Tim Cook Speaks on Apple, iPhone, Apple TV

[Evangelion]

Check this out.
1. Goldvish “Le million” = $1,000,000
2. Vertu Signature Cobra = $310,000
3. Sony Ericsson Black Diamond = $300,000
4. Vertu Diamond = $88,000
5. Motorola V220 Special Edition = $51,800

X. Apple iPhone $499 - $599

Which, would you buy ?

I'm sorry, but that's one of the most pointless comparisons I have seen.

 

[tribulation]

That's quite a fallacy. Apple is not "designing a device that prevents" anything. Show me why you can't use a TiVO in your home entertainment system? Is Apple blocking your ability to use a DVR? Couldn't you have.. *gasp*... both?

By your logic, I could argue that TiVO is designing a device with limited functionality since it forces me to get tv shows through broadcast tv or cable and won't let me buy season passes that auto-sync without ads, or auto-update as I receive new podcasts.

Obviously Apple can do whatever they wish, just like Tivo can. With a new device, they could have gone the route to provide an all-in-one box that would be *it* for everyone. Having "everything" doesn't mean it's confusing, bloated, and overloaded, it's a simple task that works hand in hand with the current offering they have planned for iTV.

While of course I *can* keep my Tivo (and guess I'll have to), but I'd be much happier with a single box, and 1 remote. Another box + remote that does so little just isn't worth it to me - there's nothing in the iTV that I'd want to use.

I guess as a few have mentioned, if you watch 2-4 shows or so, maybe buying them per episode is ok. I still don't really see how you get along without at least basic cable for news, etc. The online news and local news websites are just another step (especially since the iTV doesn't have a web browser to even let me view it). Almost all news sites that do provide video are just little clips of a single story, not an easily downloadable video that I could even sync with iTunes even if I wanted to. You miss all of the live coverage of anything. With Tivo/DVR, I get everything and more - and am free to explore new shows and spontaneous new series whenever I feel like it.

 

[tribulation]

By your logic, I could argue that TiVO is designing a device with limited functionality since it forces me to get tv shows through broadcast tv or cable and won't let me buy season passes that auto-sync without ads, or auto-update as I receive new podcasts.

In addition to my last post - if you have your Tivo connected to your network (wirelessly also - it's easy), you can listen to podcasts, Live365 radio stations, weather, local traffic, a few games, and more. It also supports live streaming of your iTunes songs and iPhoto library (pretty neat actually). Plus if you have more than 1 tivo in a house, you can transfer any show(s) between them.

BUT it's Tivo. It's not all that pretty, and not the most integrated experience I could envision. Apple could sure do it better, which is what I was hoping for with iTV. So much lost potential. I would like nothing better than to have the nice Apple UI on top of all of those features, it would top Tivo's more 80's interface by leaps and bounds. I want 1 box, 1 remote, with the majority of features I use the most. Currently that is the DVR functionality. With an iTV it would be DVR functionality (if it existed) and possibly a few purchases of movies from iTunes now and then, and their nice UI. Otherwise, no sale from me.

 

[gauriemma]

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?

That would be fine and dandy of it played ALL of the video content that's on my computer, not just what I got from iTunes (which would be...nothing). But as it stands now, I'm not going to have much luck playing avi, divx, or mov files. So no Apple TV for me.

 

[dcranston]

BUT it's Tivo. It's not all that pretty, and not the most integrated experience I could envision. Apple could sure do it better, which is what I was hoping for with iTV. So much lost potential. I would like nothing better than to have the nice Apple UI on top of all of those features, it would top Tivo's more 80's interface by leaps and bounds.

The problem here is that I don't think you're giving Apple enough credit. I don't purchase an Apple product for it's nice UI, I purchase it to enable me to do things in ways that improve my experience and make my life simpler. While you could certainly argue a nicer UI is that way, I feel like given the argument that you and others are making, the real push should be for TiVO to make a better UI.

My point is that Apple gets the future: DVRs are a temporary solution to a larger issue. I don't see TiVO in 10 years still existing. While they do fit a need, and do it reasonably well, it's akin to arguing that something that automatically records NPR's Fresh Air is superior to simply pulling the show whenever you want it. While the former may serve your needs, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which it was much less convenient or useful.

