8 ms·

Apple's iTV: Apps Are the New Channels

113 points by dave1619 15y ago

dave1619 15y ago
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.
- HSO 15y ago
  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...
  - coob 15y ago
    I don't think so. First iTunes was your digital hub, now it's iCloud.
  - suivix 15y ago
    No, Microsoft tried to push things this way with their home media server in the early 00s, but it is too complicated for normal people (non hackers) to administrate. So everything is going to the cloud. Your solution would be great if bandwidth didn't exponentially increase each year.
    - cwe 15y ago
      The fact that Microsoft's solution failed is not a valid reason to assume Apple's won't.
      - ichc-werker 15y ago
        I heard rumors about some tablet PC Apple was supposed to make, called the iSlate. Too bad nothing ever came of that.
    - wtallis 15y ago
      Where in the US is bandwidth increasing exponentially each year? Can you name even a single residential neighborhood in the US that has had significant increases in available broadband speed in two consecutive years? FTTN/FTTH services are still pretty rare, and basically nobody has the choice between multiple such services. If you've got a choice between DOCSIS 3 and VDSL, you're in a very special market. (And it should go without saying that cellular ISPs aren't an option for a multi-user household.)
      - suivix 15y ago
        Nielsen's law: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html Also found this on Wikipedia (not saying it's exponential here but still supports my point): >In 1998, all of the United States backbone networks had utilized the slowest data rate of 45 Mbit/s. However the changing technologies allowed for 41 percent of backbones to have data rates of 2,488 Mbit/s or faster by the mid 2000's.
        wtallis 15y ago
        Nielsen's law is basically saying that the highest available bandwidth anywhere increases exponentially. That doesn't mean that any one customer gets an exponential increase, or that the majority of customers get any increase at all. And backbone capacity increases don't help unless they significantly outpace the growth in the number of subscribers.
jonhendry 15y ago
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.
- loumf 15y ago
  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.
  - tvon 15y ago
    Coming in two parts seems very un-Apple, though not necessarily a bad idea.
    - markkanof 15y ago
      On the surface it does seem unlike Apple to release a two part unit, but I could see it being sort of like the Macbooks and Cinema displays. The display is plugged into the wall and then there is just one cable that has data/video and power for the external processing unit. When it's time to upgrade the processing unit you just unplug a single cable and swap it out. The display part would be expected to last through at least a couple upgrades of the processing unit.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Crazy thought... what if I could get you an $800 TV carrier/cable subsidized for $200 every two years (on contract)?
  - robterrell 15y ago
    That's interesting. My cable TV bill is about the same as my mobile phone bill, and it's not subsidizing any gear. And they call me about once a week with some upsell long-term contract "deal". Maybe it should be subsidizing something. Profits in their industry are about as obscene as in mobile.
megaman821 15y ago
I don't know, I would rather have my TV content aggregated with a consistent interface. 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 15y ago
  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.
swernli 15y ago
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.
- cwe 15y ago
  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
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
    I just watched the rugby world cup at a friends house where the TV had a volume bar that honestly looked like a sperm. Wiggly tail and everything. It's not that Apple will get it right, it's that they'll do it less wrong.
- dave1619 15y ago
  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.
  - draz 15y ago
    a la Boxee?
kin 15y ago
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.
b0sk 15y ago
Wait. Isn't this what Google TV is all about?
- martythemaniak 15y ago
  Of course, but as you should know by know, nothing is ever innovative, revolutionary or even noteworthy if it doesn't come from Apple. At least as far as DF and "tech" sites like it are concerned. I find this particularly ironic, given that Google TV with the Market (and apps like Al Jazeera that do exactly what the article describes) came out today. There isn't even a mention of this anywhere on his site.
  - wmeredith 15y ago
    I think the gist of DF et al isn't that no one ever does it until Apple does it, but that no one ever does it right until Apple does it. Which I find myself agreeing with about ~70% of the time. Apple is rarely first or on the cutting edge, spec-wise, but they're almost always 2-10 years ahead of everyone else in terms of UX.
    - nr0mx 15y ago
