[The Godfather]

In response to the decline of the computer desk in the average household.
Returning to the $500 price level, keeping the hardware cost as low as possible, probably inching close to the iPad 3 graphic prowess, but with a fanless Intel.
Along with a new controller that is half magic mouse, half wii controller and also a Siri microphone.
New GUI for the 7' paradigm obviously inspired by the Apple TV, but with the creativity and professional tools made for the Mac.
Built-in dock for your iPhone.
Hard disk upgradable to keep all your DVR recordings.
Return of the optical disc reader.
Potentially being named Mac TV, Mac Nano, or the Apple TV Pro.

[Spheric Harlot]

1. What's "Blu-Ray"? (I vaguely remember it being some Spanish media system, but I can't quite recall...)

2. Which standard will they be building into their boxes? DVB-C? DVB-S? DVB-T? PAL or SECAM? Analog, for those markets not yet covered? If they build in DVB-C and/or -S, what will they do about the CI slot? Many cable providers require that CI cards be regularly inserted into their own boxes for encryption code updates when the code changes and they stop working (well, the biggest one in this country does).

3. If they split it up, á la LTE flavors on iPad, do they really want to deal with FOUR TIMES the number of SKUs just so people can watch TV (which is inevitably going away in favor of on-demand viewing—eventually)?

4. If they don't split it up, who will have the slightest interest in paying the extra $400 for the inclusion of ALL those standards, plus a bulky CI slot, just to watch TV, when a basic elgato DVB-T stick can be had for $60? Or a CI-compatible DVB-S box for $200?

In other words: HAHHAHAHHAHAhhahahahahahano.




Full disclosure: I use my iMac to watch analog TV via cable, using an elgato hybrid. I don't subscribe to any pay-per-view channels, and of the 400-some channels of shit on the TV, I'm interested in about eight, and regularly watch a single series, and record about three shows for my daughter.

[ort888]

No.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

2. Which standard will they be building into their boxes? DVB-C? DVB-S? DVB-T? PAL or SECAM? Analog, for those markets not yet covered? If they build in DVB-C and/or -S, what will they do about the CI slot? Many cable providers require that CI cards be regularly inserted into their own boxes for encryption code updates when the code changes and they stop working (well, the biggest one in this country does).

They can keep doing the same thing El Gato does, offering different hardware in different markets
Undoubtedly the same thing they do with power adapters, have them be swappable

3. If they split it up, á la LTE flavors on iPad, do they really want to deal with FOUR TIMES the number of SKUs just so people can watch TV (which is inevitably going away in favor of on-demand viewing—eventually)?

Of all the challenges of this idea, you think that keeping track of more SKU numbers is even on the radar? That's fanboi talk

4. If they don't split it up, who will have the slightest interest in paying the extra $400 for the inclusion of ALL those standards, plus a bulky CI slot, just to watch TV, when a basic elgato DVB-T stick can be had for $60? Or a CI-compatible DVB-S box for $200?

The cost in general, I agree with. They won't be able to keep it under $500 while including tuners. At current prices though, it's doable.

[imitchellg5]

This is about the most un-Apple idea for Apple ever.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They can keep doing the same thing El Gato does, offering different hardware in different markets
Undoubtedly the same thing they do with power adapters, have them be swappable

Apple stopped building different power adapters well over ten years ago. They merely throw in a different duck-head adapter (except for the new one-piece USB power supplies for iPhone/iPod). The SKUs may be different, but the PRODUCTS THEMSELVES are identical (except for accessories: keyboards, manuals, duck heads, extension cords). Welcome to the twenty-first century.

What you're suggesting is regional variations of the products themselves. Apple hasn't done that since the '90s. And even then, only briefly, IIRC.
Have you missed that the guy who got the job of streamlining Apple's product process, supplies, and product portfolio is now running the company?

As for elgato: Hello, have you ever looked at their product portfolio at all? Or have you not bothered reading my post closely?

Elgato offers pretty much THE SAME hardware in different markets.

It's just that they offer FIVE (actually seven, but only five make sense where I live) DIFFERENT PRODUCTS depending upon what service you actually get/want.

I use the eyetv hybrid because I have analog/digital cable. If I wanted to watch pay-TV via that cable, I would need a DVB-C tuner with a CI card slot, which elgato no longer even sells here due to Kabel Deutschland's above-mentioned insistence upon re-configuring the card-based encryption every few weeks. If I didn't have cable, I could have got the simple DTT stick for half the price. If I had satellite TV, I could either get the eyetv sat (with CI slot for encrypted pay-TV) or the sat free (without CI slot).

ALL FOR THE SAME APARTMENT IN THE SAME TOWN, RIGHT NOW.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Of all the challenges of this idea, you think that keeping track of more SKU numbers is even on the radar? That's fanboy talk

Awesome.

Some ignorant jackass just called me a fanboy on my own home turf.

Again, what do you think Tim Cook was hired for originally?

The cost in general, I agree with. They won't be able to keep it under $500 while including tuners. At current prices though, it's doable.

The eyetv hybrid is over €130. The cheapest, DVB-T-only stick is €60.
The eyetv sat free is €100, the one with CI slot is €200, and the DVB-C one with the CI slot (that's no longer sold here) was €200, as well. Apparently, there's another standard used only in the Netherlands, which would be another €100.

Throw all those things in together, build them into a device, and you're increasing that device's price by AT LEAST $300, on top of what it would cost already.

AND build in an optical drive.

AND return to the $500 level.

Are you drunk?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

They can keep doing the same thing El Gato does, offering different hardware in different markets
Undoubtedly the same thing they do with power adapters, have them be swappable

Actually Apple takes pains to avoid different versions of the same model for different markets. The cellular chipsets being the only (unavoidable and financially worthwhile) example for a long time.

All Apple PSUs have been rated for 110-250V for over a decade. The PowerMac G3 smurf and predecessors had a switch to go from 110 to 240 but I think they were the last to need it.

Apple does not like this kind of product diversification but it isn't just a matter of SKU numbers.

[Waragainstsleep]

On the subject of SKU tracking Apple uses things called EEE codes on parts. Engineers have to match them to get the correct replacements. Apple won't always send out the same EEE code replacement but they never confirm which ones are interchangeable other than by what they send out from the warehouse.

The magsafe adaptors and the PPC ones before them have had dozens and dozens of EEE codes. Its probably batches and internal revisions for fault tracking purposes or something.

[subego]

What does POT mean?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Apple stopped building different power adapters well over ten years ago. They merely throw in a different duck-head adapter (except for the new one-piece USB power supplies for iPhone/iPod).

po tay to po taw to. The different tuners can be "duck-heads" too.

