This is exactly what Microsoft has been building towards with the Xbox. The espn app on there is fantastic, and just added the ability to watch two events in split screen, while watching a customized news/score crawl at the bottom of the screen. You can invite friends to watch with you, and participate in quizzes relevant to the game you are watching. All this with Kinect voice support too. It feels pretty damn futuristic. And now they've announced apps for exactly the kind of services the article talks about: HBO Go, SyFy, Comcast On-Demand, etc. Add in the fact that it's already a game console, and I'd say they are closer to creating a central media hub than anyone else.
Haven't used the Xbox experience so I can't really say, but it seems like this could be another situation where Apple doesn't create an entirely new concept, but rather brings it to the masses simply and beautifully. I'd sure rather have an Apple experience when it came to TV
It's interesting the players that will likely fight for the TV space - Apple, Google, Microsoft... and maybe Amazon. I wonder if Facebook has thought about it, or if they're just provide the social graph and friend activity on top of Apple/Google/Microsoft's own operating system for the next generation TV.
I agree that this is the direction Apple will probably take, but I'm not sure I like it.
When I sit down on the couch my brain thinks "I want to watch The Walking Dead" not "I want to watch AMC's The Walking Dead."
Think of how poor the interface would be on the TiVo if, instead of show titles, you were presented first with folders of television networks to select from.
We may start seeing shows as apps, not channels as apps. So I can get The Walking Dead app, or the Battlestar Galactica app.
Television networks are like book publishers. They're not really needed anymore when content creators can sell their stuff directly to a willing audience.
This is why search needs to be a huge component of a successful product in this area. For Google, it's their tried-and-true search bar. For Apple, it seems like Siri is their entry point.
I imagine Apple aggregating all the TV channel shows into a TV guide sort of interface, nothing to different than current cable offerings. So, it'll be very similar in experience. Just turn on TV and you'll see all the channels playing (all your channels at top and then other channels following). Choose what you want to watch, bam... you're watching it. The added benefit, is that you'll be able to watch past content somehow. Maybe it'll track your favorite shows and automatically show you all past shows you haven't watched as well. There's lots of possibilities. But I think whatever Apple does, they'll want to improve on the current TV experience, not degrade it.
I've never used Tivo but I do navigate to AMC to watch The Walking Dead on my cable box.
I'd agree that the situation is not ideal but I wonder how much Siri would play into this considering the NY Times report of integration of Siri and an Apple television.
I'm not sure I entirely understand his answer, but he seems to be saying that they can't innovate on the hardware because it's too commoditized and subsidized, so an innovative product can't be priced competitively. They can't partner with an entity providing the subsidy, as they did with AT&T, because there is no one entity big enough to make it worthwhile. And there is no way to connect to all the providers, without putting a set-top box in the middle, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Here is Isaacson's "I cracked it" quote:
“‘I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,’ he told me. ‘It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.’ No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. ‘It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.’”
What exactly did he crack? What will make the iTV so appealing that consumers will now be willing to pay a premium for it? He mentions a new user interface, as well as iCloud, which did not exist (publicly) at the time of the D8 interview. But what about the global connectivity issue? Are they just betting that people will give up cable TV for apps + itunes + icloud + magical interface? Or is there something else in there?
Software defined demodulators could solve this problem, just like software defined radio is now solving the problem of disparate wireless standards (e.g. for emergency responders). The A5 shows that Apple isn't afraid of application-specific processing units. iTV just ships with the correct dongle.
> Are they just betting that people will give up cable TV?
Gruber's article makes a lot of sense. TV content providers are already creating iOS apps, so why not pull them altogether into a Newstand-like app folder called iTV. And that would appear on your Apple TV as well.
Apple could also differentiate from Free TV "Channel" apps and Paid ones in the Appstore. Free channels apps would monetize through commercials. The paid ones would be subscription like HBO, etc. The TV channels could monetize even better because there's a direct relationship with the customer/viewer and they can target ads more specifically (location, demographic, age, gender, interests, etc).
In the end, Apple's new TV will be just a screen giving the user access to "channels" which will be apps.
Also, the apps might have two interfaces: one for iPad/iPhone (or separate) and also one for the iTV. The iTV interface will be really simple and will list out all your TV apps and what's playing or what's popular recently.