On another note, I find television news quite appalling, and live TV seems to only suck away my time.

I think the Apple TV is attempting to balance two acts:

- You are better served for active seeking by using a computer. A laptop is a better interface for active tasks than a television ever has been... despite this ideal people have been arguing for for decades.

- Consuming media is a passive act. The Apple TV does not try to pretend that browsing the web on a television makes sense, but instead attempts to provide you with the core basics: something apple is good at. This allows you to continue to use your computer for discovering and managing new tv shows, exploring web information (weather, news, etc), while allowing you to veg out on your couch watching Lost or Zoolander.

So I disagree that Apple should be providing everything to everyone, but I do agree that this solution may not fit everyone's needs as an inherent result. Whether or not it fits enough peoples needs and will adapt over time to be a better fit for some who don't find this product to fit their needs, remains to be seen.

 

[mrthieme]

The problem here is that I don't think you're giving Apple enough credit. I don't purchase an Apple product for it's nice UI, I purchase it to enable me to do things in ways that improve my experience and make my life simpler. While you could certainly argue a nicer UI is that way, I feel like given the argument that you and others are making, the real push should be for TiVO to make a better UI.

My point is that Apple gets the future: DVRs are a temporary solution to a larger issue. I don't see TiVO in 10 years still existing. While they do fit a need, and do it reasonably well, it's akin to arguing that something that automatically records NPR's Fresh Air is superior to simply pulling the show whenever you want it. While the former may serve your needs, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which it was much less convenient or useful.

On another note, I find television news quite appalling, and live TV seems to only suck away my time.

I think the Apple TV is attempting to balance two acts:

- You are better served for active seeking by using a computer. A laptop is a better interface for active tasks than a television ever has been... despite this ideal people have been arguing for for decades.

- Consuming media is a passive act. The Apple TV does not try to pretend that browsing the web on a television makes sense, but instead attempts to provide you with the core basics: something apple is good at. This allows you to continue to use your computer for discovering and managing new tv shows, exploring web information (weather, news, etc), while allowing you to veg out on your couch watching Lost or Zoolander.

So I disagree that Apple should be providing everything to everyone, but I do agree that this solution may not fit everyone's needs as an inherent result. Whether or not it fits enough peoples needs and will adapt over time to be a better fit for some who don't find this product to fit their needs, remains to be seen.

Very well stated. I simply wonder if this product is aimed towards an era that has not begun. Believe me, I am waiting for the day when I can throw away my crappy Comcast set top, and stop paying high monthly fees for tons of crappy shows I don't watch to be piped into my home 24/7, just to get the few I do. I also don't particularly like storing stacks of plastic discs.

I want this new age of media to start asap, and I'm glad to see Apple taking steps towards this end. I just wonder how well a product that is totally geared toward the future can do when the majority of the population is still struggling to catch up to what's currently available.

 

[CoreWeb]

Very well stated. I simply wonder if this product is aimed towards an era that has not begun. Believe me, I am waiting for the day when I can throw away my crappy Comcast set top, and stop paying high monthly fees for tons of crappy shows I don't watch to be piped into my home 24/7, just to get the few I do. I also don't particularly like storing stacks of plastic discs.

I want this new age of media to start asap, and I'm glad to see Apple taking steps towards this end. I just wonder how well a product that is totally geared toward the future can do when the majority of the population is still struggling to catch up to what's currently available.

It is possible; the TV may be aimed at an era which hasn't yet begun... Apple could possibly be making the same mistake as they seemed to make with the Newton. (I do not have first-hand knowledge of this, but to me, it appears that they made one of the first PDAs, and at the time, there wasn't much of a market for it. Now, though, PDAs are everywhere...)

But, I think Apple may have actually planned for this. They aren't creating a new field, they are making it work; people like Microsoft have already tried with cumbersome "media extenders" that don't "just work." Apple, however, probably aims to do something much bigger than "media extenders."