The SKUs may be different, but the PRODUCTS THEMSELVES are identical (except for accessories: keyboards, manuals, duck heads, extension cords). Welcome to the twenty-first century.

And that wouldn't change. The different tuners would fall under "accessories: manuals, duck heads, extension cords," and don't forget those obnoxious monitor dongles that Apple has had no qualms about for over 10 years now. My EyeTV Hybrid is smaller than the DVI dongle that came with my Mac Pro, and I don't even have the new(ish) smaller EyeTV hybrid.

As for elgato: Hello, have you ever looked at their product portfolio at all? Or have you not bothered reading my post closely?

Have you? They're all "accessories" to start with. You literally said "except for accessories," which is what they are.

The eyetv hybrid is over €130. The cheapest, DVB-T-only stick is €60.
The eyetv sat free is €100, the one with CI slot is €200, and the DVB-C one with the CI slot (that's no longer sold here) was €200, as well. Apparently, there's another standard used only in the Netherlands, which would be another €100.

Throw all those things in together, build them into a device, and you're increasing that device's price by AT LEAST $300, on top of what it would cost already.

It's not because of the hardware, as the Windows equivalents are less than half the price. It's because of El Gato's (pretty good) software for OS X, and the lack of economies of scale on the Mac side to support that R&D without the customer paying extra. Apple wouldn't have that problem.

And again, you're assuming the tuner will be internal despite (1) having to give different customers different tuners (2) them buying the IP from a company that doesn't support any internal tuners and (3) Apple's long history of loving dongles and adapters.

AND build in an optical drive.

which they somehow managed to do for far less money many years ago

AND return to the $500 level.

Are you drunk?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply a sloppy reader. I specifically said that $500 was NOT possible if they're including a tuner (I will lay odds that they won't give out multiple tuners to each customer, knowing that all but 1 will be useless in any one household).

Another thing... they will suffer for having missed the boat on unencrypted cable. Now that US cable companies are encrypting most channels, they will have a hard job to do to make cable seem irrelevant or to license a cableCARD system.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

po tay to po taw to. The different tuners can be "duck-heads" too.


And that wouldn't change. The different tuners would fall under "accessories: manuals, duck heads, extension cords," and don't forget those obnoxious monitor dongles that Apple has had no qualms about for over 10 years now. My EyeTV Hybrid is smaller than the DVI dongle that came with my Mac Pro, and I don't even have the new(ish) smaller EyeTV hybrid.

Oh...I missed that you wanted them to just include the eyetv hardware as it is...all seven or eight products, or the six of them that are relevant to the market.

Since around 2006, Apple no longer includes any dongles or adapters (the sole exception being the Mac mini and its mDP->DVI adapter), and including SIX of them is completely ridiculous.

Instead, Apple should build all seven or however many it would take to cover the market, and sell them as accessories.

Except elgato already does this.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not because of the hardware, as the Windows equivalents are less than half the price. It's because of El Gato's (pretty good) software for OS X, and the lack of economies of scale on the Mac side to support that R&D without the customer paying extra. Apple wouldn't have that problem.

I already figured that, which is why I said $300, rather than $700 (though I assumed extra savings for being built-in. Now that you've clarified that you're looking at external dongles, there's an awful lot of redundant hardware that adds to each product's cost).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

And again, you're assuming the tuner will be internal despite (1) having to give different customers different tuners (2) them buying the IP from a company that doesn't support any internal tuners and (3) Apple's long history of loving dongles and adapters.

Again, this particular area here would qualify for FIVE DIFFERENT dongles. Apple should include them all?

Or Apple should sell them as external adapters like the mini DisplayPort adapters?

Who ****ing cares?

This is a classic third-party niche, and it is excellently filled by the guys from Munich, who obviously love their Macs and make great software for nice hardware.

[Salty]

At this point Apple wouldn't be interested in fitting into an existing scheme they'd be looking at rewriting it. Other people already make tools to work with the cable systems as backward as they can be, why would Apple do that if they can't make it better. The only way they'd jump into this market is if they can offer something truly unique.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Salty 

At this point Apple wouldn't be interested in fitting into an existing scheme they'd be looking at rewriting it. Other people already make tools to work with the cable systems as backward as they can be, why would Apple do that if they can't make it better. The only way they'd jump into this market is if they can offer something truly unique.

Bingo.

I know I'm not representative, but I almost *never* use the eyetv to watch live TV. That's just annoying, and it seems obvious that the current TV business model needs to (and will) die—at some point.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe I'm the only one who sees a lot of room for improvement in the HTPC space (especially in Apple's wheelhouse -- interface and it "just working"). El Gato and other 3rd parties are hamstrung by the lack of control over the larger operating system and lack of bargaining power with content providers (including guide data, which has been an ongoing disaster with EyeTV). MS is making big money with WMC, and I think Apple could do even better (do the job better, not necessarily sell more units than MS). What Apple is best at is what cable is worst at: user experience. If Apple did this, it could very likely reverse exactly the reasons that people whine about TV today.

[mduell]

No support for FiOS or U-verse? Lame.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

What does POT mean?

That's a good question. I'd like to know as well.

[ort888]

That's what he's been smoking to come up with an idea like this.

[The Godfather]

POT=potential
At least I don't speak to myself.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Who ****ing cares?

Obviously you don't, but I do.

This is a classic third-party niche, and it is excellently filled by the guys from Munich, who obviously love their Macs and make great software for nice hardware.

That's no reason why it wouldn't be absorbed by Apple, and it's exactly what happened to mp3 players and iTunes (for example, one of many). When iTunes was born, I was resentful that they turned my favorite mp3 player (software) into a bloated ugly mess, and I kind of still am. But that's because I don't really like music, and so I want the music experience to be minimal. But I do like TV, and I think that what Apple did for music with iTunes would be a big win for TV, and no one has done it (well) before. WMC comes close, and it's actually very mac-like in user experience. The 3rd party options for Mac are doing the best they can with the limitations they have, but it's nowhere near "excellently filled," and you still need to become an expert in the technical details in order to get it working and keep it working. There is no "set it and forget it" or self-explanatory intuitive interface like there could be.

[subego]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's a good question. I'd like to know as well.

Not worth it. Long build-up, no payoff.

[angelmb]

What's behind 'elgato' name, do they love cats ??

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Obviously you don't, but I do.