You could spin this further. Me thinks SJ might have been wrong with his analogy of "trucks" and PCs. Perhaps instead, TVs will become the center of processing power and memory/state in the home, with tablets/phones, in combination with an external keyboard, accessing the power like terminals used to in the 70s, except the mainframe is now in your living room instead of n km away. That would also require a unified OS so it's not one or two generations away. Still, this could be something to think about...
This all seems reasonable to me, but I'm not sure this is the full meaning of the "I finally cracked it" remark.
I know Steve was enthusiastic about the moment when he could see something that finally met his standards, but he also wanted to see all the details come together before being confident in something. When I read that quote, I thought that must mean that Apple has a fairly complete prototype experience that Steve was satisfied with. So I think this aspect could be at the core of what having "cracked it" means but it means more than that.
For another view on the Apple TV's near future, here are my thoughts on this topic from a month back, focusing more on the fact that apps are not going to be remarkable in their form yet still have the power to powerfully disrupt the massive cable industry: http://www.quora.com/What-apps-can-we-expect-for-Apple-TV/an...
By now I have come to believe the TV-set approach is for real. Dan Frommer's argument from yesterday is compelling and input switching is so awful that it may be the biggest opportunity to relieve consumer pain. Reworking the TV set looks more and more like a highly strategic and experience-changing way to put all of Apple's advantages to bear on this apps-as-channels approach.
Throw Siri into the mix and it could be really cool. While watching a baseball game, just ask Siri questions about stats. "Siri, what is Albert Pujols' lifetime batting average with two outs and the bases loaded?"
Google had the best idea. Just search for the show you want to watch, don't worry about the source. Unfortunately, big media companies – in their infinite shortsightedness – decided to torpedo the project.
By contrast, the app solution would be totally voluntary on the part of the content owners, but less elegant.
It would also mean that your access to content would be even more subject to corporate whims than they are now. Say a bug was introduced into the ESPN app. Now suddenly you've missed a quarter of the season because ESPNs app programmers couldn't post a patch fast enough. Or the PBS app gets taken down due to a patent infringement case and you miss the airing of the Prohibition documentary.
Yeah, networks would stick annoying stuff and ads around the borders. They're already insufferable the way they put intrusive, animated ads for their other shows at the bottom of the screen.
I still think Apple-brand smart TVs have an inherent problem, in that people won't want to upgrade them very often compared to other devices (they're basically electronic furniture), so there'll be a lot of outdated hardware out in the market.
It's much easier to get people to upgrade a $100 add-on for their current TV.
Depending on what Apple's vision is for SmartTV functionality the A5 or A6 platform can last the life-time of 1080P HDTVs. It will be more like gaming consoles than phones/tablets/computers that are more open ended in their functionality. A SmartTV is a less versatile device. All you really need is the horse power to playback video & games at 1080P and the ability to do other interactive features. That won't change radically over the lifetime of the device. I guess the next big jump would be to 4K displays with an A14 (or whatever) platform to go with it. I could also see the add-on Apple TV continuing as a separate product for various reasons. (I don't see Apple making a projector so... I hope so at least)
It could come in two parts, one replaceable. It makes sense if for some reason, the display part needs to be integrated more than with an HDMI cable. I think the remote control experience alone would justify it.
I see why he's saying this, but I hope he's wrong. Apps as channels / shows have many of the drawbacks of magazines/weblogs as apps rather than web sites or RSS feeds: lack of standardization and feature lists driven by publisher goals rather than user needs.
If some new way of sharing / discussing shows comes out, and we have to wait for each channel to add it to their app, it won't happen. Similarly, there will be less incentive to build innovative solutions for watching video if the content stream are trapped within a million different apps.
Imagine if you had to download a different app for each web site you wanted to view a video on. Bleah.
Apple could gather all the content streams from all the TV apps into the main iTV app. You can go their for all your listings and channels. But when you play an individual show, it would launch the show on your TV and then launch the app on your iOS device so you can interact and participate within the app. If you don't have a TV hooked up, you watch it within the launched app and interact there as well.
I ask for this disruption everyday, but the resistance from cable companies is so strong 'cause they make so much money leasing boxes and locking people into 2 year contract bundles along with exclusive sports packages.
There's something more important here than just controlling a TV with a fancy box. With modern digital TV's literally being about as good as a big monitor, and decent computers being small and cheap, it's just moving computing to the more comfortable chairs in the living room. Google and Apple have both realized this, and in the last few years a few TV manufacturers have made halting attempts at the same.