      Well of course you are right about that, but I don't think that's the gist of it. Not entirely. There's also the insistence that where Apple was first or on the cutting edge, it is a mortal sin for others to copy. That's the ugly part. That's the dissonance I see when reading these sites.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Here is a riddle: Why is that the case? Could it be because no one cares about Google TV? Hm? Maybe that’s the reason? Ability means nothing. Apple is where it is because its products actually work with consumers. That’s the nut Apple (and Google) has to crack. The big picture matters (Maybe apps on the TV is the right answer?) and details matter (What kind of content can you get?). All your talk about ideas and ability won’t help there.
nostromo 15y ago
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.
- jamroom 15y ago
  The Networks would _love_ this though, so I could see them being "happy" with it working that way.
  - wmeredith 15y ago
    The problem isn't the networks, it's the infrastructure owners. They don't want to sell commodity bits through a dumb pipe, they want to provide premium content bundles.
    - bergie 15y ago
      A bit like mobile operators, pre-iPhone. All of them tried to push their own value-add, operator-specific app stores etc.
- technoslut 15y ago
  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.
  - spullara 15y ago
    Once you are on TiVo or something like it you don't know when something is on or even what channel it is on.
- jodrellblank 15y ago
dhyasama 15y ago
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?"
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  "I don't know what you mean by 'Albert Pujols lifetime batting average with two outs and the bases loaded'." "If you like I can search the web for 'Albert Pujols'." [Search the web]
  - mikedouglas 15y ago
    Opening Siri up to third-parties becomes much simpler if it can be made modal.
- glhaynes 15y ago
  Maybe the much-discussed Siri API will show up on Apple TV first!
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 15y ago
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.
- dave1619 15y ago
  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.
ctdonath 15y ago
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.
- wmeredith 15y ago
  So the "Surfing" app will make a mint.
- afterburner 15y ago
  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.
  - dusing 15y ago
    Three years into no cable here. However I probably watch more TV now, it's just only EXACTLY what I want to watch. With my MythTV dvr and Ted, I don't miss a thing. HGTV and Food network were my time sucks, hours ago by before you notice.
- matwood 15y ago
  Oddly enough, I think DVRs are training people to not do exactly what you say.
  - dusing 15y ago
    I saw a stat (it was cited but I can't find it) that 30% of all TV watching is not live and that was across _all_ age groups, I couldn't imagine how high that number is for 20, and 30 something's.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Not quite. DVRs enhance the brain-dead viewing experience by queueing up what someone wants to watch, more than they can in a sitting. Now that constant video stream is what they want, not just a tolerable channel. So far I have yet to see an app (or equivalent) which will run a constant stream of what someone wants to see with a broad mix and minimal setup. If we can get the DVR equivalent on a mobile or set top box, there's the win.
zach 15y ago
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/answer/Zach-Baker 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.
- dave1619 15y ago
  I think "I finally cracked it" means that he finally discovered a way to get TV content directly to the view without the cable stations getting in the way. He described the problem in his Walt Mossberg interview @ AllThingsD conference in 2010, I think. He basically said the TV problem is very challenging and he doesn't have a solution because the cable companies control the viewing experience for the user, and Apple would be stuck with just adding another device onto the TV but wouldn't be able to really disrupt much (ie., current Apple TV as a hobby). SJ finally cracking it probably means he found a way to circumvent the cable companies... thus, apps as a means to directly give TV to users. But not just apps, but probably some kind of aggregation of TV shows from all the TV apps out there to provide a new interface/experience with all the content available, so you don't need a cable subscription anymore.
- Fluxx 15y ago
  Steve Jobs has commented on how to disrupt the TV market before. Here is the transcript of the relevant parts: "The problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go-to-market strategy. The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set-top box for free, or for $10 per month That pretty much squashes any opportunity for innovation, because nobody’s willing to buy a set top box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us…ask Google in a few months. The only way that’s ever going to change is if you can really go back to square one, tear up the set top box, redesign it from scratch with a consistent UI across all these different functions, and get it to consumers in a way that they’re willing to pay for it. And right now there’s no way to do that. The TV is going to lose until there’s a better — until there’s a viable — go to market strategy. Otherwise you’re just making another Tivo. It’s