Sorry, I should have written:

"Who in his right mind would think that Apple cares enough about supporting current TV business models to buy a company and then ship SEVEN DIFFERENT DONGLES to every retail outlet worldwide, the way they already do with monitor adapters?"

That's just completely asinine.

Apple's interest in TV would be completely overturning the current market situation and going directly for the content.

Buying technology built exclusively for supporting an obsolete control-freak stranglehold business model that Apple has no hope of making any use to themselves of in its current form, only to dump a bunch of low-margin hardware into retail channels, is quite probably the second dumbest business proposition I've read in the past two weeks—right behind the suggestion over on the Verge forums that Apple should buy Microsoft.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's no reason why it wouldn't be absorbed by Apple, and it's exactly what happened to mp3 players and iTunes (for example, one of many). When iTunes was born, I was resentful that they turned my favorite mp3 player (software) into a bloated ugly mess, and I kind of still am.

Actually, when iTunes was born, it was a totally streamlined and REDUCED version of SoundJam. They REMOVED a bunch of stuff, including skinning.

You may have become annoyed at the bloat over time, but certainly not when iTunes was initially released.

Also, iTunes was built to go with the iPod, because Apple had a hunch that the two would completely revolutionize how people listened to music (which they did, though perhaps not single-handedly).

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But that's because I don't really like music, and so I want the music experience to be minimal. But I do like TV, and I think that what Apple did for music with iTunes would be a big win for TV, and no one has done it (well) before.

Yes, but that hinges upon two things:

Content management and content acquisition.

The hardware is completely irrelevant to that.

And elgato's software does content management no better than iTunes does, and content acquisition is an iterative improvement on distribution models that have existed for over sixty years, and certainly aren't the future.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Sorry, I should have written:

"Who in his right mind would think that Apple cares enough about supporting current TV business models to buy a company and then ship SEVEN DIFFERENT DONGLES to every retail outlet worldwide, the way they already do with monitor adapters?"

That's just completely asinine.

Your value judgement is petty and nonsensical. El Gato does it already, and Apple sells them in the Apple store. Is it asinine when El Gato does it?

Apple's interest in TV would be completely overturning the current market situation and going directly for the content.

That's one way to do it, but not the only way. Think different.

Buying technology built exclusively for supporting an obsolete control-freak stranglehold business model that Apple has no hope of making any use to themselves of in its current form, only to dump a bunch of low-margin hardware into retail channels, is quite probably the second dumbest business proposition I've read

You could have said the same thing about studio music, studio movies, and cell phones, before Apple came along and decided to get into that area. You seem stubborn that these institutions can't be overturned or improved on, despite what niche developers have been able to do even without Apple's resources. Before the iPod, there were a number of hard drive based mp3 players, which only appealed to tech junkies and hobbyists. The technology was there and working, but it wasn't polished enough to be accessible (intellectually) to the average joe. The polish is all Apple added. The situation is the same today with TV and HTPC: all the pieces work, they just don't work together, and that lack of polish is all that's keeping it out of most people's living rooms. Just like the lack of polish was keeping those clunky early mp3 players out of normal people's handbags, before the ipod changed that. Most people already have cable (or equivalent), they already have a mountain of content being piped into their homes, with or without Apple, and they're not going to drop it any time soon. Just like people already had a mountain of content in their CD and DVD collections, before Apple started playing and later selling that content.

I am in love with my HTPC (right now mythbuntu, before that EyeTV, before that it was VCR-like using ical alarms and a firewire digital cable box, and before that it was actually a digitizer dangling off an actual VCR to act as the tuner, using BTV and cron jobs), but frankly it's a huge PITA to keep it working, and it always has been. If there's one vendor out there who is the perfect candidate to finally solve that PITA aspect, where all the pieces exist and have been working for 10 years but simply don't fit together quite right, it's Apple. That's exactly what they do. They didn't invent the personal computer, they just made it "just work." Ditto the mp3 player, ditto the smart phone. Hopefully, ditto the HTPC.

Actually, when iTunes was born, it was a totally streamlined and REDUCED version of SoundJam. They REMOVED a bunch of stuff, including skinning.

You may have become annoyed at the bloat over time, but certainly not when iTunes was initially released.

Well, the visual presentation was bloated at least
They had a toolbar AND a sidebar from the start, even with almost nothing to fill either one. Barf.

Also, iTunes was built to go with the iPod, because Apple had a hunch that the two would completely revolutionize how people listened to music (which they did, though perhaps not single-handedly).

Yes, but that hinges upon two things:

Content management and content acquisition.

The hardware is completely irrelevant to that.

The two parts I bolded seem to contradict each other.

And elgato's software does content management no better than iTunes does, and content acquisition is an iterative improvement on distribution models that have existed for over sixty years, and certainly aren't the future.

I disagree that content acquisition is merely an iterative improvement. The core of this product, from a problem solving perspective, is filtering an unmanageably huge amount of data (as homer simpson put it "sixteen hundred hours of quality programming every day") to save all and only the shows that the consumer wants, especially (optionally) if it's not something the consumer already knows s/he wants. It's not about how to get content into the box, it's about how to filter what's already coming in. The same problem, actually, that music organization was (remember the ipod ad where the guy turns a room full of albums into one little pod?). It's the same issue, finding the one file you want to play *right now* among thousands or millions of others. And the conceptual solution to the problem (compression and metadata) existed long before Apple, but Apple was still able to take a quantum leap forward by making the already existing pieces fit well together in a polished interface, and become the trendsetter with it. That's what I wish someone would do for my HTPC.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your value judgement is petty and nonsensical. El Gato does it already, and Apple sells them in the Apple store. Is it asinine when El Gato does it?

No, for a third-party hardware accessory manufacturer to build third-party hardware accessories is not asinine.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's one way to do it, but not the only way. Think different.

Yes, Apple's approach is to "think different", and not to enter a market if the existing rules aren't to their benefit without completely changing the rules.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You could have said the same thing about studio music, studio movies, and cell phones, before Apple came along and decided to get into that area. You seem stubborn that these institutions can't be overturned or improved on, despite what niche developers have been able to do even without Apple's resources.

How can you equate these areas?

Apple's Emagic acquisition was intended for one thing exactly: GarageBand. That was the first thing they put their engineers to work on. iLife sells computers.
Movies, I'm not too involved with, so I can't really assess what and how Apple did there, but from what I gather, Final Cut was completely unlike other solutions available at the time. And iMovie was the FIRST time ever that computer-based movie editing became accessible (and affordable) to ordinary mortals—all you needed was a DV camcorder, and a $3000 iMac; that came with all you needed.
And the iPhone not only completely changed the way we interact with telephones, fundamentally; it also completely changed the power structure between OEMs and cellular providers (a change since almost completely reverted by Google's inadvertent "open" backflip).

