The above probably has something to do with people wanting to watch movies on their TV, not in their palm...
Hence, Apple Console
Pachter: Apple 2013 Console
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
The above probably has something to do with people wanting to watch movies on their TV, not in their palm...
Hence, Apple Console
An ipad stripped of the screen and boxed has been bantered about. I don't see a huge uptake as the advantage of the ios is in the personal mobility and the apps centered around that personal mobility.
The idea of an ipad dock has also been bantered, but if it isn't connected all the time, how would others watch the TV without your pad being there?
Great solution for the tech gadget bachelor, not so much for everyone else.
Again, I see this going back to a STB of some sort.
AppleTV failed multiple times. Other internet streaming devices have also failed to garner much traction.
The only STB's that have had any level of success are internet enabled BR players (only because the feature is stuffed into a BR player for "free"), cable boxes (necessary for cable tv), and game consoles (again, internet streaming apps for free).
Pretty short list.
I may be wrong and Apple may decide to go AppleTV 3.0 ... but I suspect the venture will not have much success beyond their existing offerings in that arena as it's too little bang for the buck. Especially in the current competitive climate.
The only other angle outside of games console that they could go and hope to achieve success would be to make a deal with cable cos integrating ios into a cable box ... (I've mentioned MS/Sony should go after this market as well).
Such a venture as a ios cable box would provide a substantial boost for cable customers and Apple. They wouldn't be competing directly with Sony/MS and could offer game controllers at the Apple store for playing IOS favs on the bigscreen (on the cheap).
Parents would like it, cable cos would like the edge over Sat TV (or other local provider), and devs would like the increased exposure and new experiences possible with a tv/couch gametype vs the typical short/portable/cheap ios products.
Indeed...
Doable, but how much market can they tap with such an approach? Will people really be expected to rush out and swap their TV's in a mad dash as they do for their phones?
This could be a slow bleed approach where they make a few deals with upper echelon manufacturers and include IOS on all set models from the brand, but this would take a while to see a substantial marketshare. Especially knowing that as soon as they do this, MS and Google will be jumping in with their own approaches (and any other ventures looking to steal the market).
I think this approach is possible, but it would have to be supplemented with an optional STB which provides the same functionality. Many users will refuse to upgrade their TV simply because they want their i fix on the tv.
I'd expect whatever Apple does, it will be running off some type of Kinect-like interface. I'd also expect MS will be doing the same if they are indeed planning to have xbox integrated TVs. Alter the optics a bit so it doesn't need to tilt to find the floor and the kinect guts can sit stationary at the top of the TV. Integrated to the bezel of course.
My only question is (as I stated prior in this thread), I wonder how well MS protected the kinect concept in their patents?
Indeed and Indeed.
Just an ibox alone isn't needed. People have ipads/iphones if they want them. There would have to be another draw/lure/reason for consumers to purchase.
Looking around and responses to other connected TV devices, people don't care. GoogleTV went nowhere right along with AppleTV. The value add is ****.
Now, one area where people DO spend money on connected TV devices (big money in some cases) is consoles.
...
But again, what would be the point? If they intend to go light with an ipad type gaming experience, I think consumers who see that functionality now as a value-add, would look at it as a waste of time and money for an ibox which offered the same, but without the functionality of being mobile.
The ibox will have to sell literally on the merits of being a games console competing with the best of the best in Sony and MS. Otherwise it will have to be a value-add to an existing device (TV, cable-box) which doesn't "cost" the consumer anything.
That was the reason to get an iOS device. If Apple had launched with iOS desktops instead, they'd have got nowhere. But now the OS is common in devices and people are already buying iOs content, a box as an extender in the living room makes sense.
