The questions no one ever asks about the mythical Apple HDTV(tuaw.com)
tuaw.com
The questions no one ever asks about the mythical Apple HDTV
http://www.tuaw.com/2014/05/12/the-questions-no-one-ever-asks-about-the-mythical-apple-hdtv/
21 comments
The analysts and tech media pundits always bring up a possible watch or TV as apple's next blockbuster, game changing product. But making TVs by itself doesn't sound like a good business decision to me. It would be hard to maintain healthy margins if they have to fragment their hardware production to cover something as costly as making next generation, HD televisions.
I guess the only real upside of an Apple TV (for Apple), is that its in their most critical interest to be in every media and communication interaction of one's day to day life. If Apple makes your phone, your computer, your tablet, your car's software, your music player AND your TV, they will pretty much have a figurative monopoly over your attention and an endless spectrum to sell you things via iTunes. Given that, tighter margins might be somewhat of a trade off for more presence in the life of an Apple user/Apple using family.
I guess the only real upside of an Apple TV (for Apple), is that its in their most critical interest to be in every media and communication interaction of one's day to day life. If Apple makes your phone, your computer, your tablet, your car's software, your music player AND your TV, they will pretty much have a figurative monopoly over your attention and an endless spectrum to sell you things via iTunes. Given that, tighter margins might be somewhat of a trade off for more presence in the life of an Apple user/Apple using family.
I've written similar things myself in the past[0].
The bit missed by the article is the complexity of supporting global broadcasts so I think an AppleTV would be IP (and HDMI) only.
I'm sure the UI would be great but you don't use the UI much on a TV, you out what you want on and then you watch.
I argued that the best reason to enter the TV market would be to hurt Samsung rather than to make big profits.
Of course, mobile phone pundits got the iPhone wrong so it is possible that I'm completely wrong.
[0] http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market-challenges
The bit missed by the article is the complexity of supporting global broadcasts so I think an AppleTV would be IP (and HDMI) only.
I'm sure the UI would be great but you don't use the UI much on a TV, you out what you want on and then you watch.
I argued that the best reason to enter the TV market would be to hurt Samsung rather than to make big profits.
Of course, mobile phone pundits got the iPhone wrong so it is possible that I'm completely wrong.
[0] http://blog.jtl.me.uk/apple-tv-the-market-challenges
TV that doesn't pick up broadcast TV = huge market failure.
It's not that hard, you only need a couple of different options ( https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide ) which could be implemented on a daughterboard PCB as wireless often is.
It's not that hard, you only need a couple of different options ( https://www.dvb.org/news/worldwide ) which could be implemented on a daughterboard PCB as wireless often is.
It is harder than you think and it isn't a hardware issue. It is software but annoying finicky differences. DVB has a huge range of options and different settings/modes/behaviours are mandated in different markets. Even in Europe there are the DtG requirements in the UK (Ireland has similar requirements), Nordig that covers Scandanavia but even within that there are particular certification requirements for RiksTV in Norway. Italy has particular requirements including MHP support. CI (common interface) support is mandatory on European TVs. UI affecting details too such as the quantity and validity of EPG data, whether channel reordering is allowed (actually channel numbering is something that there are many different ways to broadcast).
Don't get me wrong, Apple could do this if they wanted to but it is the sort of hard gruntwork boring, almost pointless tweaking to globalise products that I think they wouldn't do. They would just give you a TV that could access sufficient IP services to be valuable rather than dilute the experience by handling broadcast.
Many people already do not connect their TV to a broadcast signal, especially in the US but in many other areas where STB based pay TV is common. It might not be as much of a showstopper as you think and if anyone can get away with it Apple can.
Don't get me wrong, Apple could do this if they wanted to but it is the sort of hard gruntwork boring, almost pointless tweaking to globalise products that I think they wouldn't do. They would just give you a TV that could access sufficient IP services to be valuable rather than dilute the experience by handling broadcast.
Many people already do not connect their TV to a broadcast signal, especially in the US but in many other areas where STB based pay TV is common. It might not be as much of a showstopper as you think and if anyone can get away with it Apple can.
Then again, Apple had the same problem with the iPhone. They managed to solve it by lanching in a few countries first and working tightly with selected mobile operators.