not a problem with technology, not a problem with vision, it’s a fundamental go to market problem. And then it not like there’s a GSM standard where you build a phone for the US and it also works in all these other countries. No, every single country has different standards, different government approvals, it’s very…Tower of Bableish. No, balkanized. I’m sure smarter people than us will figure this out, but that’s why we say Apple TV a hobby; that’s why we use that phrase." For video see the section on, "On Apple TV and why television is balkanized:" http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/what-you-need-to-know-about-steve-jobs-talk-at-d8-2010062/ http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/what-you-need-to-know-abo... I've blogged about this subject before as well, but I'll include my thoughts here as well: "Content producers like TV studios and stations control the entire TV industry because they control the content. They’ve created this market where customers pay for the content (subsidized by commercials) and get the hardware for free. But by getting the hardware for free, they’ve stifled any innovation and advancement downstream from content production. Only through the magic of open-source software has innovation happened. XBMC is an amazing piece of software and is getting easier and easier to use very day. At the same time, downloading TV is now easier than ever and still getting easier. It’s only a matter of time before someone makes the 'Napster for TV shows.' People are already dropping their cable for Hulu and Netflix." http://bitfluxx.com/2011/04/16/the-revolution-is-coming-and-it-will-be-televised.html http://bitfluxx.com/2011/04/16/the-revolution-is-coming-and-...
bane 15y ago
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").
ChrisLTD 15y ago
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.
- falling 15y ago
  The app solution would have some value for the content providers, the Google solution of scraping the web would give most of the value back to Google.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. There are two types of video content right now: 1) Ad supported 2) Pay per episode or subscription Unless Google tries to block the ads or take an outsized cut of the episode or subscription fee, the content providers are no worse off than with Apple's current or proposed solution. Edit: Outside of YouTube, the ads shown before videos online are one of the few places Google does not seem to have a near monopoly online. In my experience, most of the ads seem to be for cars and insurance companies and controlled by the website owner themselves (Hulu, Comedy Central, NBC, ESPN3).
    - falling 15y ago
      Question for you: who provides 99% of web advertisement?
      - falling 15y ago
        Exactly: http://www.businessinsider.com/make-no-mistake-google-is-taking-on-the-tv-industry-2011-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/make-no-mistake-google-is-tak...
zerostar07 15y ago
God i hope html5 moves fast so we don't have to be tied up behind "app frameworks" for long. Enough damage already
jonhohle 15y ago
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).
dustinupdyke 15y ago
I would not consider Jason Kottke to be an "up-and-coming young blogger". He's been blogging since March 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke
- mikek 15y ago
  John Gruber was being sarcastic.
kleptco 15y ago
Channels suck right, so is this supposed to be good news?
brudgers 15y ago
Maybe Apple can call it "WebTV?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webtv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webtv]
Steko 15y ago
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.
tomkarlo 15y ago
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.
- dave1619 15y ago
  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.
- brianpan 15y ago
  Standardization comes from the framework. Just like apps (mostly) have similar button elements, tab views, etc. "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.
  - tomkarlo 15y ago
    Reuse of widgets doesn't constitute useful standardization. And content producers don't tend to want to standardize their interfaces - they want to differentiate from their competitors, not resemble them. Will these apps publish their metadata in a way that third party apps can access and manage the content? Imagine if we had "reader apps" instead of web sites that you could scrape or grab RSS feeds from... it would be like the old AOL / CDROM days.
    - brianpan 15y ago
nextparadigms 15y ago
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.
- kyleslattery 15y ago
  To be fair, he also mentioned the idea on The Talk Show, which was released yesterday: http://5by5.tv/talkshow/64-they-had-to-burn-the-sheets http://5by5.tv/talkshow/64-they-had-to-burn-the-sheets
extension 15y ago
In his D8 interview last year, Jobs had this to say about a hypothetical Apple television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpucaAzh0U#t=153s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpucaAzh0U#t=153s 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 15y ago
  >But what about the global connectivity issue? 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)?
tommorris 15y ago
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.