Putting it another way, if Janet Ios has an iPad or iPod or iPhone with apps and iTunes content that she wants to use in her living room, why would she pick an MS or Sony console which can't access that content, versus an Apple iBox that can? The reason to switch to MS or Sony and lose access to all that content is only for the games (assuming a worse game experience on the iBox). Otherwise a switch is extremely costly - you have to buy all your favourite content from a new supplier. For the living room market that isn't about games, an iBox makes sense, as does a Google box, as does an MS box and a Sony box. The question mark around such boxes is getting people to want to buy into your closed market. Google did it by being open and getting into TVs. MS tried both Media PCs and console, and Sony did it by leveraging their consoles with gaming being the reason to get the box and then selling content as an afterthought. Apple's incentive can be to share your existing iOS experience. Where Google and Apple could sell media boxes without games, that'd be a harder sell for MS and Sony who aren't known for their media experience. Why would anyone buy a cut-down PS3 that can't play disc games? Crap browser and muddled user experience would be terrible! At least it'd have good download titles. And why buy a cut-down XB? More download games, but also a service that doesn't tie in with the mobile experience unless you ahve a windows mobile, which few do. Plus their worldwide appeal is still raggedy, and a lot of content is MS exclusive. Netflix can be viewed on Apple and Google boxes.
AppleTV failed because it wasn't competitive. iBox with full iOS would offer a very different experience.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I don't see how an iOS experience on a TV in the living room is something that will garner much appeal among the masses. When it comes to TV and the consumption of content on such, people aren't too interested in fancy user interfaces. It's the content that is most important, and unless the Apple iBox comes with exclusive content that noone else offers, i don't see them being able to offer anything more that is meaningful in the living room than any of the other big players.
I can't see how this ambiguous "Apple experience" in the living room will be any different than what Apple TV is now. And i'm skeptical whether it's even possible for it to be so in any meaningful way so as to be appealing to the vast majority of the TV content consuming masses. If the hypothetical "iBox" can corner the market with it's own unique angle, ala gaming or something else wherein it might have a more realistic chance of being competitive, then there might be a reason for Apple to discard their current Apple TV strategy and venture off down the "iBox" route. Honestly however i don't see that happening, even if they manage to develop some amazingly new user interface or control method (ala Kinect).
I can't see how this ambiguous "Apple experience" in the living room will be any different than what Apple TV is now. And i'm skeptical whether it's even possible for it to be so in any meaningful way so as to be appealing to the vast majority of the TV content consuming masses. If the hypothetical "iBox" can corner the market with it's own unique angle, ala gaming or something else wherein it might have a more realistic chance of being competitive, then there might be a reason for Apple to discard their current Apple TV strategy and venture off down the "iBox" route. Honestly however i don't see that happening, even if they manage to develop some amazingly new user interface or control method (ala Kinect).
It comes with the content that 200 million iOS users have already bought.
AppleTV is gimped and has limitations (going by Wikipedia, as I've never experienced AppleTV).
At the moment, most of us don't have internet streaming content connected to our TVs. If we want to look up a webpage, stream video-on-demand services like BBC's iPlayer or Netflix, or listen to a streaming music service, we need a box to do it. Some have consoles. Some are buying internet TV. A few have a PC connected. Most have nothing though. There's definitely room for an internet box. Apple would be one player; Google another. Even Raspberry Pi could be an impressive player.
Apple's unique angle has always been their hardware. With iBox, it wouldn't have anything to differentiate between all the other players except integration with iDevices - that'll be it's USP. Already own an iPad? Get an iBox instead of a Googlebox. Already have an iPhone? Get an iBox instead of an XBox. Thinking of getting a new mobile? Buy iPhone and you can seemlessly use all your same content on an iBox (Google will have the same thing of course, but that's Apple's challenge. Doing nothing would be far worse than leaving Google unchallenged).
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
I think the future will be with intergrated hardware, or should I say, software on the tv set. People don't want to buy a extra device. Besides there is a whole range of devices that do exactly what a potential iBox will do. Seemless sync isn't going to save apple. Thats just a matter of software so everyone can copy that not to mention that it's only going to be usefull to people who own everything apple so in the end you'll be aiming for a very small market.
No I'd say in the long run it will probably be MS or Google that will bundle their OS to tv's. Basically Windows 8 and ICS offer everything you'd need to turn the tv into the center of the living room. I don't know how much general purpose hardware there is in current tv's that could be used to run a OS so it might take a while before costs drop enough for it to be included into every tv but I can see things going this way.
No I'd say in the long run it will probably be MS or Google that will bundle their OS to tv's. Basically Windows 8 and ICS offer everything you'd need to turn the tv into the center of the living room. I don't know how much general purpose hardware there is in current tv's that could be used to run a OS so it might take a while before costs drop enough for it to be included into every tv but I can see things going this way.