How would buying a company that sells and builds hardware for subscribing to current TV businesses do anything of the sort?

We've already established that building the hardware into the devices themselves would probably be a dumb idea. What possible advantage would Apple gain from being able to offer these dongles themselves?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The two parts I bolded seem to contradict each other.

Until you stop and realize that one was referring to the iPod, which changed the way we listen to music, and the other is referring to television, which you suggest Apple just in-house solutions for that already exist, which wouldn't actually change anything about the way we watch TV.

The hardware is irrelevant to what needs to happen to TV to make it interesting to Apple.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

No, for a third-party hardware accessory manufacturer to build third-party hardware accessories is not asinine.

Apple makes accessories too. The logic "accessories therefore not apple" is faulty.

Yes, Apple's approach is to "think different", and not to enter a market if the existing rules aren't to their benefit without completely changing the rules.

Why can't they change the rules again then? The whole mp3 world was a pirate's world before the ipod. The rules weren't on their side there either, until they were. They also had the 'sosumi" thing to get over, which BTW wouldn't be a problem with TV.

Until you stop and realize that one was referring to the iPod, which changed the way we listen to music, and the other is referring to television, which you suggest Apple just in-house solutions for that already exist, which wouldn't actually change anything about the way we watch TV.

Your argument presumes your conclusion. But just like people thought that Apple copycatting the Nomad "wouldn't actually change anything about the way we listen to music," you can't assume that will be true. It will go from a tinkerer's frustration to an appliance. That's a quantum leap forward. That's what made the ipod a hit. It wasn't the first to do anything it did, except be an appliance, which is something that's sorely lacking in the current HTPC market.

The hardware is irrelevant to what needs to happen to TV to make it interesting to Apple.

I already watch TV on my iPod. The difference now is that when I do it, it's a PITA. And that's counting a program I had to write myself just to make the workflow usable (which it still only barely is). If Apple put TV in its sights, then non-programmers could be consumers of what I am now. I don't see how that's uninteresting. They would get to make money off of content that their customers already bought from someone else (like the ipod and itunes did, for many many years as they were becoming successful/dominant prior to the iTMS).

Then after Apple gets more clout in the TV world, maybe they can throw their weight around and change the rules like they did with music. In the mean time, they don't have to invent the tuners from scratch, that's the whole point of the idea of buying a company that already solved that problem. Just like Apple didn't have to invent the CD-ROM drive in order to use CD ripping as a stepping stone to digital sales.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Your argument presumes your conclusion. But just like people thought that Apple copycatting the Nomad "wouldn't actually change anything about the way we listen to music," you can't assume that will be true. It will go from a tinkerer's frustration to an appliance. That's a quantum leap forward. That's what made the ipod a hit.

I thought you said you're using an elgato product.

Their stuff is anything BUT a "tinkerer's frustration". This is almost zero-interaction setup, completely smooth, it-just-works stuff.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It wasn't the first to do anything it did, except be an appliance, which is something that's sorely lacking in the current HTPC market.

elgato does exactly that for the computer-based TV MARKET.

You're right that Apple is looking good and hard at the HTPC market, but they can improve on that by EXCLUDING the current live TV business structure, not by embracing it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I already watch TV on my iPod. The difference now is that when I do it, it's a PITA.

You're doing it wrong. But that's only to be expected, seeing as this product is apparently not yet available in the US:
EyeTV Mobile - DTT TV Tuner for the Dock Connector

Seamless, appliance-y, "it just works".

Elgato already IS the Apple of what they do.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Then after Apple gets more clout in the TV world, maybe they can throw their weight around and change the rules like they did with music. In the mean time, they don't have to invent the tuners from scratch, that's the whole point of the idea of buying a company that already solved that problem.

You don't "get clout" by submitting to existing structures.

Apple didn't manage to offer the iTunes Music Store because they "had clout"; they got tentative distribution contracts because they were the first to approach the pirate and digital distribution situation with an actual alternative that human beings might actually want to use.

They had zero clout at the time; they just had a vision, and the industry had none.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just like Apple didn't have to invent the CD-ROM drive in order to use CD ripping as a stepping stone to digital sales.

This is a very apt—and telling—comparison for you to make.

You see, the iTunes Store wasn't built on the stepping-stone of CD-rips AT ALL. The iPod and iTunes were, but your comparative implication that Apple's digital sales model was built on the CD-ROM drive and ripping CDs is, interestingly enough, the exact same thing as thinking that broadcast tuners are the key to future models of digital content distribution.

Apple is planning for the 2020s; your thinking is from the 1980s.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I thought you said you're using an elgato product.

Their stuff is anything BUT a "tinkerer's frustration". This is almost zero-interaction setup, completely smooth, it-just-works stuff.

I used to use an El Gato product, until it just stopped working

El Gato doesn't support encrypted cable, and most of the US cable providers started encrypting their content after the switch to digital a few years ago. El Gato can't support encrypted cable because they would need to coordinate with the OS, like MS does (the only commercial option for encrypted cable).

Even before my cable became encrypted, I had ongoing problems with the little things not working, most of which I solved by programming my own solution. It really was a tinkerer's frustration. If it worked for you, then I'm happy for you.

You're right that Apple is looking good and hard at the HTPC market, but they can improve on that by EXCLUDING the current live TV business structure, not by embracing it.

Just like they're EXCLUDING blu-ray for our own good? Not because they can't make it happen?

You're doing it wrong. But that's only to be expected, seeing as this product is apparently not yet available in the US:
EyeTV Mobile - DTT TV Tuner for the Dock Connector

Seamless, appliance-y, "it just works".

Elgato already IS the Apple of what they do.

Heh, next you're going to tell me that the reason they shut down their support forums was because all the problems were fixed, not because they couldn't keep up with the deluge of inquiries

That thing would not work for me. I expect my shows to record with or without my iPad being on at the time, and store more than 32 GB of shows, and make use of the cable TV I'm already buying. I want TV to work like email: a show gets sent to me any time day or night, and then it's waiting for me the next time I log in. That's how mythtv works, but I have to stay on top of it breaking every other month. The same was true of EyeTV.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

of the 400-some channels of shit on the TV, I'm interested in about eight, and regularly watch a single series, and record about three shows for my daughter.