Except the software we can run on these has access to (theoretically) a vast streaming library of content with a robust, mature distribution channel and gigantic data pipes.
But I think it's only a little bit of time before these devices simply become part of game consoles. The Wii probably has the best nascent take on this (even calling apps, "channels").
I would rather skip the "app per channel" and have Apple develop the base app with each content provider providing a plug-in. This would allow navigation and search consistency while allowing content providers a chance to do their branding.
You can have both. Each TV channel has it's own app, but also links in to Apple's TV server through APIs to publish it's channels shows. Apple aggregates all the content into one app that becomes that main interface for the TV.
Remember that a key part of the TV experience for much/most of the audience is the brain-dead-simple "turn on, zone out" experience. Pick a channel and see what it feeds you. Background noise. "Here we are now, entertain us." When a show ends, just roll right on to the next one.
Apps are great for a smart interactive experience when you want it. TV per se isn't.
I use to be like that. But I found that once I cancelled cable, my habits changed, and now I prefer to watch exactly what I've been looking forward to. Although not everyone will accept that change.
I think this is underselling what Apple's TV is likely to be. Cable TV is not an industry going down the tubes, it's raking in the dough.
I doubt Jobs was aiming to disrupt the cablecos or content producers so he needs to add value to the chain. A better remote/navigation ui isn't enough.
Sigh. And this is why when I actually need a piece of software that serves an actual purpose from the App Store, all I can get is brands and not pieces of software with actual functionality.
Have I explained how much I hate the world any time in the last hour?
I'm so glad that the goofy RPN calculator on my iPad is now considered in the same general class of things as CNN and BBC. This won't make future analysis of the software business at all shallow or ridiculous.
I was hoping the Wii would go in this direction. The Wii has one of the best 20-foot interfaces, imho - channels are distinct, recognizable, and dynamically updatable; you can quickly scan several at once; selection is intuitive; you're not limited by a directional pad for input.
It would be great if Wii channels included broadcast/cable channels (either streaming or on demand or both).
Gruber is writing this article in the same day Google TV 2.0 with channels-as-apps is unveiled, and he doesn't even mention it? In the mean time he makes us believe that he just came up with the idea about this from Apple. Right, Gruber.
[+] [-] swernli|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cwe|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dave1619|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nostromo|14 years ago|reply
When I sit down on the couch my brain thinks "I want to watch The Walking Dead" not "I want to watch AMC's The Walking Dead."
Think of how poor the interface would be on the TiVo if, instead of show titles, you were presented first with folders of television networks to select from.
[+] [-] luigi|14 years ago|reply
Television networks are like book publishers. They're not really needed anymore when content creators can sell their stuff directly to a willing audience.
[+] [-] jodrellblank|14 years ago|reply
It led to a searchable start menu.
[+] [-] Pewpewarrows|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jamroom|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dave1619|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] technoslut|14 years ago|reply
I'd agree that the situation is not ideal but I wonder how much Siri would play into this considering the NY Times report of integration of Siri and an Apple television.
[+] [-] extension|14 years ago|reply
I'm not sure I entirely understand his answer, but he seems to be saying that they can't innovate on the hardware because it's too commoditized and subsidized, so an innovative product can't be priced competitively. They can't partner with an entity providing the subsidy, as they did with AT&T, because there is no one entity big enough to make it worthwhile. And there is no way to connect to all the providers, without putting a set-top box in the middle, which is exactly what they are trying to avoid.
Here is Isaacson's "I cracked it" quote:
“‘I’d like to create an integrated television set that is completely easy to use,’ he told me. ‘It would be seamlessly synced with all of your devices and with iCloud.’ No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. ‘It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.’”
What exactly did he crack? What will make the iTV so appealing that consumers will now be willing to pay a premium for it? He mentions a new user interface, as well as iCloud, which did not exist (publicly) at the time of the D8 interview. But what about the global connectivity issue? Are they just betting that people will give up cable TV for apps + itunes + icloud + magical interface? Or is there something else in there?
[+] [-] schiffern|14 years ago|reply
Software defined demodulators could solve this problem, just like software defined radio is now solving the problem of disparate wireless standards (e.g. for emergency responders). The A5 shows that Apple isn't afraid of application-specific processing units. iTV just ships with the correct dongle.
> Are they just betting that people will give up cable TV?
Why not (besides sports)?