There are probably more DVRs than consoles. More people watch TV than play games.
Rumors about an Apple TV (as opposed to AppleTV) would be a product that offers a better UX, possibly using Siri ("When is such and such show going to be on? Record it").
It remains to be seen if they can get TV content deals that changes the economics of the TV business because the TV networks are wary about Apple getting too much power in TV show distribution, as they did in music distribution.
Rumors about an Apple TV (as opposed to AppleTV) would be a product that offers a better UX, possibly using Siri ("When is such and such show going to be on? Record it").
It remains to be seen if they can get TV content deals that changes the economics of the TV business because the TV networks are wary about Apple getting too much power in TV show distribution, as they did in music distribution.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I don't see this at all, and fundamentally i believe this idea is flawed. What happens if/when broadcasters decide to move to a new broadcast standard, or if gaming or TV app/game software requirements increase beyond the level of your current set? Instead of just replacing the old box that has become obsolete (be that your VCR or DVD player, or console etc), you'd have to replace your entire TV. There's no benefit to everything be bundled up inside the TV, and pricing constraints make it prohibitively too expensive to put all but the cheapest HW in TV to be able to cover the barest minimum of software processing demands. Dedicated HW will always grant you the advantage of being able to replace it when it reaches obsolescence, and history has shown that people have been very comfortable with buying additional boxes to fulfill their media consumption needs.
I agree that an all-in-one entertainment add-on box is the future (the same that we're seeing now with the Xboxs, PS3's, AppleTVs, Googleboxs/TVs and other DVRs/mediaboxes. I just don't think that motion controls, voice controls or access to one of the myriad closed content distribution platforms gives any of the players a sufficient enough advantage to clean up like Apple has in the music/phone space, and MS/Sony has in the Gaming space.
Particularly wrt Apple, since this thread is about them. Full acess to your itunes library on a living room iBox is really only a firmware update of the AppleTV away. That is my main point. Alternatively, if you have an iPad 1/2/3 you can conect it to your TV with a component cable that would be cheaper than buying a brand new iBox. So aside from some gimmicky Siri functionality that imho the value of such is questionable, there's little point in Apple creating a brand new iBox pseudo-gaming console/all-in-one entertainment thing that you can talk to, instead of just refreshing and rebranding AppleTV, which even then I don't see garnering much any significant amount more success than the original unit has.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
DVRs are pretty much free, hence this is a truism. I got a DVR free with my TV purchase, and another when i signed up to my Sky TV package. Yet i see not how this means anything to Apple, who likes to sell HW to people with fat profit margins?
Also, the fact that more people watch TV more than play games, i'm also quite sure that there are more people that watch TV broadcasts than use VOD services, hence nothing in this regard that Apple can offer them that would meaningfully augment this. Siri, and UI are not strong enough selling points imho, and I don't believe that there is any great portion of the market that would be inclined to go out and buy a dedicated device simply for that benefit.
So i reiterate, unless Apple can bring some great new exclusive content to the table, i don't see how putting any significant investment into a home-media box is a beneficial for them, besides having a presence in the market to stave off competitors (and a refresh and rebrand of Apple TV will do that).
And people don't want to buy a new TV just to add that functionality.
Want Google TV without buying a new £500 TV to replace the £500 TV you bought 2 years ago? Buy GoogleBox for £100.Which is why Apple have to compete. They can't leave the living room box to go uncontested, otherwise their content portal becomes redundant (everyone's buying Netflix and amazon content, not iTunes, so no longer wants an iDevice which is tied to the wrong format).
Apple's rise came from a novel mobile experience. Now that's being challenged by way more Android devices which aren't locked to Apple hardware, Apple may fall into the same niche they were in with Macs. Their options as I see it are branch out so iTunes is on every device, so people are free to change hardware and consider an Apple device, or make the Apple experience so amazing that people are happy to buy 100% in for the rest of their lives.
Maybe in some countries. In the UK a DVR is still expensive if you aren't on cable or satellite which can add significantly to your monthly bill. Basically a TV package for TV I don't watch is £20 a month down the drain (there's no cable where I cam, so no option of internet bundle deals). That's why Raspberry is looking appealing. For £20 and a USB tuner, it's possible to get a simple DVR with built in internet funcitonality for £50. That'd be a successful product in the UK, I reckon. Currently the minimum price of an HDD recorder is £70+, and that lacks internet functionality.
