Apple's trouble with TV
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
I think that feature is the disruptive angle to the AppleTV and that's the reason I bought one. Here's why:
All Apple has to do is add a single Boolean switch to the built in video player: allowsAirPlay. If they do this, then with a single line of code, any app developer can make an app that allows their content to be streamed to an AppleTV. Your iDevice becomes the worlds most powerful remote control almost instantly. Developers (studios, individual shows, whatever) just need to create apps for iOS which authenticate or manage the subscription to their content, and the customers can tap a single button to see it on their big screen. You gain all the advantages of apps on the AppleTV itself without actually needing them to be installed there!
Suddenly the App Store becomes a cable TV network. The added benefit is - you don't need to have an AppleTV to enjoy the benefits! Plug your iPad into your TV using that adapter cable, and you could still enjoy the same content. Or take it with you when you travel - your TV channels are all there. And when you're at home, just tap the AirPlay button to see it on the big screen.
That's the disruption I'm hoping for and Apple has every single piece in place now to do this.
The other angle here is that this could eliminate the need for Hulu entirely. Smart networks could make their own apps that follow their own desired content rules (letting you see live, non-live, only the last X days, whatever they want). And they can stream the content to the app in whatever manner of subscription they choose. And indie production companies could skip networks entirely and go straight to the App Store - just like indie musicians and podcasters are already doing.
The great thing would be that you have video on-the-go all the time, and you now have the additional option of viewing it on a bigger screen at home. It'll be hard for content providers to say, we're providing the video to users on the iPhone but we don't want them to have the ability to see it on their TV.
*Memes not required for API compatibility.
With no content storage and 100% streaming, there's no reason this couldn't work from any iDevice to any AppleTV. What I mean is: Say you have the MLB app on your iPhone, but your friend doesn't but he has an AppleTV and giant screen. You go over there with your iPhone, tap a single button, and you can both enjoy the game on the big screen. There's no syncing or sharing of iTunes accounts necessary. The same for sharing and enjoying movies and TV shows with friends. This is exactly the element that's missing in almost all current online content delivery schemes.
I thought he was strangely casual about it as if we were used to that kind of interaction and "flow", even though that's the kind of things that have been talked about for many years (the idea of starting something on my phone, it comes up on my TV screen when I get home, everything is sync'ed, etc.) without really seeing something commercial that really does it.
Absolutely. Your idea about the single boolean to allow an app to stream to Apple TV is brilliant. I was thinking Apple TV would be its own iOS platform with apps, etc, but I think you might have the solution here.
As I watched the presentation, I thought the biggest feature of Apple TV was the streaming from the iOS device. Sending Up from his iPad to the TV was cool, as is the idea of easy slideshows from pictures you take. If a friend could bring over a movie he has on his iPhone and zap it over to your TV, that would be hugely useful.
I see Apple TV at this point as akin to one of those music docks people have for their iPods. Same price and same idea. The music dock, you plop your phone down and now you have speakers for everyone to hear your songs. Apple TV, everyone can hear/watch your media on the TV.
I would love for Apple TV to eventually disrupt the awful TV industry someday, but for now I'm not sure it's much more than a low-margin accessory to generate more sales of iProducts.
Apple's strategy with TV seems to be to slow-roll it until they get to a place where they can execute a strategy that will dominate it. They can't do nothing, since that would enable competitors to dominate it. They can't revoke everyone's TV. So they launch a "hobby" product to maintain a certain level of uncertainty in the marketplace.
Criticizing the success of the Apple TV in light of that seems somewhat silly. They actually call it a hobby. I assume they're doing the minimum with it that they can actually get away with; any dollar they spend over that minimum is a dollar that isn't going to total domination of mobile computing.
Look, criticism is fair game no matter what they do. Apple isn't entitled to have the set top industry move at a pace they set. I'm just saying, there's a million things Apple can do to improve Apple TV, but improving Apple TV isn't really the point of Apple TV.
It looks like you get the iPhone (or iPod touch) guts [+] without screen, battery, cameras and probably a lot less persistent storage (I’m guessing anything between 512MB and 2GB) in a bigger box (most of that space is probably used by the PSU, though). That might just give you a margin when you sell it for $100, but probably not a big one.
I don’t think it will be a hit but I do think it will be more successful than the predecessor.
[+] Gruber seems to have a source that tells him that Apple TV uses iOS and the processor is a A4.
They are positioning themselves better then say Microsoft is, simply by referring to it as TV something, which is familiar to most people and isn't regarded as a niche market.