Look, I get it, you're a seldom user and for the extremely limited usage pattern you practice, the extremely limited existing options for HTPC on the mac are fully sufficient. That's great for you, and I'm happy for you. But to extrapolate from that to say that NO improvements would benefit anyone else, or even most people or the average user, is... asinine.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Look, I get it, you're a seldom user and for the extremely limited usage pattern you practice, the extremely limited existing options for HTPC on the mac are fully sufficient. That's great for you, and I'm happy for you. But to extrapolate from that to say that NO improvements would benefit anyone else, or even most people or the average user, is... asinine.

Do you really believe that the future of Home Theater is in live TV through conventional TV receiver hardware?

I may not be an expert, but it seems completely obvious that live TVs future is in internet streaming, while Home Theater's is in on-demand streaming/downloads.

Investing into decoders/receiver hardware and all that kind of bullshit is fine and dandy if you want to milk 80s infrastructure for what it's worth, but why on Earth should Apple invest into something that's clearly had its heyday, when the writing is on the wall in huge letters?

Why bother with a dozen conflicting or redundant regional standards, renitent cable companies that insist on ****ing with encryption, making third-party hardware impossible anyway?

Why not just wait for that to wither and die, clandestinely preparing the next-generation infrastructure to unleash the moment it becomes obvious that the old structures are unsustainable?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I used to use an El Gato product, until it just stopped working

El Gato doesn't support encrypted cable, and most of the US cable providers started encrypting their content after the switch to digital a few years ago. El Gato can't support encrypted cable because they would need to coordinate with the OS, like MS does (the only commercial option for encrypted cable).

[...]

Just like they're EXCLUDING blu-ray for our own good? Not because they can't make it happen?

Again, interesting juxtaposition of examples.

You see, Apple has gone on record as not supporting Blu-Ray because the whole encryption and licensing scheme is "just a bag of hurt".

And from perfunctory analysis (again, I'm not an expert), it seems that those two technologies share one particular fundamental aspect:

Hardware-level video encryption.

Hmmm.

And judging from your experience, this whole shebang sure does seem like JUUUUST where Apple really, really wants to go...suuuuure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Do you really believe that the future of Home Theater is in live TV through conventional TV receiver hardware?

I may not be an expert, but it seems completely obvious that live TVs future is in internet streaming, while Home Theater's is in on-demand streaming/downloads.

It's about the same state of electric cars. The possibilities seem compelling, but the implementation is still decades behind. Forcing the future too early is wishful thinking. A cable box can still pull down 500 channels at once, while the internet linked computer works itself into a lather and at best can barely manage one stream, which doesn't look as good or play as smoothly, and chances are you're paying more for it than for cable.

Investing into decoders/receiver hardware and all that kind of bullshit is fine and dandy if you want to milk 80s infrastructure for what it's worth, but why on Earth should Apple invest into something that's clearly had its heyday, when the writing is on the wall in huge letters?

Because it just works TV works. Streaming is hit and miss. We thought the writing was on the wall for USB, but somehow it won and Firewire is the one that's going to die. The horse with the most nerd-appeal doesn't always win the race.

Why bother with a dozen conflicting or redundant regional standards, renitent cable companies that insist on ****ing with encryption, making third-party hardware impossible anyway?

What an odd question. 3rd party hardware is possible, there are 3 options right now (all win-only of course, thanks to renitent Apple ). And it's not like streaming content won't also be encrypted. Regional standards, yes, but like with cable vs OTA vs satellite etc, you'll have to deal with the modern equivalent of Real Player vs WMP vs Quicktime vs DivX etc (I haven't kept up with what the different streaming things are nowadays, not since everyone started requiring an upgrade to Flash 10 and I stopped trying -- hey look, another case in point!).

Why not just wait for that to wither and die, clandestinely preparing the next-generation infrastructure to unleash the moment it becomes obvious that the old structures are unsustainable?

Because in my opinion you'll be waiting forever, missing the boat on the lucrative couch potato market segment. MS certainly isn't waiting.

[Waragainstsleep]

I'm pretty much with Spheric here. The exception being that Elgato tuners could possibly be used as some sort of transitional tool much like ripping CDs to get your existing content into iTunes.

This time Apple would have to automate the entire process on an iPhone so you could hit one button and your EyeTV would record your programme, convert it to mp4, import it into iTunes and tag it with the correct info and cover art before you got home. It would also have to be able to rip DVDs and BRs and and import them the same way.
Sadly there are many obstacles to Apple doing this, the legality of DVD ripping, other license issues regarding broadcast TV shows or movies, they'd really need to build set-top boxes compatible with popular services for it to take off properly and of course it would compete with selling existing content on iTMS.

Then there is the clash between Apple's business philosophy and any purchase of Elgato. A product range as wide as Apple's range of Macs, regional issues and customer confusion, low margins and the lack of being Apple to really redefine the market and hence control the new incarnation of it. None of this is the Apple way.

I think its more likely that Apple will start by asking cable providers to make their boxes interact with a Siri interface on Apple's new TV product.

The problem is everyone knows that the TV business model is bad, but there are only two sides to it. Those making a killing, and those who will die if they threaten to upset it. Apple is neither but I don't see a way for them to sneak in this time. Unless they go straight to the production studios and sit between them and the networks somehow.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm pretty much with Spheric here. The exception being that Elgato tuners could possibly be used as some sort of transitional tool much like ripping CDs to get your existing content into iTunes.

And let's not forget, you can still do this. Thought of as a "stepping stone" or not, I'm sure there are still plenty of iPod purchases to this day which are driven in no small part by people being able to rip their new and old CDs to it. And this hasn't canibalized the iTMS market.

This time Apple would have to automate the entire process on an iPhone so you could hit one button and your EyeTV would record your programme, convert it to mp4, import it into iTunes and tag it with the correct info and cover art before you got home. It would also have to be able to rip DVDs and BRs and and import them the same way.

It would "have to" include DVDs and BRs in the same way that the iPhone would "have to" include all major carriers and work in all countries. In other words, would not "have to" do that at all.

Sadly there are many obstacles to Apple doing this, the legality of DVD ripping, other license issues regarding broadcast TV shows or movies, they'd really need to build set-top boxes compatible with popular services for it to take off properly and of course it would compete with selling existing content on iTMS.

No, they wouldn't "need to" make it a set-top box in order to appeal to customers. The TV (like the cube before it) shows us that there's no correlation between form factor and popularity

The connection cable to your content source need be no more uniform or sightly than the connection cable to your monitor. Depending on whether you have DVI, HDMI, VGA, component, S-Video or composite, the sales-drone would supply you with a different over-priced and over-stylized adapter, and the same would be true for where you get your TV signal from. Since the switch of nearly all content to digital, the biggest impediment to this configuration was removed (needing more power to digitize analog content).