I agree that it's hard, but they've shown the willingness to do hard and boring things before and take their time, launching in markets when they're ready (look at how long it took them to launch on Verizon).
However, the cable and sattelite providers also have a huge interest in pushing their own set-top boxes loaded with their streaming services etc. So I think the real issue isn't just software, it's politics and contract negotiations.
I don't think Apple is going to be happy with a situation where customer spend 90% of their time pushing buttons on a non-Apple remote control. So they probably won't be relying on set-top boxes unless they think they have such a compelling story on the content side that most people won't bother with the set-top box.
I agree that it's hard, but they've shown the willingness to do hard and boring things before and take their time, launching in markets when they're ready (look at how long it took them to launch on Verizon).
However, the cable and sattelite providers also have a huge interest in pushing their own set-top boxes loaded with their streaming services etc. So I think the real issue isn't just software, it's politics and contract negotiations.
I don't think Apple is going to be happy with a situation where customer spend 90% of their time pushing buttons on a non-Apple remote control. So they probably won't be relying on set-top boxes unless they think they have such a compelling story on the content side that most people won't bother with the set-top box.
I mostly agree with you. It isn't impossible but I still don't think that they will as they know the profit on the table isn't all that large.
TVs aren't as bad as phones were when the iPhone launched. Browsers were rubbish, data cost pounds per Megabyte and screens were small. The iPhone was disruptive. An Apple TV which did not come with enough content available to ignore broadcast/STBs would be competitive at the high end but not disruptive. And the vast bulk of the market is low end (well under $1000). I could be wrong but I don't see the room for Apple blockbuster in that market.
TVs aren't as bad as phones were when the iPhone launched. Browsers were rubbish, data cost pounds per Megabyte and screens were small. The iPhone was disruptive. An Apple TV which did not come with enough content available to ignore broadcast/STBs would be competitive at the high end but not disruptive. And the vast bulk of the market is low end (well under $1000). I could be wrong but I don't see the room for Apple blockbuster in that market.
If they can get the content, then an Apple STB would be game-changing. Every STB I've used has awful UI - slow, unresponsive, unintuitive, uninformative. But it has to be able to deliver the broadcast TV programmes in realish time. If it managed to do that by IP (multicast?) seamlessly, that would actually be fine.
Apple hasn't had trouble selling 27"/30" Displays and iMacs before, if they can handle those, they can handle a HDTV display. An Apple TV Set just needs two things:
1. Input ZERO for Airplay. When you airplay a video from your phone/iPad, the TV turns on automatically and starts playing the video without you having to find the crappy TV and receiver remotes and switching to the right input.
2. The ability to upgrade easily by just plugging in a new $99 puck whenever you want to take advantage of a new service that requires more processing speed.
1. Input ZERO for Airplay. When you airplay a video from your phone/iPad, the TV turns on automatically and starts playing the video without you having to find the crappy TV and receiver remotes and switching to the right input.
2. The ability to upgrade easily by just plugging in a new $99 puck whenever you want to take advantage of a new service that requires more processing speed.
These features aren't going to produce Apple margins in the TV space.
I'm pretty sure if we ever see the Apple TV, it will be an entirely different UX than what we have become accustomed to. Just like you don't compare your smart "phone" with a classic "phone", you probably won't compare your Apple TV with a classic TV. They will be the same only in name and form factor, but the experience and functionality will be much different.
Please can we stop referring to "experiences" when we are talking about operating a gadget? I can't see how the "experience" will differ much anyway. You sit in front of a TV and watch it. The only bit that Apple are likely to change is the navigation, which is interacting with the interface for a few seconds before watching the show you want.
It seems to me that it's exactly 'experience' of a gadget that has become more and more important, now that non-geeks are using them en masse. And more and more companies are finally realizing that.
Before, the 'consumer' didn't care that his computer was a beige box that required cryptic text commands to work. Now, in large part because Apple (among others) has focused on the 'experience', my grandma is using computers (a tablet, for now).
Before, I had friends ask me how important feature x was when buying an 'mp3 player', and advertisements focused on megapixels and memory and whatnot. Now, people expect their music player to be designed for ease of use, ease of syncing, and pleasant to the senses. I don't remember the last time anyone asked me about megapixels.