[+] [-] dave1619|14 years ago|reply
Apple could also differentiate from Free TV "Channel" apps and Paid ones in the Appstore. Free channels apps would monetize through commercials. The paid ones would be subscription like HBO, etc. The TV channels could monetize even better because there's a direct relationship with the customer/viewer and they can target ads more specifically (location, demographic, age, gender, interests, etc).
In the end, Apple's new TV will be just a screen giving the user access to "channels" which will be apps.
Also, the apps might have two interfaces: one for iPad/iPhone (or separate) and also one for the iTV. The iTV interface will be really simple and will list out all your TV apps and what's playing or what's popular recently.
[+] [-] HSO|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zach|14 years ago|reply
I know Steve was enthusiastic about the moment when he could see something that finally met his standards, but he also wanted to see all the details come together before being confident in something. When I read that quote, I thought that must mean that Apple has a fairly complete prototype experience that Steve was satisfied with. So I think this aspect could be at the core of what having "cracked it" means but it means more than that.
For another view on the Apple TV's near future, here are my thoughts on this topic from a month back, focusing more on the fact that apps are not going to be remarkable in their form yet still have the power to powerfully disrupt the massive cable industry: http://www.quora.com/What-apps-can-we-expect-for-Apple-TV/an...
By now I have come to believe the TV-set approach is for real. Dan Frommer's argument from yesterday is compelling and input switching is so awful that it may be the biggest opportunity to relieve consumer pain. Reworking the TV set looks more and more like a highly strategic and experience-changing way to put all of Apple's advantages to bear on this apps-as-channels approach.
[+] [-] dhyasama|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|14 years ago|reply
"If you like I can search the web for 'Albert Pujols'."
[Search the web]
[+] [-] glhaynes|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChrisLTD|14 years ago|reply
By contrast, the app solution would be totally voluntary on the part of the content owners, but less elegant.
It would also mean that your access to content would be even more subject to corporate whims than they are now. Say a bug was introduced into the ESPN app. Now suddenly you've missed a quarter of the season because ESPNs app programmers couldn't post a patch fast enough. Or the PBS app gets taken down due to a patent infringement case and you miss the airing of the Prohibition documentary.
[+] [-] falling|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] megaman821|14 years ago|reply
I just want more options on how a pay for programming. Let me subscribe to a show, to a channel, to a category, and to a bundle.
[+] [-] jonhendry|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonhendry|14 years ago|reply
It's much easier to get people to upgrade a $100 add-on for their current TV.
[+] [-] kenjackson|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsz0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loumf|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] qeorge|14 years ago|reply
Having a brand new Apple TV could get you laid, real talk. I don't know of any other brand that can say that.
[+] [-] tomkarlo|14 years ago|reply
If some new way of sharing / discussing shows comes out, and we have to wait for each channel to add it to their app, it won't happen. Similarly, there will be less incentive to build innovative solutions for watching video if the content stream are trapped within a million different apps.
Imagine if you had to download a different app for each web site you wanted to view a video on. Bleah.
[+] [-] dave1619|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianpan|14 years ago|reply
"Channel apps" can also have similar UI elements, the same way to go back to "home", there can be a unified way to switch channels, etc.
[+] [-] kin|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|14 years ago|reply
Except the software we can run on these has access to (theoretically) a vast streaming library of content with a robust, mature distribution channel and gigantic data pipes.
But I think it's only a little bit of time before these devices simply become part of game consoles. The Wii probably has the best nascent take on this (even calling apps, "channels").
[+] [-] b0sk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protomyth|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dave1619|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ctdonath|14 years ago|reply
Apps are great for a smart interactive experience when you want it. TV per se isn't.
[+] [-] afterburner|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wmeredith|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matwood|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Steko|14 years ago|reply
I doubt Jobs was aiming to disrupt the cablecos or content producers so he needs to add value to the chain. A better remote/navigation ui isn't enough.
[+] [-] tommorris|14 years ago|reply
Have I explained how much I hate the world any time in the last hour?
I'm so glad that the goofy RPN calculator on my iPad is now considered in the same general class of things as CNN and BBC. This won't make future analysis of the software business at all shallow or ridiculous.
[+] [-] jonhohle|14 years ago|reply
It would be great if Wii channels included broadcast/cable channels (either streaming or on demand or both).
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyleslattery|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dustinupdyke|14 years ago|reply
He's been blogging since March 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke
[+] [-] mikek|14 years ago|reply