new AppleTV 3 & Siri - Page 3

I think to say Apple "does not get the living room" is erroneous. Steve Jobs used to say that Apple was not going to doing anything substantial in TV until there was an opportunity to get rid of the set top box. He said people didn't want another box to plug in and the fact is that the vast majority of TV viewers have a TV, a set top box, and a DVD player.

And to say that the margin in TVs is low misses the entire point. The reason Apple would market their own TV is to offer an integrated product that is easy to use and has dramatically more functionality than what you can get from Samsung, Sony, etc.

And voice recognition IS ready for prime time. You know this if you've used any of the Google voice recognition products for mobile search, or any of the current cloud-based dictation products. The accuracy is exceptional.

I for one would buy one of those TVs for the simple fact of getting rid of my remote. I would love to be able to say "Channel 507" and have the TV switch on, change the input from Boxee or whatever. It will be huge.

All that said I think Apple's real problem is going to be pricing. TV pricing is pretty cutthroat, and they'll be charging significantly more than anyone else. If anything keep them from executing on this I think that will be it.

Sure sign, its happened before.

There is lots of opportunity to get rid of the box. Has been for the past 4-5 years actually. With fast broadband available the same shift from albums to singles that happened in music has been happening in TV. People want to watch a few niche shows and the "branding" of cable/TV channels means less to them. Most of these people have been forced to download the content by "alternative" means.

The demand (read: opportunity) has been there for a long time. Problem is content distributors dont want to die, although they are redundant, and they have the content creators by the gonads, since they are a cash cow from the slowly dying legacy model.



You seem to be hitting both sides of the fence here. TV magins and pricing are obviously linked. I still believe that Apple's play on the next generation Apple TV (this time really including a TV) will not to be help cord-cutters. Rather Apple will sell it exclusively with tied-in subscription to American Cable TV companies, as a tool for these players try and stem the flow of cord cutters. This is only way Apple can make enough guaranteed money from this - they are not very keen on decks that are not stacked.

And not coincidentally it would mean literally replacing the cable box, which is what Jobs believed was the only way to succeed. Just that most of us would rather this change was eliminating a redundant layer of the value chain and creating value, instead of perpetuating it and tapping value.

I think this makes more sense than most things I have seen on the subject. Teaming up with cable/sat/telecom companies would be more likely to succeed. I have never believed that people wanted out of cable and company. Unfortunately, what they do want is to pay less for the same content they want. A pay as you go model would result in higher not lower costs except for those who basically don't watch much TV.

It's a tricky situation. I still don't think an Apple TV is coming any time soon, if ever. A souped up ATV2 can be produced with little risk. It would essentially be like the current one but with 1080p capabilities. I can't even imagine an app store for it. The so-called iTV has a lot of risk associated with it.

Finally, the whole notion of a voice controlled remote seems crazy, to me. I can just imagine the confusion when 6 or more people are sitting around such a TV. It sounds very nice to a single person or a couple who have a very organized approach to watching shows. TV is not quite as neat and packaged. A lot of people will turn on their sets just for background noise and an occasional glance.

philip

It's not an either/or proposition. You have a remote control App on your iphone/ipad. You can either tap navigate on the screen there or if you feel like it you you talk in the the device. Its not about shouting 15 feet across the room to your TV, as far as I would imagine. Its a bit of a gimmick, but anything that addresses lazy people generally does well as far as remote controls go.

I dont think I would buy this new generation Apple TV thing, but I can imagine it will get people to fork over money.

I don't really want to be using an iPad or iPhone as a remote control. I am as lazy as the next person but this whole voice navigation thing for TV's seems off the deep end. I do like Siri in the iPhone, but that is very different.

People don't just folk over money to Apple for the fun of it. There's a reason they have done well. For years we've put up with electronic junk, poor GUI's, false promises, hype, etc ... in both the media player world and the computer world. NeXT was years ahead of the bunch way back and they still are. The Apple haters have been portraying people who buy Apple products as fools. They point to some product with more memory, faster processor, bigger screen, bigger everything ... and imply we must be crazy to buy inferior products at "inflated" prices. It really is they who are missing the point.

I guess I am saying that the voice gimmick will not fool anyone. Same goes with the app store for TV fiascos that currently exist.

TV is about content. If Apple or Google or Microsoft can present that in an appealing way then they will get some attention. No matter what, no one is going to do it without the help of the current cable/sat/telecom players.

MediaRoom (Microsoft's sw for ip tv), Roku, Apple TV are neat steps forward. Same with the Xbox and PS3. Google TV, Boxee seem to me to be leaps backwards, especially GTV. What a mess that is.

Philip

Again, why paint the world in black and White while ignoring the nuance. Many Apple products are clearly superior - others are riding the brand.

As for the consumers, many understand what they are looking for and find a superior Apple product that they feel is worth the premium. However, a great many consumers do fork over money for Apple products as a result of herd mentality - not because they actually have a clue or could differentiate what is good or what they need. I mean how many folks out there have IPhones and basically actually use like 3 apps after buying 10? All too many.