Consider the Xbox360, it has a relativity competitive price, all the features the Apple TV has plus, and superior implementation of others (codec support for one), and I am not even mentioning the fact that you can play games on it. (and the networks currently supported on Xbox can be seen here - http://social.zune.net/tv)
The Xbox however, is marketed as a game console, not as a Netflix, Music Video streaming/renting/buying device, that leaves it in a corner that apple is currently free to dominate using their considerable marketing clout.
The form factor and name are unassuming and non threatening, it passes clear below geek radar, but grabs the imagination of the public, in this case even without any clear technical innovation.
The notion that Apple is just lousy at marketing set-top products and that's why this isn't a runaway success beggars belief. Did you see Steve Jobs just collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player? Because I just saw him collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player.
The talk that he references is very telling of how Jobs thinks about this space, but he's wrong to think that Jobs was hinting at the new Apple TV as the solution to the problems he was discussing. The Apple TV announced yesterday is still just a hobby, and Steve obviously knows and acknowledges that openly.
The decades-old model of TV channels with scheduled content broadcasting is on the chop block here. That is what needs to eventually change. It's going to be a long uphill battle for Apple to affect that change, since all parties involved are so heavily invested in the current business models. If Apple were to embrace the status quo (like TiVo), that would be counterproductive.
So instead they continue to pursue Apple TV as a hobby and they hope to prove to the content providers that they can make as much (or more) money by renting out their content and streaming it over the internet. If they eventually succeed in amassing all the content currently provided by cable and satellite companies, consumers will buy their device en masse. I agree with those who predict that the Apple TV, at that point, will actually be a TV instead of a set top box. That's what Jobs was referring to when he said "tear up the set top box" and "nobody's willing to buy a set top box."
The complexities of living room hardware are a result of a reluctance of certain companies to abandon the broadcast paradigm for video. Devices like DVRs and SlingBox are either completely unnecessary or vastly simpler when all video is on-demand. The new Apple TV is what those devices will have to become if the traditional cable business model of transmitting every channel simultaneously to every house is replaced by an all-IP solution. (And that switch will eventually occur, because fiber to the home internet services will eventually force cable providers to reallocate all their channels to IP service.)
Once traditional broadcast services die, there's no reason to keep the concept of watching a new show at the exact same time as your neighbor (except in the case of live broadcasts, which Apple demonstrated yesterday that they probably have a solution for).
The difficulty for Apple comes from the fact that the whole pricing structure will have to change. Instead of spamming a vague number of viewers with commercials that lengthen the viewing time by 30%, and charging subscribers fees that subsidize content they never watch, providers and consumers will have to deal with real, accurate numbers: how much it really costs to produce a show, how many people are willing to pay to see that show, and how many people really see those ads.
This change is far more significant than Apple's wresting control of the iPhone software from the cellular carriers, and far more predictable than the shake-up that resulted from $0.99 songs. Apple can't manipulate all the players in to making this transition happen, so they have to rely on the market forces that already exist and position themselves to be the first and best ones to fill the niche that the Apple TV is waiting for.
[1] http://boxee.tv
I'd gladly pay for a live and on-demand archive for my favorite sports teams (and/or leagues) streamed in HD to my television. I know there are cable/satellite options for this as well as some internet/broswer-based ones but is there any solution currently bundled into any of the Roku/Boxee/AppleTV devices?
However, in my mind, the big hurdle that neither Apple nor any of it's competitors have overcome is user interface.
It's still not easy for me to say that I'd like to watch all of the new episodes of each show that I watch, have those shows automatically downloaded and presented in an easy (1 click) informative way to view on one of the 3 TV's in my house. Also, I want an easy, free way to preview new shows to see if I'd like to add them to my monthly rental subscription price and purchase an entire box set after each season ends in case I really like it.
That's it... it's not rocket science but no one has it right yet. The closest I've come is TED and Boxee.
This could also be Apple's trojan horse into the console market. There are already thousands of games available on the iPhone and iPad. It wouldn't be too hard to port many of them over to this platform since they're all running iOS. Perhaps you can use your existing iPod touches/iPhones as input devices. There's so much potential without even looking at the TV-content side of the business.
It happened with apps and the original iPhone, I think Apple would be happy to wait until they have a polished product for launch and then announce rather than pre-announce before it's ready.
Whereas TV channels have been coming to your living-rooms for decades. You buy a TV once and the channels are here. For the most part, you still had to go out to buy CDs.
In other words, the Apple TV is trying to replace something, while iTunes was providing something new.
I already have devices that can display Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand, etc. onto my TV (TiVo). Will this get the rest of my content to my television?
I think Google TV has a better direction but who knows when they plan on releasing it. http://www.google.com/tv/
They may have launched first, but I'm way more excited about what Google is not going to launch, but truly enable.