Then there is the clash between Apple's business philosophy and any purchase of Elgato. A product range as wide as Apple's range of Macs, regional issues and customer confusion, low margins and the lack of being Apple to really redefine the market and hence control the new incarnation of it. None of this is the Apple way.

BS. Why can't they redefine the market? What made music and other iTMS content easier to redefine?

I think its more likely that Apple will start by asking cable providers to make their boxes interact with a Siri interface on Apple's new TV product.

Voice control in the living room is a non-starter, says I. You don't want to be competing with the thing you're controlling for sound-space. It's ridiculous from both a technical perspective and an interface perspective.

But aside from that, you don't need a box's cooperation to patch voice control on top of it. Just control an IR blaster behind whatever control modality you want, and you have complete control over the box. All boxes are already fully controllable through their IR remote.

The problem is everyone knows that the TV business model is bad, but there are only two sides to it. Those making a killing, and those who will die if they threaten to upset it. Apple is neither but I don't see a way for them to sneak in this time. Unless they go straight to the production studios and sit between them and the networks somehow.

MS already did it. El Gato already did it. How can you question that there's a way for Apple to do it? I don't understand where all this defeatism is coming from.

Like I already said, what Apple can add isn't about capturing TV, it's about integrating what's already been done (by El Gato and others) into the Apple OS. Like being smart about system sleep. Like being smart about hardware (re)encoding. Like being smart about networking resources. Like being smart about USB bandwidth and using 2 tuners at once (for crying out loud El Gato, how could you leave that feature un-implemented for so long?).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It would "have to" include DVDs and BRs in the same way that the iPhone would "have to" include all major carriers and work in all countries. In other words, would not "have to" do that at all.

Except that movie ripping is a feature and choice of carrier is just a matter of who you pay your bills to. These are not comparable in any way other than someone saying they are essential.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, they wouldn't "need to" make it a set-top box in order to appeal to customers. The TV (like the cube before it) shows us that there's no correlation between form factor and popularity

It has nothing to do with form factor. Its about having 'raw' access to the EPG. Apple is not going to want to have to operate their own EPG for every network provider in the world. Its not their style.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

BS. Why can't they redefine the market? What made music and other iTMS content easier to redefine?

The music industry was dying in every way but crucially it was dying financially. Apple offered a rescue plan. Now they have so much power over music that the TV networks and movie studios are terrified of giving them that power of video content too. This is essentially what the networks do at the moment and like the record companies, they are middlemen and they know this.
The TV business model is not financially dead

Apple could revolutionise the TV industry but they'd essentially have to become a network without a broadcast network. Online only. The only way I can see it working is if they start buying/comissioning content directly from independent producers and studios. Maybe they could pick up some cancelled shows with potential. Once they build up a portfolio and a good customer base the others would come on board one by one. Disney would be there from the start obviously. This doesn't really seem like Apple's style. They could do it but I don't think this is what they have in mind.

Apple likes the app store model. Let other people bring you the content and take a cut. They can't do it with music because the record companies would revolt and they'd lose the back catalog. They've done without certain artists before now but they couldn't do without all of them, even if it was only for a few months.
They could do this with TV, but they'd have a war on their hands. TV shows do become unavailable from time to time so having a gap would not be a killer like it would with music. The question is how to get enough users/subscribers to attract content producers in the first place.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Voice control in the living room is a non-starter, says I. You don't want to be competing with the thing you're controlling for sound-space. It's ridiculous from both a technical perspective and an interface perspective.

Says you. I agree there are parts that need to be worked out to make it viable, but the power to just ask the TV set to find you a comedy or a football match instead of trawling through 2000 channels of shit with an up arrow is entirely worthwhile. Those difficulties also make it perfect for Apple because no-one else has the skill and patience to get it right.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

MS already did it. El Gato already did it. How can you question that there's a way for Apple to do it? I don't understand where all this defeatism is coming from.

M$ built a business model on supporting overly diverse, low-margin hardware. El Gato built a business on TV products. Apple makes 30-50% profit on every piece of hardware it sells. No-one is saying they can't do it, we are saying they won't. Apple these days likes to create or recreate a market so it can move in first and dominate that market. Even so I think the ElGato hardware is too diverse for them to want to implement it as a transitional tool. CD ripping was all software. No hassle.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like I already said, what Apple can add isn't about capturing TV, it's about integrating what's already been done (by El Gato and others) into the Apple OS. Like being smart about system sleep. Like being smart about hardware (re)encoding. Like being smart about networking resources. Like being smart about USB bandwidth and using 2 tuners at once (for crying out loud El Gato, how could you leave that feature un-implemented for so long?).

I thought they had dual tuners for the last few years? I know they had a system where you could set a programme to record online and your Mac would wake up and check the schedule periodically if it needed to record anything.
ElGato does what they do very well, I particularly like their network tuner/streaming device. It would be pretty simple for Apple to put their trademark sheen on it all and build something into the iTunes Remote app and programme recording schedule into iCloud maybe but I can't help but think broadcast TV is ultimately doomed.

[OreoCookie]

So you want a cross-breed of a TiVo, a BluRay player, an Apple TV and a Mac mini? From a company who has publicly stated that the business model of TiVo is doomed to fail (but admitting it's a good product), forgone BluRay in favor of digital downloads and migrated the Apple TV away from Intel to ARM cpus?

The proposed product doesn't make sense on so many levels to me (including the added cost of an Intel CPU). I remember the first set-top boxes for TVs from the mid-1990s: the concept of bringing computing to the TV didn't work then and it doesn't work now. People don't want to use their TV to work.

It's quite clear what Apple's vision of the television of the twenty-first century is: media is downloaded via the internet. Quality go up as bandwidth of internet connections scale. Content is broadcast (rather: streamed) according to the customer's inclinations and not dictated by some schedule some TV network has come up with.

Originally Posted by Salty 

At this point Apple wouldn't be interested in fitting into an existing scheme they'd be looking at rewriting it. Other people already make tools to work with the cable systems as backward as they can be, why would Apple do that if they can't make it better. The only way they'd jump into this market is if they can offer something truly unique.

Couldn't have said it better. They're not looking into making a better TiVo. Or a better BluRay player.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except that movie ripping is a feature and choice of carrier is just a matter of who you pay your bills to. These are not comparable in any way other than someone saying they are essential.