I think Apple plans not to take over DVD, but to take over Blu-ray and HD-DVD before they have a chance to spread. Why bother with optical media, after all? Disk space is cheap, so why not simply store everything on disks, and back them up (say with Time Machine?).

To do this, I think Apple will do one simple thing: I think Apple will allow 720p w/surround sound content to be downloadable from the iTunes store, and playable on the TV, all for significantly less than it costs to buy an HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc (isn't that ~$30+?). If Apple does this, people may start asking, "Why should we pay more for these high-definition disks, when we can download it, without even having to leave our computer?"

Apple could further enhance this by allowing movies to be downloaded (and watched while downloading) from the TV, much like they do with iTunes. Then people will ask, "Why bother going to the store to buy HD media, when we can download it and start watching it within a few minues?"

Apple could potentially be the surprise player in the HD-DVD/Bluray wars. The only weakness they would have is that they do not support the extra features in HD-DVD and Blu-ray. I wonder if Apple has something up their sleeves for this as well?

 

[CoreWeb]

Check this out.
1. Goldvish “Le million” = $1,000,000
2. Vertu Signature Cobra = $310,000
3. Sony Ericsson Black Diamond = $300,000
4. Vertu Diamond = $88,000
5. Motorola V220 Special Edition = $51,800

X. Apple iPhone $499 - $599

Which, would you buy ?

At first I thought you were just being silly, comparing the iPhone to obscenely priced phones. But then I thought about it for a minute, and this does make a good point...

The iPhone is clearly way underpriced compared to other luxuy phones.

 

[tribulation]

My point is that Apple gets the future: DVRs are a temporary solution to a larger issue. I don't see TiVO in 10 years still existing. While they do fit a need, and do it reasonably well, it's akin to arguing that something that automatically records NPR's Fresh Air is superior to simply pulling the show whenever you want it. While the former may serve your needs, it's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which it was much less convenient or useful.

Ya I definitely see your point, and see that it can be useful for some people. While someone has to innovate to change industries, cable in this example, it would be great if there was an interim solution along the way. I too buy things that help fulfill a need, a nice UI is just one part, I totally agree. So far, Tivo is fulfilling most of my needs, but it could be better by far. One nice *extra* feature would be the streaming parts that make up the current iTV. I think they could still innovate while giving current users something now (lets face it, it will be years before anything major happens with the way broadcasts are sent/received). If they don't quickly and vastly improve the feature set of it, I strongly feel that it will go the way of the Newton, cube, Mac TV, and so on.

But I see your side of things, where you only want a few shows and the iTV I guess would provide a pretty good module for that. I would love nothing more than to toss my DVR and cable subscription and have all my favorite stuff beamed to me right away. But I also realize that this can't physically happen in the next couple/few years [network speeds, licensing deals, and the rest of the mess]. So instead of Apple loosing out completely on the extremely large audience of DVR owning people, they could have added a fairly simple DVR feature in there and attract millions upon millions of Tivo users. I just looked on Tivo's site and they reported over 4.4 million users as of Oct 2006. With Apple's brand, marketing, and vision on top of a similar product, it could easily become king.

Some people say that it just isn't "that" type of device. But, it could, and should be. Because I don't think that "their" type of device is going to really catch on unless they can completely change the entire TV industry as it is now, overnight. The idea behind it is nice, but at this point in time, is just totally unfeasible. On the other hand if I could subscribe to Apple as a cable-type provider and get on demand downloaded shows of anything on cable, at anytime, for a single monthly fee - I'd be there. But show-for-show, no way.

 

[CoreWeb]

Some people say that it just isn't "that" type of device. But, it could, and should be. Because I don't think that "their" type of device is going to really catch on unless they can completely change the entire TV industry as it is now, overnight. The idea behind it is nice, but at this point in time, is just totally unfeasible. On the other hand if I could subscribe to Apple as a cable-type provider and get on demand downloaded shows of anything on cable, at anytime, for a single monthly fee - I'd be there. But show-for-show, no way.

