Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 24th Oct 2011 20:05 UTC
Apple Appleinsider writes: "An anticipated Apple high-definition television set, complete with iOS features including Siri voice commands, FaceTime video chat and access to the App Store, would be a strong product in a massive $100 billion market, according to a new analysis." Last year I explained my vision of a smart TV too (read the comment), and my ideas were pretty much the same thing AppleInsider discusses about today. Back then I was almost laughed at by most OSNews residents for these ideas. I have the feeling that the people who then found my ideas ridiculous, they'll now find a possible Apple smart TV "natural" and "revolutionary".
Order by: Score:
They have plenty of reasons...
by dsmogor on Mon 24th Oct 2011 20:39 UTC
dsmogor
Member since:
2005-09-01

... but all of them are dwarfed the by opportunity to piss Samsung off even more.
What's next, i(vacuum)Cleaner?

Edited 2011-10-24 20:40 UTC

Reply Score: 2

bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

So, I personally believe that within 10 years time, every major electronic device will run a smart OS. Most of these devices would be interconnected on the home network, and they will expose special info that your main controlling device, e.g. a tablet, or a smartphone, will "understand" and build a GUI for it, on the fly. The electronics needed for it would be cheap.


I never read that article but this is something I have also been saying for years now and I think any intelligent tech savvy person sees a future of the kind. The important question is how fast do we get there?

One reason I was a big proponent of the iPhone and iPad (not only when they where announced and then heavily criticised but even before that, when they were just notions) is that they will help us get there faster.
How would the mobile phone industry be today if it weren't for the iPhone? 2012 will give us some great Android Tablets (and maybe Windows 8). Would that be the case if it weren't for the iPad ???

Apple won't be the only ones to offer such an integrated experience in the future, there will be plenty of alternatives, better in some ways, worse in others. However, one reason we got there will be because of Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by zima on Mon 31st Oct 2011 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: They have plenty of reasons..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well I'm glad that Ericsson, ARM, Motorola, Nokia, ZTE, Huawei, Qualcomm, Samsung, Sony (no, not about SE, they do tons more), or Analog Devices (in no particular order, and just a tiny slice of the whole) will greatly help us get there faster.
How would the mobile phone industry be today if it weren't for them? 2007 gave us iPhone, 2010 iPod. Would that be the case of it weren't for those on the list above ??? (and many more)

People limited to experiences of some atypical places might perceive some (one) provider to offer such an integrated experience in the future as chiefly responsible for the "revolution", they might be mostly oblivious to plenty of alternatives, better in some ways, worse in others. However, most of the reasons we got there will be because of entities on the list above, and many more.



In case you didn't realize yet: what you did is exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty irking people tired of Apple fanatics.


And as for general premise... perhaps, but probably not to such a degree. It's not the first time it was prophesied, reminds me for example about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcomputer_revolution#The_Home_Comp...
Yes, at least now the technology is largely in place; but many scenarios will continue being impractical - including vacuum cleaners (Roomba and its ilk are more a sort of self-propelled brooms; proper vacuum cleaner is more practical when "hands-on" for reasons outside of electronics responsible for automation & networking; similar for, say, stove of washing machine - except for some simple timers)

Reply Score: 2

v Instant hit
by kragil on Mon 24th Oct 2011 20:47 UTC
Comment by leos
by leos on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:00 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

I have the feeling that the people who then found my ideas ridiculous, they'll now find a possible Apple smart TV "natural" and "revolutionary".

Is the passive aggressive editorializing really necessary? The replies to your original comment were legitimate points, including questioning the value of having an integrated unit vs a TV attachment (like the AppleTV).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by leos
by Yoko_T on Wed 26th Oct 2011 21:15 UTC in reply to "Comment by leos"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

I have the feeling that the people who then found my ideas ridiculous, they'll now find a possible Apple smart TV "natural" and "revolutionary".

Is the passive aggressive editorializing really necessary? The replies to your original comment were legitimate points, including questioning the value of having an integrated unit vs a TV attachment (like the AppleTV).


What really funny about Eugenia's post is the fact we've just seen over 800k people tell Netflix to take a hike.

Somehow people like Eugenia seem to miss the the point of stuff like this when they start raving about about junk like Apple TV.

Reply Score: 1

I doubt it
by ronaldst on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:03 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

When Steve said he cracked it, I don't think he meant Apple would be building TVs.

Microsoft already solved it. It's familiar. Easy and no requires no habit change.