Yeah, and that person was you

It has nothing to do with form factor. Its about having 'raw' access to the EPG. Apple is not going to want to have to operate their own EPG for every network provider in the world. Its not their style.

I'm not interested in declaring what is and isn't someone else's style or in pigeonholing them into that style forever. Style is fleeting. Apple's style used to be PCs.

The music industry was dying in every way but crucially it was dying financially. Apple offered a rescue plan. Now they have so much power over music that the TV networks and movie studios are terrified of giving them that power of video content too. This is essentially what the networks do at the moment and like the record companies, they are middlemen and they know this.
The TV business model is not financially dead

That reasoning would make some sense if Apple didn't already sell TV shows and movies, along with music.

Says you. I agree there are parts that need to be worked out to make it viable, but the power to just ask the TV set to find you a comedy or a football match instead of trawling through 2000 channels of shit with an up arrow is entirely worthwhile. Those difficulties also make it perfect for Apple because no-one else has the skill and patience to get it right.

We've been over this before. The search algorithm and the method of information entry are completely independent from each other.

No-one is saying they can't do it, we are saying they won't. Apple these days likes to create or recreate a market so it can move in first and dominate that market.

That's just not true. They've never been first to any market. What they did in each case was enter an existing market that lacked polish (and therefore popularity), and been the first player to add polish. The PVR market has had everything except polish for a long time.

I thought they had dual tuners for the last few years?

Technically the problem is that they refuse to care which tuner is which. So if one tuner receives cable and the other antenna, you would randomly get it trying to record the antenna show on the cable tuner and just get static, even if the cable tuner was also free at the time.

I know they had a system where you could set a programme to record online and your Mac would wake up and check the schedule periodically if it needed to record anything.

Yeah that was using TitanTV for schedule data, which they dropped in favor of TVGuide about 2 years ago.

ElGato does what they do very well

I agree somewhat, but that's only because we allow "what they do" to be limited severely by their inability to branch out within the OS and computer. They can't control system sleep, so we give them a pass on allowing the system to sleep during a recording. They can't control the display, so we give them a pass on supporting encrypted cable in any way. They can't control the graphics card so we give them a pass on hardware encoding. On and on. They do a good job on the scale they're limited to, but Apple could do a lot better due to being freed from those limits.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

BS. Why can't they redefine the market? What made music and other iTMS content easier to redefine?

iTunes Music Store defined a market THAT DIDN'T EXIST.

It competed with Kazaa and LimeWire, and three or four horrendously complicated half-assed online attempts from the music industry to confuse users and drive them to piracy instead.

Refresh your memory:
Steve Jobs on the iTunes Music Store: The Unpublished Interview
(bonus: full video of the introduction, including comparative purchasing experience, at the bottom)

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

MS already did it. El Gato already did it. How can you question that there's a way for Apple to do it? I don't understand where all this defeatism is coming from.

So your optimism stems from wanting Apple to jump into a market and doing what MS and Elgato have already done.

You must be new to Apple politics.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like I already said, what Apple can add isn't about capturing TV, it's about integrating what's already been done (by El Gato and others) into the Apple OS. Like being smart about system sleep. Like being smart about hardware (re)encoding.

These are all things that Elgato already does quite well, and automated, too.

I was pretty floored the first time I stayed up a little later than I'd intended to and happened to catch the first ten minutes of a film I really wanted to continue watching, so I rewound, switched to EPG and clicked the "record" button there.

When I woke up the next morning, the computer was asleep, but the film had been recorded, tagged (including summary) and exported into an iTunes playlist in iPhone-compatible format.

Barring the odd bug (it will, rarely, freeze during recording, for reasons I haven't quite got to the bottom of yet), EyeTV has been quite reliably waking up my living-room iMacs (the third one now) for recordings, and then sleeping them again after it was done, for the past five years or so.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

iTunes Music Store defined a market THAT DIDN'T EXIST.

It competed with Kazaa and LimeWire, and three or four horrendously complicated half-assed online attempts from the music industry to confuse users and drive them to piracy instead.

Refresh your memory:
Steve Jobs on the iTunes Music Store: The Unpublished Interview
(bonus: full video of the introduction, including comparative purchasing experience, at the bottom)

That wasn't the question, but to address it anyway, most Apple products compete in markets that did exist. Computers, mp3 players, personal video players, smart phones, PDAs, tablets, software of all kinds, and set top boxes, all existed before Apple entered, they just weren't as elegant or polished. That still didn't stop Apple from "redefining" these markets (most of them anyway) using only that additional polish. That was the point being made.

So your optimism stems from wanting Apple to jump into a market and doing what MS and Elgato have already done.

You must be new to Apple politics.

No, to expand on and polish what has already been done. Exactly like they do with every other product they have.

These are all things that Elgato already does quite well, and automated, too.

I was pretty floored the first time I stayed up a little later than I'd intended to and happened to catch the first ten minutes of a film I really wanted to continue watching, so I rewound, switched to EPG and clicked the "record" button there.

When I woke up the next morning, the computer was asleep, but the film had been recorded, tagged (including summary) and exported into an iTunes playlist in iPhone-compatible format.

You were floored when it worked? You should be floored if it didn't work, or didn't offer that feature. That's the mark of a mature market or product. For example, I would be floored if I fat-fingered the off button and my Mac didn't confirm before killing off my open documents or a TV recording. Apple is good about giving the user second chances for stuff like that. That's one of the many ways in which OS X is a mature and polished product. But if you accidentally sleep during an EyeTV recording, EyeTV gives you no warning that you probably don't want to do that, and your recording is finished and restarting it will lose content, period. There were scores of complaints about this and similar shortcomings, back when El Gato ran a support forum, but nothing could be done for these people because the OS didn't vend any support for interrupting sleep by mere applications. El Gato's hands were tied.

Barring the odd bug (it will, rarely, freeze during recording, for reasons I haven't quite got to the bottom of yet), EyeTV has been quite reliably waking up my living-room iMacs (the third one now) for recordings, and then sleeping them again after it was done, for the past five years or so.

But you already said, you're not a heavy user. I might as well say that the Office suite is flawless because I use it once a month to write a grocery list, and therefore Apple's attempt to compete in the productivity app market is "asinine." Lots of people had lots of problems with EyeTV, in many ways which were not El Gato's fault but were limitations in the ability of apps to control the lower level features of the computer. Their support forum, when it existed, was very active, unfortunately it was a lot off people asking about the same problems over and over because there was no solution to them.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That wasn't the question, but to address it anyway, most Apple products compete in markets that did exist. Computers, mp3 players, personal video players, smart phones, PDAs, tablets, software of all kinds, and set top boxes, all existed before Apple entered, they just weren't as elegant or polished. That still didn't stop Apple from "redefining" these markets (most of them anyway) using only that additional polish. That was the point being made.

