of potential as a product line for future revisions, but this first version seems a little half-baked.I don't want to be mean but..
Are you daft? What plays on your tv is what is input into your TV, either from the airways, cable, and now fiber. Apple is adding wifi from your PC as a new source of input to watch PC-based content on your TV. What don't you get?
Are you daft? What plays on your tv is what is input into your TV, either from the airways, cable, and now fiber. Apple is adding wifi from your PC as a new source of input to watch PC-based content on your TV. What don't you get?
"Content already on your Mac or PC and watch it on your TV.
Transcript of relevant portions follows."
Doesnt he mean content already on your Itunes to watch on your TV?
Transcript of relevant portions follows."
Doesnt he mean content already on your Itunes to watch on your TV?
I completely agree with you. I've been saying this from day one - Apple TV will not sell if it does not have a DVR. No one is going to pay for shows they can watch for free - or already paid for through a cable subscription.
The only problem I see is most cable companies offer a DVR/cable box, so how wouls Apple's DVR work with an existing one?
I think your daft! The poster obviously meant tv as the usual inputs. Cable, SAT or air. When somebody says I'm watching TV they dont mean a dvd, they mean they're watching a broadcast. Duh! When I first heard of the name apple tv thats what I thought of, TV, not downloading movies from itunes so I can watch them on my tv. I quickly learned that apple tv (in it's 1st incarnation) will be useless for me.
I don't get it
Basically, I don't get Apple TV either. Who is Apple targeting with this thing?
Personally, I'm in the enthusiast category. I have a home server with all of my DVDs in their original (PAL MPEG2) format and all of my CDs in FLAC lossless format. That server also carries a DVB-C cable tuner which is able to stream any feed (including HD) in its original MPEG2 or H.264 format over the network.
Never will I buy any device that can not provide 1920x1080p full HD to my LCD screen, will not let me view HD content from other sources and will not support open standards or read DVDs off network drives.
Apple has this weird idea that iTunes truly is the centre of people's media experience. Yeah right. It's a device for the clueless.
Basically, I don't get Apple TV either. Who is Apple targeting with this thing?
Personally, I'm in the enthusiast category. I have a home server with all of my DVDs in their original (PAL MPEG2) format and all of my CDs in FLAC lossless format. That server also carries a DVB-C cable tuner which is able to stream any feed (including HD) in its original MPEG2 or H.264 format over the network.
Never will I buy any device that can not provide 1920x1080p full HD to my LCD screen, will not let me view HD content from other sources and will not support open standards or read DVDs off network drives.
Apple has this weird idea that iTunes truly is the centre of people's media experience. Yeah right. It's a device for the clueless.
On component inputs/outputs...
What's all this I'm reading about component inputs/outputs as only being progressive and only useful in that case? That's incorrect. The connection and the formats it carries are not related. Even an HDMI or DVI connection can run an interlaced signal.
Interlaced component inputs/outputs have been around for ages and they *do* exist in non-progressive devices. Usually, they're labeled as RGB or Y-Cb-Cr in that case, instead of Y-Pb-Pr. Even in the interlaced formats, the quality of a component or RGB connection is far better than S-Video.
In Europe, most sources have component RGB available through the 21-pin SCART connector. In the US and Asia, the separate cinch connectors became more popular. My Sony DVD player and recorder have both and neither of them offers progressive scan or upscaling. They predate the whole HD evolution at any rate.
Of course, a HD screen will not like interlaced component input, but many home theatre receivers can de-interlace the signal for you.
Likewise, hooking up the Apple TV to a non-progressive screen will not work. so even if you do have an older screen with component inputs - if it's from 1991 and not a progressive-capable computer CRT, you're probably out of luck as your component inputs are Y-Cb-Cr connections.
What's all this I'm reading about component inputs/outputs as only being progressive and only useful in that case? That's incorrect. The connection and the formats it carries are not related. Even an HDMI or DVI connection can run an interlaced signal.
Interlaced component inputs/outputs have been around for ages and they *do* exist in non-progressive devices. Usually, they're labeled as RGB or Y-Cb-Cr in that case, instead of Y-Pb-Pr. Even in the interlaced formats, the quality of a component or RGB connection is far better than S-Video.
In Europe, most sources have component RGB available through the 21-pin SCART connector. In the US and Asia, the separate cinch connectors became more popular. My Sony DVD player and recorder have both and neither of them offers progressive scan or upscaling. They predate the whole HD evolution at any rate.
Of course, a HD screen will not like interlaced component input, but many home theatre receivers can de-interlace the signal for you.
Likewise, hooking up the Apple TV to a non-progressive screen will not work. so even if you do have an older screen with component inputs - if it's from 1991 and not a progressive-capable computer CRT, you're probably out of luck as your component inputs are Y-Cb-Cr connections.
Matticus,
You are very mistaken. There are PLENTY of SD TVs with component inputs I have one sitting at home right now. I believe its made by Sharp. There is a HUGE difference in quality if I plug my DVD player in with 3 cords or 5. component inputs have been around for a LONG time, and have been on a good ol' regular TV.
As for the price of the iPhone, considering all it does, I don't think its that outrageous. I just payed $500 for my Palm Treo 700P, (which I am typing on right now) and it does not have an integrated iPod. I think people will pay it, and its not that much higher than other 'smartphones' on the market.
You are very mistaken. There are PLENTY of SD TVs with component inputs I have one sitting at home right now. I believe its made by Sharp. There is a HUGE difference in quality if I plug my DVD player in with 3 cords or 5. component inputs have been around for a LONG time, and have been on a good ol' regular TV.
As for the price of the iPhone, considering all it does, I don't think its that outrageous. I just payed $500 for my Palm Treo 700P, (which I am typing on right now) and it does not have an integrated iPod. I think people will pay it, and its not that much higher than other 'smartphones' on the market.