The 'only bit' Apple did with the iPhone, I'd say, was to change the way you interact with the device. Most individual components in themselves were subpar compared to other devices on the market, and I'm not event sure if the touchscreen was particularly innovative. And yet, it not only made Apple a ton of money, it literally changed in a short time how people relate to 'computers'.
Honestly, if I take a step back, I'm still amazed at how a company that focuses mainly on 'experiences' has played a crucial role in transforming society's relation to technology in such a short time. I still recall a time, not long before the iPhone, where I was self-conscious about using a PDA with a calendar and whatnot, because that was such a nerdy thing to do.
Even if you don't care that much about 'experiences' (I myself don't, to a degree, what with using the command-line whenever I can), it's difficult to argue that it's not important.
Before, the 'consumer' didn't care that his computer was a beige box that required cryptic text commands to work. Now, in large part because Apple (among others) has focused on the 'experience', my grandma is using computers (a tablet, for now).
Before, I had friends ask me how important feature x was when buying an 'mp3 player', and advertisements focused on megapixels and memory and whatnot. Now, people expect their music player to be designed for ease of use, ease of syncing, and pleasant to the senses. I don't remember the last time anyone asked me about megapixels.
The 'only bit' Apple did with the iPhone, I'd say, was to change the way you interact with the device. Most individual components in themselves were subpar compared to other devices on the market, and I'm not event sure if the touchscreen was particularly innovative. And yet, it not only made Apple a ton of money, it literally changed in a short time how people relate to 'computers'.
Honestly, if I take a step back, I'm still amazed at how a company that focuses mainly on 'experiences' has played a crucial role in transforming society's relation to technology in such a short time. I still recall a time, not long before the iPhone, where I was self-conscious about using a PDA with a calendar and whatnot, because that was such a nerdy thing to do.
Even if you don't care that much about 'experiences' (I myself don't, to a degree, what with using the command-line whenever I can), it's difficult to argue that it's not important.
Its like recruitment consultants. They never have an job, they have an "opportunity".
Technically it is correct but we don't need to overemphasize everything.
Technically it is correct but we don't need to overemphasize everything.
Most likely on an Apple TV you will often not just sit in front of it and watch it. Just like on an iPhone you don't just use it for phone calls.
It's pretty obvious the Apple TV will have a rich ecosystem of apps, many of which will do more than just stream media to the screen. With a good way to interact with it suddenly you have the most vivid, largest display in your house suddenly becoming much more functional. I'd imagine it will be more like a console in its capabilities but with the developer accessibility of the iPhone, iPad, etc, and with a much better physical interface than a controller or wand. As I said, an altogether different experience that has very little to do with the contemporary "TV" that we have now.
It's pretty obvious the Apple TV will have a rich ecosystem of apps, many of which will do more than just stream media to the screen. With a good way to interact with it suddenly you have the most vivid, largest display in your house suddenly becoming much more functional. I'd imagine it will be more like a console in its capabilities but with the developer accessibility of the iPhone, iPad, etc, and with a much better physical interface than a controller or wand. As I said, an altogether different experience that has very little to do with the contemporary "TV" that we have now.
You know which product is overdue for apple-style innovation ?
The macbook air.
The macbook air.
And the thunderbolt display dangit. $999 is too damn high.
This assumes that all a TV needs is picture quality. But a TV could & should show dynamic content by knowing the difference between me and my roommate.
Or what about enabling augmented experiences with my phone?
There's plenty of room for innovation outside of just a quality picture.
Or what about enabling augmented experiences with my phone?
There's plenty of room for innovation outside of just a quality picture.
I think the Apple TV will be elliptical and so instead of sometimes having black bars when fitting content's resolution you'll always have four (active) parabolic edges (of varying size) that can display various info -- time/channel/chapter/url/subtitles/your friends' faces/etc.
The main reason for making an oval tv will of course be the novelty and design patent protection.
The main reason for making an oval tv will of course be the novelty and design patent protection.
Like the http://keracolor.blogspot.co.uk/ ? (1968)
I imagine we'll see a lot of this in 2021 from Samsung apologists when the trial gets underway.
That would be funny. People gossiping about a product without realizing it's already on sale :)