Besides, If you are marketed to enough, fed product placements on TV and journalists who plug Apple products while supposedly reviewing other items, well no surprise on the outcome.

Apple has a lot to offer. However on the TV front my fear is they are out to line their pockets first and foremost and this will doom the while situation, as moving the TV forward requires the POV that one must serve the consumer and the technology first- by necessarily disintermidiating the current middlemen. All those mansions in Holloywood are in technological terms, excess profits of outdated middlemen. And Apple will never try to kneecap them, instead seeking a commission for perpetuating them. Which will never generate the type Apple TV that consumers deserve.

Well it is true that consumer products are often things we want but don't need. Marketing is effective in promoting consumption. This applies to almost everything around, not just Apple products.

I don't feel that the iTV is even a realistic rumour so it's difficult to talk about it.

As far as the way wealth is distributed, that is complicated. In a capitalist system people get what those around are willing to give them. You have sports' celebrities earning what many consider obscene salaries. The same goes for some in the entertainment industry. I don't see how you can change that easily. I suppose you could have a bunch of civil servants deciding who gets what. Doesn't seem appealing. Chaotic more than anything.

Just because you are the middleman does not make you worthless. It takes a lot of layers to deliver entertainment to billions of people. I really don't feel that consumers are badly served by the current system. I understand that the cable cutters feel they are paying for things they don't want. Unfortunately the pay as you go model for TV would result in more expensive products and fewer, not more, choice.

I am not sure what Apple can bring to the living room. The ATV1/2 are nice products. Not revolutionary. Noone else seems to be doing much better. Google TV is one big mess, Smart TV's are TV's with weak media players built in, the games' consoles seem to have brought the most to the TV ( other than sat/cable/telecom).

The bottom line is that I don't think we will see as big a change in the way TV content is delivered as we have with music. What would be nice would be to have ads placed before and after shows as opposed to every 8 minutes. For me, being able to avoid ads or having shows and sports games run without the interruption would be a revolution. As it is the content seems to be designed around the ads. Instead of worrying about iTV's it would better for people to figure out way of delivering content the way it is meant to be. Obviously ads are important. They have just evolved in the wrong way to the point where they are wrecking the product.

philip

I just want to point out that this is a much repeated myth about a la carte being more expensive. Not true at all. Fact is that most people value and follow a small handfull of show. The rest are of no value and people would not pay for them - that's the excess fat that is forced down your throat by the 500 channelsmodel. It is also where the mansions in Hollywood come from.

Most of what consumers with cable are forced to pay for has an actual market value no higher than all the free - ie price zero - content on the Internet.

So the job here is give me one box that accesses content I want and isn't forcing me to pay for other things. It doesn't exist.

As such it is misleading to call this a capitalist system - most of the content we pay for in cable is forced into "basic" packages - it has never been allowed to compete in the open market of subscription.

I mean do you know of any cable company that offers open access to HBO or Showtime subscription without first forcing you to buy 100 junk channels? I don't - so let's face the facts here. That's the disintermediation needed right there - same as the digital world has forced the music industry to focus on selling single songs that people want - the can no longer pull that nonsense of forcing you to buy an album with 2 good songs and 2 mediocre and 6 filler. This is also what's cutting their middleman rents that pay for their mansions - all the talk about piracy is a red herring. The web makes the ripoff game harder - and it reduces the consumer's total outlay. Video will not escape this law of digital. No industry has ever done so.

There are mansions everywhere. Your implication that the ones in California are undeserved is something that is not clear to me.

I do not agree with you that it is a myth. I do agree that most people only follow a handful of shows. They are essentially getting the rest for free.

Your view is that only those few shows should survive. What will you do with all the actors and support people who work in the rest of the industry? Speciality channels would have to disappear. The situation is very similar to treatments for rare unpopular diseases. Drug companies have little incentive to pursue orphan drugs and diseases. The money is basically for the popular diseases. With your approach people had better hope that they contract a popular illness.

There is an entertainment industry. It cannot live off a handful of shows, unless those shows cost a lot (which they would have to unless you wanted to dismantle the whole content industry).

This whole market value approach to the creative process is tricky. You need an environment in which artists can survive. That can't happen if you only recognize them after they become icons. With your approach small countries would never have artistic communities. As it is, a lot of the world feels it is dominated by American culture since when given the choice TV audiences tend to go for the popular American shows. Should the rest of the world just roll over and tell their youth to forget about music, acting, etc...? The same reasoning applies to within the US. Your emphasis on funding only what is popular would kill off most of the arts' communities in the country. This market forces' approach to the creative process won't work.

Philip

At this point in time it is fair to say that yes many of the mansions in Hollywood are undeserved, with reference to the dubious bundling practices in cable & satellite TV. Given where technology is today, that's a fairly uncontroversial POV.

I have said only a few programs deserve to live. I said only a few would be able to withstand a free market in which people pay a la carte for programming. That isn't necessarily a reflection of quality or skill of the content producers - look at PBS for example, which could not survive if it went "commercial". But indeed there are manyTV shows that would earn less money if consumers werent being forced to buy them. That's not a mathematically controversial point either.