Here's what's coming up: AppleTV is being equipped with GameCenter and AppStore.

Reply Score: 1

us manufacturing
by fran on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:16 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

You should think because it probably is going to cost 2-3 time more than the competition it could/ought to be produced in the US.
Not
"But all the profits come to the US dude!"
Yes. But how many worker class people own shares these days?
How much taxes are the government going to recover from the rich that owns these shares. Not much

Edited 2011-10-24 21:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: us manufacturing
by JAlexoid on Tue 25th Oct 2011 00:54 UTC in reply to "us manufacturing"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

The cayman islands will disagree with that all profits go to US.

Reply Score: 3

MS Already Cracked This...
by tomcat on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:30 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

It's called Xbox 360. And if you look at the deals in the works with Comcast and others, plus the fact that it already has the features -- including a body motion-based controller -- I don't think that people are going to want to pay the Apple premium for things that are already done pretty damned well.

Reply Score: 3

RE: MS Already Cracked This...
by Soulbender on Tue 25th Oct 2011 14:35 UTC in reply to "MS Already Cracked This..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I don't think that people are going to want to pay the Apple premium for things that are already done pretty damned well.


But....that's Apple's entire business strategy. Take existing technology, change the look a bit, add the Apple logo and presto....profit!.

Reply Score: 4

Nope
by phoenix on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:55 UTC
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

I said back then, and I'll say it again now: TV screens should be just dumb screens with lots of input connectors. Everything else (VCR, PVR, DVD, Blu-Ray, game consoles, media centres, etc) should be external boxes that plug into the TV screen. Even the cable tuner. There should be no functional difference between a "TV" screen and a "PC" screen besides the resolution and the number of inputs.

What happens when Apple updates iOS and deprecates the "Apple TV" after 2 years?

What happens when the flash disk in the TV dies?

What happens when the flash disk corrupts?

We need to be making TVs dumber, not smarter.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nope
by Doc Pain on Mon 24th Oct 2011 23:32 UTC in reply to "Nope"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I said back then, and I'll say it again now: TV screens should be just dumb screens with lots of input connectors. Everything else (VCR, PVR, DVD, Blu-Ray, game consoles, media centres, etc) should be external boxes that plug into the TV screen. Even the cable tuner. There should be no functional difference between a "TV" screen and a "PC" screen besides the resolution and the number of inputs.


A powerful and extensible approach, but it seems that customers want the "one size fits all", the "egg-laying wool-milk-sow", the "one device that does have everything". Of course possible devices are short on life time, as technology advances very fast, but customers seem to be used to it. After all, their constant re-buying of stuff they already have (i. e. stuff they need to perform the same trivial actions, like watching TV) benefits industry to make cheaper and cheaper products which in turn makes the products spread wider, and this again means that more and more "outdated" products need to be bought again...

Additionally, making the TV "just a monitor" could cause tax decreaes in some countries.

In Germany, you have to pay a kind of tax for any "radio reception capable" device you own: A TV, a radio, a PC or a smartphone (which you can also use to watch TV, just like with using a PC). The exception is a monitor that doesn't contain the functionality to "receive radio transmission". There's even an authority for that -- in fact, it's just a private company collecting the "TV toll" for the state, see "GEZ". Devices have to be registered with the state so they can calculate your individual "TV toll" depending on how many devices you own.

What happens when Apple updates iOS and deprecates the "Apple TV" after 2 years?


What always happens: You need to buy something new, or stick with what you have in a limited state as long as possible, just until you can't use it anymore (like analog satelite reception in Germany).

What happens when the flash disk in the TV dies?


Call iService. :-)

What happens when the flash disk corrupts?


Call iService and iPolice, :-)

We need to be making TVs dumber, not smarter.


The "free market" won't let you do this, as customers have been conditioned by advertising that they need "smart devices" everywhere and everytime, even if all they do is letting the TV raining down on them.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nope
by kristoph on Tue 25th Oct 2011 06:18 UTC in reply to "Nope"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

All of your point's apply to any given iPhone, iPad, AppleTV, and, to a lesser extent, any Apple laptop, iMac, Mac Mini, etc.

There will always be those who want to and can upgrade regularly and there will be those will be happy to pay a 3 year old Apple TV at half price.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nope
by David on Wed 26th Oct 2011 22:08 UTC in reply to "Nope"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I agree with you that the TV should be a dumb screen. I don't have any idea whether Apple is really making a TV, but if they do, I'd sure prefer that it be something like a giant sized Thunderbolt display with a space to attach an AppleTV on the back. It can have the camera and sensors and ports attached, but I agree that it would be best if you could upgrade the AppleTV hardware, or use different hardware, and I think it would also be best for Apple.