113 points by dave1619 15y ago

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.

HSO 15y ago
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...
- coob 15y ago
  I don't think so. First iTunes was your digital hub, now it's iCloud.
- suivix 15y ago
  No, Microsoft tried to push things this way with their home media server in the early 00s, but it is too complicated for normal people (non hackers) to administrate. So everything is going to the cloud. Your solution would be great if bandwidth didn't exponentially increase each year.
  - cwe 15y ago
    The fact that Microsoft's solution failed is not a valid reason to assume Apple's won't.
    - ichc-werker 15y ago
      I heard rumors about some tablet PC Apple was supposed to make, called the iSlate. Too bad nothing ever came of that.
  - wtallis 15y ago
    Where in the US is bandwidth increasing exponentially each year? Can you name even a single residential neighborhood in the US that has had significant increases in available broadband speed in two consecutive years? FTTN/FTTH services are still pretty rare, and basically nobody has the choice between multiple such services. If you've got a choice between DOCSIS 3 and VDSL, you're in a very special market. (And it should go without saying that cellular ISPs aren't an option for a multi-user household.)
    - suivix 15y ago
      Nielsen's law: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html Also found this on Wikipedia (not saying it's exponential here but still supports my point): >In 1998, all of the United States backbone networks had utilized the slowest data rate of 45 Mbit/s. However the changing technologies allowed for 41 percent of backbones to have data rates of 2,488 Mbit/s or faster by the mid 2000's.
      - wtallis 15y ago
        Nielsen's law is basically saying that the highest available bandwidth anywhere increases exponentially. That doesn't mean that any one customer gets an exponential increase, or that the majority of customers get any increase at all. And backbone capacity increases don't help unless they significantly outpace the growth in the number of subscribers.

jonhendry 15y ago

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.

loumf 15y ago
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.
- tvon 15y ago
  Coming in two parts seems very un-Apple, though not necessarily a bad idea.
  - markkanof 15y ago
    On the surface it does seem unlike Apple to release a two part unit, but I could see it being sort of like the Macbooks and Cinema displays. The display is plugged into the wall and then there is just one cable that has data/video and power for the external processing unit. When it's time to upgrade the processing unit you just unplug a single cable and swap it out. The display part would be expected to last through at least a couple upgrades of the processing unit.
kenjackson 15y ago
Crazy thought... what if I could get you an $800 TV carrier/cable subsidized for $200 every two years (on contract)?
- robterrell 15y ago
  That's interesting. My cable TV bill is about the same as my mobile phone bill, and it's not subsidizing any gear. And they call me about once a week with some upsell long-term contract "deal". Maybe it should be subsidizing something. Profits in their industry are about as obscene as in mobile.

megaman821 15y ago

I don't know, I would rather have my TV content aggregated with a consistent interface. 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 15y ago
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.

swernli 15y ago

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.

cwe 15y ago
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
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Anti-Ratfish 15y ago
  I just watched the rugby world cup at a friends house where the TV had a volume bar that honestly looked like a sperm. Wiggly tail and everything. It's not that Apple will get it right, it's that they'll do it less wrong.
dave1619 15y ago
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.
- draz 15y ago
  a la Boxee?

kin 15y ago

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.

b0sk 15y ago

Wait. Isn't this what Google TV is all about?

martythemaniak 15y ago
Of course, but as you should know by know, nothing is ever innovative, revolutionary or even noteworthy if it doesn't come from Apple. At least as far as DF and "tech" sites like it are concerned. I find this particularly ironic, given that Google TV with the Market (and apps like Al Jazeera that do exactly what the article describes) came out today. There isn't even a mention of this anywhere on his site.
- wmeredith 15y ago
  I think the gist of DF et al isn't that no one ever does it until Apple does it, but that no one ever does it right until Apple does it. Which I find myself agreeing with about ~70% of the time. Apple is rarely first or on the cutting edge, spec-wise, but they're almost always 2-10 years ahead of everyone else in terms of UX.
  - nr0mx 15y ago
    Well of course you are right about that, but I don't think that's the gist of it. Not entirely. There's also the insistence that where Apple was first or on the cutting edge, it is a mortal sin for others to copy. That's the ugly part. That's the dissonance I see when reading these sites.
- ugh 15y ago
  Here is a riddle: Why is that the case? Could it be because no one cares about Google TV? Hm? Maybe that’s the reason? Ability means nothing. Apple is where it is because its products actually work with consumers. That’s the nut Apple (and Google) has to crack. The big picture matters (Maybe apps on the TV is the right answer?) and details matter (What kind of content can you get?). All your talk about ideas and ability won’t help there.