Nor is it a bad thing. Art has survived from the beginning of time in every society. It has not never needed Hollywood middlemen to survive. Nor does Hollywood care much about art for that matter. "500 channels and nothing on" isn't rhetoric - it's a basic description of what you get from Hollywood today. This is what I meaningless when I say there is massive fat and waste in this system - its supporting middlemen, not art.

Let's face it - at this point the tecnology exists for TV to reflect consumer expectation of 2012 ie unbundled, all content instantly available on consumer's choice of device irrespective of geographic location. And the facility is there for quality content to reach an audiene with lower barriers and lower dustribution costs. The only blockage is industry greed and unwillingness to relinquish outdated middleman positions. It's no surprise then that the industry sems to be investing more on lawyers than in giving consumers what they want.

In that light, well yes it seems fair to predict say things are out of what and a correction is overdue in the industry.

Wishful thinking. I can see 1080p, A5X. BT4 if it doesn't increase costs. In other words basically what is needed to mirror iPad3 stuff. No Siri, no apps, no BT remote, etc... In other words basically what we already have. What is it with this voice ATV thing. What's the point? Same with a BT remote unless you are thinking hiding the ATV or perhaps a motion aware remote for games along the Roku lines. Apps make no sense on the ATV(have a look at the pathetic GTV apps) and mirroring iDevice input and screens is easier. The voice thing is a gimmick on a TV. Perhaps for Skype type operations but that won't happen with a $100 box.

Philip

Any last minute predictions regarding the Apple TV 3? My guess is it will remain Apple centric enough I'll pass.

I'm sure it will be just as "apple centric". All of their products are. But, if it supports 1080p output then I'm getting one since jailbreaking and running plex should finally be usable for me. Right now, my readynas ultra doesn't have the horsepower to transcode on the fly, so my 1080p materials stutters.

MacRumors says 1080p, Bluetooth enabled, new interface and still $99. That's enough for me to add two more to my network. If so, I'll use them on the wired network as 1080 and wireless ain't there yet.

1080p, better processor, more RAM (512megs), same remote but better remote app. Perhaps new streaming options. Same price.

philip

I really like the idea of apple TV but, wonder how you would be able to play blu-ray rips with lossless audio on it.

As I mentioned to above, you can serve blu ray rips to it from a server running plex (core audio, not full hd audio right now), or you can run xbmc on it. You just need to jailbreak. Were you asking how you store and play the files from the atv itself?

I believe 1080p is a given, but if they would add bitperfect audio output then I will snap up three of them in an instant. That is the one really nagging thing for me that all 2-channel audio is resampled to 16/48. What is the point of iTunes supporting 24/88+ if it is just being downsampled?

Officially announced, appears little different from current ATV2 other than 1080p output and a slightly revamped UI, is also the same price as the current ATV2.

A5 probably in it, I'd guess RAM still at 256MB to keep costs down most likely that and it doesn't really need any more from Apples point of view.

Doesn't sound too exciting really. Should have been 1080p when they first introduced this form factor.

I take it these don't support MPEG2 just like the previous ones?

Why would they have 1080p support then when there was no 1080p content? Just to have bragging rights and higher costs? The only reason for 1080p now is the iPhone 4S and the latest iPad. It's not as though streaming in 1080p is a big deal.

Apple is headed in a different direction than BluRay. You want BluRay rips with its audio then you buy something else. Perhaps BluRay will end up really popular and things will change but it does seem as though the future is getting bleaker and bleaker for disks. The 1080p streaming from Netflix seems to look just as good on my 720p ATV2 which then gets upscaled by the TV. The nitrates used to be able to stream 1080p are such that you really aren't gaining a lot. The same goes for audio and streaming. They are not about to stream HD Audio.

The new ATV's main other addition is how is interacts with iCloud. Of course if one doesn't have an iDevice, doesn't care for iCloud or iTunes then an ATV makes no sense at all except as an inexpensive XBMC or Plex platform after jailbreaking.

It does seem as though we keep going around and around with all of this. Most people here would live to see a general media player from Apple. It will never happen. It is simply a waste of time to keep pining away for something that the ATV was never designed to be. It's not as though there is a shortage of excellent general media players. PCH, Dune, Boxee, WD all have great players for sale.

As far as the new ATV goes, it is probably not worth upgrading from the ATV2 unless you have an iPhone4S or the latest iPad or perhaps a video camera that does 1080p.

philip

I think mpeg2 is now a thing of the past, even though it is still useful to many people. It may be best to either convert those videos, a pain, or just get something that will support it.

Philip

Hey I love apple products too.... maybe not as big fanboy as you though!

I enjoy the 1080p streams available from Netflix, Amazon VOD and VUDU on the two Roku units that can display them. That's why I skipped throwing away $99 on the ATV2 when they announced it was only 720p. Believe me, I love Apple products but wasn't biting on something I knew they'd replace so soon.