[Macworld]

Post your comments for Imagining an Apple television here

[SockRolid]

Re: "...but its real selling point may well be Apple’s ability to cut through old paradigms and change the way I do things in ways I could never imagine..."

Exactly. We have been trained, since birth, to deal with the big ugly mess that is the home TV viewing experience. And that extensive training is the only reason we can tolerate it. People used horses for daily transportation for millennia. The manure and occasional dead horse in the street was all part of the deal.

The rats nest of cables. 50-button remotes. 3- and 4-digit channel numbers. The pain of on-screen keyboards. The indifference of satellite and cable TV customer service. It's clumsy, ugly, complex, and it stinks. But, because we know no other way, we deal with it and we like it. And this is why asking people what they would like in an Apple television set is like asking a mid-19th century commuter what they want in personal transportation.

"If I'd asked customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'A faster horse.' "
- Henry Ford

[icerabbit]

 Macworld, on 03 January 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

Post your comments for Imagining an Apple television here

IF we get an Apple TV it will be super thin, have limited I/O, some type of iOS interface that is tied to the iTunes Store, ... which will not be the right match for the average tech consumer, who won't buy it because it won't be compatible with all the legacy gear we want to connect and who can't afford it because they already paid a decent amount for the flat screen(s) TV they already have, their iPhones, iPads, ...

That said, I'm more than ready for a shift in cable viewing and delivery. I hate the big companies' tiered pricing; local monopolies; .... Cable companies are cutting the analog cord and are looking to mandate Digital Cable Adapters per TV as they are seeking to encrypt EVERYTHING. They've been asking the FCC to cut lift the clear-QAM must-carry of local channels; claiming cable theft, maintenance cost, ... as reasons for the "improvement". Never mind all the downsides of obsolete gear, box per tv wiring hassle, extra remote, extra cost per digital cable adapter each month, ...

I was going to link to an older article and just saw that the FCC actually has ruled to allow basic cable encryption ?!

http://www.engadget....w-strings-that/

[jdb8167]

The only thing I use my TV for is to watch live sports. This is something that IP television has done very poorly so far.

[RobLewis]

No one remembers today that when FireWire was introduced, one of its envisioned missions was to eliminate cable clutter behind the home A/V system. Component manufacturers apparently invested some effort in developing this, but it never got off the ground (perhaps due to Apple's licensing demands for the technology).

I recently tore down an old analog A/V system and replaced it with one centered on a digital receiver and HDTV; I was able to eliminate a significant number of cables but it's still a bit of a rat's nest. Thunderbird sounds great as a solution if it doesn't succumb the way FireWire did.

[muchospanish]

A lot of the ideas I read for modernizing the television seems to be how to change the channel. The problem really is that the living room television is shared device, with multiple people watching at the same time. I think that a lot of people watch at the same time and use their cell phones or iPads while they watch. People seem to be very distracted while watching TV these days.

[icerabbit]

 muchospanish, on 04 January 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I think that a lot of people watch at the same time and use their cell phones or iPads while they watch. People seem to be very distracted while watching TV these days.

I agree. In our case that is for the most part due to what is on TV. Even good content is severely chopped up with commercials, so every 5 to 7 minutes you get a break for several minutes. Average content, and even the news, only requires your visual attention at the most important moments, for the rest you can listen in. Many times a family member wants to watch something where they like you to share the couch (like right now ) but the content is 75% interesting to her and 25% to me, so I wing it with a laptop or a tablet. Now, some would consider this rude and I certainly understand that point. However this is only for some content, at certain times, and the same happens the other way around, where a book is read, a game is played, ... etc. When we watch great content as in documentaries, movies, or a tv series through netflix, dvd, blu-ray; where we are not interrupted every few minutes for several minutes; then the electronics are stowed away.

[Getzel]

I really like many Apple Products. I own a Macbook Pro and have an IPOD Touch and I enjoy and use these products. Most people I know already own a some sort of HD Flatscreen TV. An Apple might be pretty cool but unless the innovation is mind blowing or the cost competitive? Why would Americans go out in groves to by such a product when most people I know are content with the TV's they already own. I'm waiting to be blown away.

[RodDalitz]

I cannot believe Apple will build a TV with display surface. There are far too many different sizes, from laptop screen size to super-immense, and new technology like 3D (which I think will really take off when someone figures how to use circular-polarised glasses). So what would make sense to me is a kinda video hub, with all kinds of inputs and control, and with one cable to the video screen. But that is not all that different to the Apple TV I already own? So, guessing game, indeed.

[Robinthehood]

You know Apple and if they are going to do it, the TV or anything new, it's got to be ground braking/changing as well as keeping it as simple as possible and ultra stylish(ya to Jony Ive). It's going to be a do it all computer hanging on the wall!
I agree that they'll surely want to have an iTunes type interface connected and synced to all your other Apple devices (desk tops, lap tops, and mobile).
To make it look and feel so cool all of it will be managed by the ultimate control device - our voices.
Siri is going to play a big roll in this and I hope they get it right the first time.
We can hardly wait.

P.S. Its been said many times but the best cable management is no cables at all!

[dserrone]

I've been an Apple user since my Apple II. My kids grew up on apple computers and we all own couple today. I've worked on both platforms for work and play - and- Apple is by far the least problematic system.

If apple really wanted to get ahead of the curve they should start negotiating with HBO, ShowTime, SyFy, History, A&E, etc. and takes all of us where we would really like to go; to cafeteria style provider that charges for just the channels you want. Most people probably watch the same 10-12 channels/networks - so why pay for 200?

That would set the Apple TV apart and most likely have other TV manufactures Paying to include the system in their TVs

[EricO]

Quote

The only thing I use my TV for is to watch live sports. This is something that IP television has done very poorly so far.

50% of the country watches sports almost exclusively. The other half almost never watch sports.Brings to mind why we pay so much for bundles that include sports programming when we want to watch movies, and vice-versal.

[mdurrie]

I imagine that an Apple-branded TV will come in tandem with a new "a la carte" subscription-based service (available ONLY to owners of the new hardware, at least at first) allowing streaming of the TV shows of one's choice for a flat fee. So let's say for $25 or $30 a month you could populate your schedule with programming you want, and watch it at your convenience. Of course this poses hurdles in terms of dealing with the content providers, especially for things like live news and sports. Talk about a paradigm shift! But the groundwork is already laid in the iTunes store, and if anyone can make this happen, it's Apple. Can't wait.