On the other hand, it's probably cheaper just to include the AppleTV hardware inside. And the TV has to have at least some rudimentary OS, if only to handle the menus and settings. It's probably easier just to make it a full-blown AppleTV.

Reply Score: 1

Comment Title
by Bringbackanonposting on Mon 24th Oct 2011 21:57 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

iSmartTV - Apple innovates again! What's next iHybrid cars with wait for it, an iPad to control the heater!

Reply Score: 1

RE: In Soviet Russia...
by drstorm on Tue 25th Oct 2011 00:13 UTC in reply to "Comment Title"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU!

I guess, not just in Soviet Russia anymore. ;)

Edit: That was supposed to be a new thread. Sorry...

Edited 2011-10-25 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In Soviet Russia...
by zima on Sat 29th Oct 2011 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: In Soviet Russia..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The best mindfrak - first two meaning of "CCTV" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCTV_(disambiguation) ;) ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment Title
by kristoph on Tue 25th Oct 2011 06:23 UTC in reply to "Comment Title"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

When I plug my car into the my iPhone the iPhone tells me it does not like that 'accessory'.

Fortunately the latest versions of the car are more iPhone friendly and my lease is up in March.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment Title
by zima on Sat 29th Oct 2011 15:20 UTC in reply to "Comment Title"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, I would love for Apple to enter into cars (some sort of dashboards of theirs / stock secondary controls solution / provider of head units)

They aren't anywhere near the only entity more or less valuing minimalist design, but they are one of very few which have "hip" consumer clout in the US, a place among most profligate with cars, so ultimately greatly impacting by its whims the overall direction of manufacturers - and they need a wake up kick (even the usual distorted views, about the overall market, of loud consumers in few atypical places would be almost certainly worth it)

UIs of new cars are getting atrocious right now. This is one of the areas where "less is more" is very, very true. It's not far (at my place, where this rubbish didn't yet quite trickle "down") from getting so bad that "econoboxes" are simply better* inside, by the virtue of not being overloaded by a galore of frivolous gadgets, dictating a horrible UI which hijacks most of interactions / what is mostly a hardly useful ballast (not in the mass sense of course, but competing for attention & masking what is crucial)

*particularly when paired with a decent smartphone (Apple, Android, "even" Symbian, whatever)


Weird that Steve Jobs didn't push for this - wasn't he driving some top of the line Mercedes for the last few years? (and they are among the atrocious like that offenders)

Reply Score: 2

Apple? Really?
by JAlexoid on Tue 25th Oct 2011 01:01 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

The TV is the most frustration free device in my home, except for the lighting. What possibly cold Steve "cracked it"?
Sure... Cable box has crazy navigation and not really easy to use. TV however requires 5 buttons in my home - On/Off, Volume Up and Down, Next Prev channel.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Apple? Really?
by kristoph on Tue 25th Oct 2011 06:21 UTC in reply to "Apple? Really?"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

I don't own a TV but my neighbour has a TV, a cable box, a tivo, a Wii and other crazy stuff. There is like 6 remotes, several of which are required just to turn the thing on.

Oh and he has an iPad so he can find the specific shows among the 160 channels he has.

Plenty of room to innovate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Apple? Really?
by aesiamun on Wed 26th Oct 2011 04:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Apple? Really?"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's see what I have, cable box, tv, XBox 360, Blu-Ray player and Windows Media Center...

All Audio/Visual equipment except for the game controllers are controlled with a single Logitech Harmony remote control. You do not need 6 remotes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Apple? Really?
by Yoko_T on Wed 26th Oct 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Apple? Really?"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

Let's see what I have, cable box, tv, XBox 360, Blu-Ray player and Windows Media Center...

All Audio/Visual equipment except for the game controllers are controlled with a single Logitech Harmony remote control. You do not need 6 remotes.


You haven't needed 6 remotes for anything for a good long while.

Hell, you can buy generic universal remotes for around $10-20 US in most department stores that basically does what the Logitech Harmony remote control does.

PS. No, I wouldn't buy a Logitech Harmony remote for any reason.