nostromo 15y ago

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.

jamroom 15y ago
The Networks would _love_ this though, so I could see them being "happy" with it working that way.
- wmeredith 15y ago
  The problem isn't the networks, it's the infrastructure owners. They don't want to sell commodity bits through a dumb pipe, they want to provide premium content bundles.
  - bergie 15y ago
    A bit like mobile operators, pre-iPhone. All of them tried to push their own value-add, operator-specific app stores etc.
technoslut 15y ago
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.
- spullara 15y ago
  Once you are on TiVo or something like it you don't know when something is on or even what channel it is on.
jodrellblank 15y ago

dhyasama 15y ago

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?"

ChrisLTD 15y ago
"I don't know what you mean by 'Albert Pujols lifetime batting average with two outs and the bases loaded'." "If you like I can search the web for 'Albert Pujols'." [Search the web]
- mikedouglas 15y ago
  Opening Siri up to third-parties becomes much simpler if it can be made modal.
glhaynes 15y ago
Maybe the much-discussed Siri API will show up on Apple TV first!

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 15y ago

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.

dave1619 15y ago
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.

ctdonath 15y ago

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.

wmeredith 15y ago
So the "Surfing" app will make a mint.
afterburner 15y ago
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.
- dusing 15y ago
  Three years into no cable here. However I probably watch more TV now, it's just only EXACTLY what I want to watch. With my MythTV dvr and Ted, I don't miss a thing. HGTV and Food network were my time sucks, hours ago by before you notice.
matwood 15y ago
Oddly enough, I think DVRs are training people to not do exactly what you say.
- dusing 15y ago
  I saw a stat (it was cited but I can't find it) that 30% of all TV watching is not live and that was across _all_ age groups, I couldn't imagine how high that number is for 20, and 30 something's.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Not quite. DVRs enhance the brain-dead viewing experience by queueing up what someone wants to watch, more than they can in a sitting. Now that constant video stream is what they want, not just a tolerable channel. So far I have yet to see an app (or equivalent) which will run a constant stream of what someone wants to see with a broad mix and minimal setup. If we can get the DVR equivalent on a mobile or set top box, there's the win.

zach 15y ago

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/answer/Zach-Baker 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.