I kind of agree with you here... even with iTunes, Apple allows ripping of CDs. I think, though, that if they allowed ripping of DVDs, that the TV would be a very, very big hit. It's all that is needed, and we would have an iPod for TV, a new paradigm, much like there was with music.

Right now, people will say "I have to buy everything over again." Unless the new content is HD, this could potentially hurt Apple. But if everyone could instead say, "I have nothing to lose - all the DVDs I have go right onto my computer!" then Apple would probably have an very, very big hit. Especially, of course, if DVD ripping was as easy as CD ripping is. I think that Apple would, in fact, like to do this, but I doubt that they will - the movie companies will not let them. (I wonder if Apple can legally do it anyway?)

However, if Apple allows HD content on iTunes, ripping will be much less necessary, the question "Why should I buy everything over again?" will be offset by "I'm getting HD conveniently and inexpensively." Still not as powerful as if Apple allowed DVD ripping, but strong enough that the Apple TV would still succeed in the long run, and possibly (if it is done right), compete and or completely make irrelevant Blu-ray and HD-DVD. The format wars might be ending.

 

[Lucy Brown]

I have to agree with the above posts. I would have liked to buy an itv. At least I have my xbox360 for HD rentals. I can download HD movies in 5.1 for 6 bucks. They dont have a huge selection but then again neither does itunes. I'll make due with my 360 until Apple comes out with something worth buying.

 

[tribulation]

I think that Apple would, in fact, like to do this, but I doubt that they will - the movie companies will not let them. (I wonder if Apple can legally do it anyway?)

I remember seeing Flip4Mac, the company that makes the WMV plugin for Macs, has some new product coming out that lets you rip DVDs legally and store them on your HD. I haven't tested it out, but I think it leaves the DVD's DRM/macrovision stuff intact so it would be legally ok. Maybe Apple could've done something like that.

But there's also the storage issue. Bluray discs are what, 30GB or so I think? That would add up really quick on any currently available HD. I don't think that's really possible to store them on HD for a few years until there is a major innovation in storage technology. Even a 1-2 TB drive would only hold a small movie collection, and that would be too expensive for an entry level new Apple product. Full res stuff is going to be really hard to do without removable discs I think anytime soon.

 

[CoreWeb]

But there's also the storage issue. Bluray discs are what, 30GB or so I think? That would add up really quick on any currently available HD. I don't think that's really possible to store them on HD for a few years until there is a major innovation in storage technology. Even a 1-2 TB drive would only hold a small movie collection, and that would be too expensive for an entry level new Apple product. Full res stuff is going to be really hard to do without removable discs I think anytime soon.

Bluray does store around 30GB (I think it stores 25 on a layer, 50 on two), so yeah space would run out quick... maybe. It depends what is taking up all that space. If it is features which no one will use, or something like that, then all that is needed might be 4GB, or at most 8GB. The current movies are about 1.5GB for 640x272 (a widescreen movie, 2 hours 15 minutes), and 720p is twice the resolution of that (approximately 1280x544 for this movie), so that leaves us with 6 GB for a 720p movie. Add a GB or so for sound, so leave it at around 8 GB.

This might seem a bit much, but on a 300GB hard drive, which costs $100-200, you could store at least 30, probably 40 movies. Better compression technologies might also help. In addition, companies like Microsoft are already allowing downloads of a very small number of high-def movies (even 1080p!), so the proof-of-concept has already been completed anyway. Disk space may still be a problem. Maybe Apple has a way to deal with this? A new compression format, perhaps, new in Quicktime 8? I know, not likely, but...

I think that the reason that the AppleTV doesn't have this large of a hard drive is because it doesn't really need it; the AppleTV's hard drive is meant (I think) to store one or two movies which you would want to watch on it without having to turn iTunes on.

I have been using 720p in my examples here. I have been doing this because 1080p does not seem to be ready yet (not many TVs support it), and anyway, the AppleTV will not support it (yet). In a few years it may be, but as far as I can tell, it is not yet. I'm not saying that the AppleTV will have movie quality as good as Bluray and HD-DVD, but it may be less expensive and easier, meaning that the market for the other two could shrink greatly. (Not necessarily go away).