It's a silly, overpriced toy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Apple? Really?
by David on Wed 26th Oct 2011 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apple? Really?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

You're incorrect. Simple universal remotes don't have scripting capability, meaning that to you may have to push a combination of buttons and slide switches to do what you need to, and if your mother in law needs to use the TV, you'll need a two-page step by step instruction on how to turn on the TV, reciever, DVD player, and cable box. Expensive remotes like the harmony allow you to program one button to do a lot of things. It may not be worth it to you, but that doesn't mean it's silly or unnecessary.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Apple? Really?
by Yoko_T on Fri 28th Oct 2011 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Apple? Really?"
Yoko_T Member since:
2011-08-18

You're incorrect. Simple universal remotes don't have scripting capability, meaning that to you may have to push a combination of buttons and slide switches to do what you need to, and if your mother in law needs to use the TV, you'll need a two-page step by step instruction on how to turn on the TV, reciever, DVD player, and cable box. Expensive remotes like the harmony allow you to program one button to do a lot of things. It may not be worth it to you, but that doesn't mean it's silly or unnecessary.


You're the one who don't know what you're talking about. My RCA RCR815 Universal Learning remote made around 2005 which can control up to 8 components most certainly does have Macro/Scripting capability- A total of 20 keypress commands can be stored under each of the six available macro keys (number keys 1-6).

All I have to to execute a macro is press the macro key on the remote and then press the number of the key containing the macro I want to execute (1-6).


And it most certainly was under $20 when I bought it at Walmart a few years ago-not on clearance either.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Apple? Really?
by David on Fri 28th Oct 2011 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apple? Really?"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

I guess the price points for "fancy" remotes have dropped considerably since the last time I was in the market. And doing a quick google showed me that in fact the lower-end Logitech Harmony remotes are available in the $25-50 price range. The big advantage of the Logitechs in my opinion is that you program them through your computer by downloading the specs (though I must say their client app is sucky). I think it's worth paying a little extra for.

Reply Score: 1

Natural controlled TV?
by phoudoin on Tue 25th Oct 2011 08:31 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

kid1: Channel5!
Siri: Done.
kid2: No, switch to Cartoon Network!
Siri: Done.
kid1: No, I want Channel5!
Siri: Done.
kid2: No, Cartoon Network!
Siri: Done.
kid3: Siri, Disney Channel please.
Siri: Your will is my order, kid3.
kid2 & kid1: No!!!!

A nightmare, with twice the noise than today nightmare (Siri answers will add to the kids noise).

A dream will be:

kid2 & kid1: No!!!
Siri: this family is broken, I'm switch off the family TV.

But this dream is already possible, and is not as expensive as any iDevice from Apple. it's called "no TV".

Reply Score: 3

Why not
by denis.troller on Tue 25th Oct 2011 09:57 UTC
denis.troller
Member since:
2007-06-11

Having Siri on the TV puts the whole idea in a different light.

I was always put off by the slow, slow, SLOW navigation that comes with smart TVs. That is why I use plex with an iPad app to browse and select my videos.

But being able to simply ask the TV to "play Castle's last episode", for example, or "Record House next Monday", or "Record every House episode", would make this TV a breeze to use.

This is what Apple is in the market for. Forget the technology, just use it. Deceptively simple, evident, but nobody's done it before in this exact way (at least nobody notoriously successfull...).

And pair it with an iPad/iPhone to enjoy some games on the big screen and touch controls in your lap...

I can see where this would go, and I'm guessing it would sell like hotcakes.

Reply Score: 2

Apple is the least green company of all
by FunkyELF on Wed 26th Oct 2011 18:20 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Don't buy into their "we don't use mercury" crap. Their hardware is designed so you'll throw away a perfectly good display because the junk inside it is obsolete, or because the battery life is decreasing.

No good reason for this to be integrated into a set. It should be standalone like their current AppleTV.

If they want to make a display with an integrated Camera and microphone, that is one thing.... but make the other hardware completely separate and upgradable.

Reply Score: 2

David Member since:
1997-10-01

I see where you're coming from, but if you're talking about throwing things away, you're pointing your venom in the wrong direction. People don't throw away older Apple hardware. They sell it. For various reasons, Apple devices by and large have a substantially longer usable life than generic PCs and other tech devices. Not only do they generally keep working, but one quick glance at ebay will tell you that there are people out there who will pay good money for seven year old Apple laptops. I've owned a lot of Apple hardware in my life and not once have I thrown one in the trash or taken it to an ewaste recycling center. Eventually I suppose, someone will throw it away, but I'm sure that on average it gets a lot more usable life than devices from other manufacturers -- making it more "green."

Reply Score: 0