Comments on: Apple’s iTV and the carrier question

By: fanfoot

fanfoot — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:00:59 +0000

If they’re going to work with the Pay TV providers, then why is the “Apple TV” an actual TV? Why isn’t it just a much better set top box than the pieces of crap from Cisco and Motorola and even TiVo?

By: Eddie Barazi

Eddie Barazi — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 23:48:42 +0000

Apple called the telephone iPhone, so I think they will call the television iTele OR iVision….:)

By: Derek Scruggs

Derek Scruggs — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:14:12 +0000

I suspect they will sweeten the experience by integrating other i-devices. I can already control the channels on my TV via the Xfinity (Comcast) app. It’s a better remote control than the box that Comcast ships.

However, it’s limited in that it only controls cable channels, not volume, my stereo, DVD etc. If it controlled my entire home video setup, that would be a killer worth paying a premium for.

By: patricia

patricia — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:22:17 +0000

It is also because Apple doesn’t own any internet infrastructure.

By: Darran Clements

Darran Clements — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:34:30 +0000

Why would you buy one when as mentioned Xbox already provides all the mooted features and more? It will also have major problems with the name in the UK as we already have ITV (should that end up being it’s launch name).

By: fanfoot

fanfoot — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 07:04:13 +0000

Certainly one way to deal with the “first input” problem. In the US only about 15% of TV households get their TV channels ‘over the air’. The rest use a cable or satellite STB and the TV is little more than a monitor. The remote from their Pay TV provider turns the TV on and off, and raises and lowers the volume and they rapidly forget where the remote for the TV even is.

By: meolsen

meolsen — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:45:46 +0000

Since Most MSOs have already developed apps that allow you to watch cable programming on iOS5, why not just base the new TV on that OS, allow people to download apps, and then display the programming on the TV alongside other applications voila?

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:13:53 +0000

Frankly, I don’t own a television and haven’t for nearly twenty years. Nor do I have a land line any longer and haven’t since 1999. But, the television could become a value add in terms of computing and entertainment, and provide enough value for somebody like me to purchase one.

It would have to connect to my computer, or be my home computer, and provide wireless access for things like the Sonos. It is a gateway to home services, and has a lot of potential.

By: rick gregory

rick gregory — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:35:21 +0000

“I could see Apple doing something similar by allowing operator partners to build integrated apps into the new device, which could be used to control channel lineups and program discovery.”

They explicitly broke this mold with the iPhone though – there are no carrier apps on those. Carriers have shown little skill in designing UIs so I’m also confused by the idea that carrier partnerships would “…enable [Apple] to offer a better user interface …”.

Any Apple TV needs to be to current TVs what the iPhone was to phones in 2007 – a radical rethinking and improvement. A TV with, say, the current Apple TV box UI will not do much in the market. Integrating Siri, gestural controls and more would be a departure… but inflicting carrier apps on such a device will likely backfire.

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:33:15 +0000

I think it’s likely that an Apple TV product will act as a set-top box replacement. When Steve Jobs said “I finally cracked it,” he wasn’t thinking of a TV like everyone else’s.

I *don’t* doubt that Apple would introduce a new product priced far above existing products, and I also don’t doubt that it will shake up the market, as Steve Jobs surely intended.