dave1619 15y ago
I think "I finally cracked it" means that he finally discovered a way to get TV content directly to the view without the cable stations getting in the way. He described the problem in his Walt Mossberg interview @ AllThingsD conference in 2010, I think. He basically said the TV problem is very challenging and he doesn't have a solution because the cable companies control the viewing experience for the user, and Apple would be stuck with just adding another device onto the TV but wouldn't be able to really disrupt much (ie., current Apple TV as a hobby). SJ finally cracking it probably means he found a way to circumvent the cable companies... thus, apps as a means to directly give TV to users. But not just apps, but probably some kind of aggregation of TV shows from all the TV apps out there to provide a new interface/experience with all the content available, so you don't need a cable subscription anymore.
Fluxx 15y ago
Steve Jobs has commented on how to disrupt the TV market before. Here is the transcript of the relevant parts: "The problem with innovation in the TV industry is the go-to-market strategy. The TV industry has a subsidized model that gives everyone a set-top box for free, or for $10 per month That pretty much squashes any opportunity for innovation, because nobody’s willing to buy a set top box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us…ask Google in a few months. The only way that’s ever going to change is if you can really go back to square one, tear up the set top box, redesign it from scratch with a consistent UI across all these different functions, and get it to consumers in a way that they’re willing to pay for it. And right now there’s no way to do that. The TV is going to lose until there’s a better — until there’s a viable — go to market strategy. Otherwise you’re just making another Tivo. It’s not a problem with technology, not a problem with vision, it’s a fundamental go to market problem. And then it not like there’s a GSM standard where you build a phone for the US and it also works in all these other countries. No, every single country has different standards, different government approvals, it’s very…Tower of Bableish. No, balkanized. I’m sure smarter people than us will figure this out, but that’s why we say Apple TV a hobby; that’s why we use that phrase." For video see the section on, "On Apple TV and why television is balkanized:" http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/what-you-need-to-know-about-steve-jobs-talk-at-d8-2010062/ http://www.geek.com/articles/apple/what-you-need-to-know-abo... I've blogged about this subject before as well, but I'll include my thoughts here as well: "Content producers like TV studios and stations control the entire TV industry because they control the content. They’ve created this market where customers pay for the content (subsidized by commercials) and get the hardware for free. But by getting the hardware for free, they’ve stifled any innovation and advancement downstream from content production. Only through the magic of open-source software has innovation happened. XBMC is an amazing piece of software and is getting easier and easier to use very day. At the same time, downloading TV is now easier than ever and still getting easier. It’s only a matter of time before someone makes the 'Napster for TV shows.' People are already dropping their cable for Hulu and Netflix." http://bitfluxx.com/2011/04/16/the-revolution-is-coming-and-it-will-be-televised.html http://bitfluxx.com/2011/04/16/the-revolution-is-coming-and-...

bane 15y ago

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").

ChrisLTD 15y ago

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.

falling 15y ago
The app solution would have some value for the content providers, the Google solution of scraping the web would give most of the value back to Google.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  I'm not sure that's true. There are two types of video content right now: 1) Ad supported 2) Pay per episode or subscription Unless Google tries to block the ads or take an outsized cut of the episode or subscription fee, the content providers are no worse off than with Apple's current or proposed solution. Edit: Outside of YouTube, the ads shown before videos online are one of the few places Google does not seem to have a near monopoly online. In my experience, most of the ads seem to be for cars and insurance companies and controlled by the website owner themselves (Hulu, Comedy Central, NBC, ESPN3).
  - falling 15y ago
    Question for you: who provides 99% of web advertisement?
    - falling 15y ago
      Exactly: http://www.businessinsider.com/make-no-mistake-google-is-taking-on-the-tv-industry-2011-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/make-no-mistake-google-is-tak...

zerostar07 15y ago

God i hope html5 moves fast so we don't have to be tied up behind "app frameworks" for long. Enough damage already

jonhohle 15y ago

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).

dustinupdyke 15y ago

I would not consider Jason Kottke to be an "up-and-coming young blogger". He's been blogging since March 1998. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kottke

mikek 15y ago
John Gruber was being sarcastic.

kleptco 15y ago

Channels suck right, so is this supposed to be good news?

brudgers 15y ago

Maybe Apple can call it "WebTV?" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webtv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webtv]

Steko 15y ago

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.

tomkarlo 15y ago

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.

dave1619 15y ago
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.
brianpan 15y ago
Standardization comes from the framework. Just like apps (mostly) have similar button elements, tab views, etc. "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.
- tomkarlo 15y ago
  Reuse of widgets doesn't constitute useful standardization. And content producers don't tend to want to standardize their interfaces - they want to differentiate from their competitors, not resemble them. Will these apps publish their metadata in a way that third party apps can access and manage the content? Imagine if we had "reader apps" instead of web sites that you could scrape or grab RSS feeds from... it would be like the old AOL / CDROM days.
  - brianpan 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

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.

kyleslattery 15y ago
To be fair, he also mentioned the idea on The Talk Show, which was released yesterday: http://5by5.tv/talkshow/64-they-had-to-burn-the-sheets http://5by5.tv/talkshow/64-they-had-to-burn-the-sheets

extension 15y ago

In his D8 interview last year, Jobs had this to say about a hypothetical Apple television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpucaAzh0U#t=153s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGpucaAzh0U#t=153s 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 15y ago
>But what about the global connectivity issue? 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)?

tommorris 15y ago

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.