That because the VOD offerings are pretty crap. LoveFilm and Netflix offer an appalling selection at highish prices. Free-to-view internet services like iPlayer are seeing growth. It's definitely the future even if it hasn't replaced broadcast TV yet. Also lots of people record programmes to watch them at their convenience, requiring a £100 box. Someone offering a £100-150 that offers PVR and iOS/Android is going to have a compelling value proposition. This is something the consoles offer now and part of their appeal.
They need a presence for exactly that reason, and it wouldn't cost much at all to produce. Use the same hardware as one fo their existing products, with zero RnD. It'll need a brand and a little advertising - job done. Not entering with a living room product will cost them dearly as their mobile value decreases against other mobiles that seamlessly integrate with the living room through cheap devices.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
And how often does this actually happen? For normal tv broadcasts there won't be any problem at all because this won't be tied to the OS so the situation will be the same as it is now.
So the only thing left is streaming. But that won't be a problem either as long as there is a agreement on the standard in which things will be streamed so that there won't be the need for a software update. Shouldn't really be a problem either.
True. However how many apps can you think of that would need regulair new hardware? Games are the only one and imho this whole concept doesn't need games. Simple games will work no problem and anyone who want more ''core'' games is very likely to get a console or maybe use the built in onlive or whatever client.
For the moment maybe. But just look at how fast arm cpu's get faster. A couple of years from now a SoC with plenty of power do to 1080p streaming etc won't be making a big impact on a ~500 euro tv set. Even today a lot of cheap hd tv's can already stream movies from a hdd or usb stick so part of the hardware needed is there already.
The problem is there is the need to buy something extra. A lot of people don't want to buy something extra. The majority of people still doesn't have something like a mediaplayer hooked up to their tv. If somebody truely want to conquer the living room you need to make sure there is no getting around you. The only reason to do that is to make sure you will get into the living room is making sure you get there even if they don't buy your specific product.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
And people don't want to buy a new TV just to add that functionality.
I agree. But you need to look at it on the long term. Say you settle on a default set of features every tv needs to support. Lets say hdd/usb media playback (done already), 1080p streaming, social apps, youtube, browsing. You don't need a giant amount of processing power for this and it won't suddenly become unusable after a couple of years. Likely this will be more than enough for most users.
Assuming from tomorrow you can include such a system into every tv ofcourse there will be a transition period in which you could sell a seperate box. However selling something seperate means you need to make it clear to people there is added value to spending another 100 euro's. Thats the problem. People don't like spending extra for something they probably think they don't need.
However, if you give it to them, by including it in the tv set, it's more likely they think like: ''Hey whats this? I can stream movies from the internet for a couple of box with this? Hmm lets check it out''.
If you are trying to sell a 100 euro box to somebody they have already decided they want such functionality before buying.
already happened, just like today you can play games on your phone the same is happening with the tv
eg
http://www.samsung-smarttv.com/
I see the most popular game ever (angry birds) is playable on it.
iScreen
In looking at what the AppleTV offers, it does connect to itunes along with many other Tv-centric streaming services.
The apps angle isn't enough to sway on its own.
Now switching it as you have in your argument makes sense, if the games component is sufficient to compete.
It's not about "I want my itunes on my tv" ... if that were the case, AppleTV would be flying off the shelf, not games consoles.
The draw for the livingroom is gaming. The "extras" are just that.... extra.
Indeed.
A dedicated TV with Apple inside limits their potential scope though.
Going the cable-box integration route will net far more exposure.
Considering how many people already have incredibly expensive, or high-quality tvs they'd be unlikely to replace just to gain a few built in media functions, I'd say the integrated tv route is unlikely, at least as a grand strategy.
TV manufacturers showed off apps. on TVs to be released this year. Some see it as a preemptive attempt to head off whatever Apple may be cooking up.
You can already get Netflix, Youtube, Skype on TVs but not sure who bothers. I just bought a T and I haven't the slightest desire to check these things out.
You can already get Netflix, Youtube, Skype on TVs but not sure who bothers. I just bought a T and I haven't the slightest desire to check these things out.