None of those markets really "existed". What products graced the wilderness just "inelegant" or "unpolished", sort of like a lump of coal on a table is just "inelegant" or "unpolished", until somebody figures out how to make and sell a diamond. Nobody had grasped the essence of what MADE THOSE MARKETS HAPPEN until Apple did.

Computers were geek toys until the Apple II.
They were alien text-based things until Lisa/Macintosh made them accessible to the technologically impaired.
The PDA market most decidedly DID NOT exist until Apple put out the Newton—in fact, they coined the term.
There was NO comparable video editing software on the market when iMovie was released in 1999.
There was NO comparable audio production software on the market when GarageBand was released.
Mp3 players were clunky, ugly things which allowed geeks to drag folders with half-labelled crap to them, and navigate those folders using three buttons and a two-line text display, before the iPod was released.
The smartphone market...come on already.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, to expand on and polish what has already been done. Exactly like they do with every other product they have.

You're going out of your way to understate what Apple did to those markets, just to make them fit with your ridiculous proposition.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But if you accidentally sleep during an EyeTV recording, EyeTV gives you no warning that you probably don't want to do that, and your recording is finished and restarting it will lose content, period. There were scores of complaints about this and similar shortcomings, back when El Gato ran a support forum, but nothing could be done for these people because the OS didn't vend any support for interrupting sleep by mere applications. El Gato's hands were tied.

I think Apple needs to incorporate BitTorrent and JDownloader in the OS. They stop working when you forcibly sleep the computer, you know. So does Safari, BTW, and iTunes, and Software Update.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Actually Apple takes pains to avoid different versions of the same model for different markets. The cellular chipsets being the only (unavoidable and financially worthwhile) example for a long time.

All Apple PSUs have been rated for 110-250V for over a decade. The PowerMac G3 smurf and predecessors had a switch to go from 110 to 240 but I think they were the last to need it.

Apple does not like this kind of product diversification but it isn't just a matter of SKU numbers.

NO, Steve Jobs didn't like this kind of product diversification. Forgot the 90's? They had so many different models of Macs in so many different configurations it almost killed the company. I imagine it will be decades before they turn into that again as long as the current generation of people are running the company.

[Athens]

The one thing Apple could introduce which fits in its line up is a wifi controller with both physical buttons and touch spaces on each end that resembles the size of a iPhone/iPod screen that is designed to play iOS games from the AppleTV on a TV set.

That would cause some great pain for Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

Game developers could add APIs for the physical buttons but any current game would work with the touch area of the controller.

And of course Apple could charge like $75 bucks for each controller.... Because people would pay it. A lot of iOS games I have now I would prob play a lot more if it was on the TV.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Computers were geek toys until the Apple II.
They were alien text-based things until Lisa/Macintosh made them accessible to the technologically impaired.
...
Mp3 players were clunky, ugly things which allowed geeks to drag folders with half-labelled crap to them, and navigate those folders using three buttons and a two-line text display, before the iPod was released.
The smartphone market...come on already.

Yes. Exactly what I was saying about the state of HTPC, when I called them a tinkerer's frustration. That's what mp3 players were before the iPod and what smart phones and PDAs were before the iPhone. And it's what HTPCs are now, except in part for Windows Media Center, which I still found quite frustrating, but at least it seems like they're not as far away from what it "should be."

The difference between you and me is that I can see what a HTPC could be if done right, and you're satisfied with the equivalent of pre-pod-era mp3 players: they work, they're just clunky, ugly geek toys. As I said before, I'm as limited a consumer of music as you are of TV, and therefore when the iPod was introduced it was a solid "meh" for me. My older mp3 player already played songs (if they were encoded "just so"), so wtf good is adding a jog wheel and doubling the price? To me, it was a worthless improvement. So I understand your perspective. But it's only because you're a casual user.

You're going out of your way to understate what Apple did to those markets, just to make them fit with your ridiculous proposition.

No I'm not. You're just underestimating the room for improvement in the state of HTPCs today. There really is as much left to do as there was for mp3 players in 2001 or smart phones in 2007.

I think Apple needs to incorporate BitTorrent and JDownloader in the OS. They stop working when you forcibly sleep the computer, you know. So does Safari, BTW, and iTunes, and Software Update.

Those aren't real-time processes. You can resume where you left off, which you can't do if you're recording live TV.

And I don't know where you're getting "need to" from. Did Apple "need to" build an mp3 player? No, mp3 players worked already. It wasn't a need, it was an opportunity for consumers to see a far better product than they had before. I see that opportunity in HTPCs today. You don't. I don't blame you for not seeing something that's there to be seen, especially since you claim not to be a heavy user, but I do blame you for refusing to accept that other people do see it and calling their assessment "asinine" and acting all superior due to your inability to see it. That's not very nice, or correct.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No I'm not. You're just underestimating the room for improvement in the state of HTPCs today. There really is as much left to do as there was for mp3 players in 2001 or smart phones in 2007.
[...]
Those aren't real-time processes. You can resume where you left off, which you can't do if you're recording live TV.
[...]
And I don't know where you're getting "need to" from. Did Apple "need to" build an mp3 player? No, mp3 players worked already. It wasn't a need, it was an opportunity for consumers to see a far better product than they had before. I see that opportunity in HTPCs today.

All fair points.

The "need", FWIW, is the market's need for a working, mortal-operable (and desirable) product. You're saying the same thing, basically.

I do have my doubts about the possibilities Apple would have to completely re-define the experience, the way they do when they see a market opportunity, within the confines of the current broadcast system. But as I say, I'm not an expert.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

All fair points.

yay

The "need", FWIW, is the market's need for a working, mortal-operable (and desirable) product. You're saying the same thing, basically.

Yeah I see it now

I do have my doubts about the possibilities Apple would have to completely re-define the experience, the way they do when they see a market opportunity, within the confines of the current broadcast system. But as I say, I'm not an expert.

I'm pessimistic about Apple seeing the potential either, or maybe they do see it but they think MS has too big a lead already, what with the cableCARD obstacle that MS has already gotten past. But I hope they make a go of it. Kid of like the Blu-Ray situation, where they should do it, and MS did it, but they're going to claim sour grapes and chicken out

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But I hope they make a go of it. Kid of like the Blu-Ray situation, where they should do it, and MS did it, but they're going to claim sour grapes and chicken out

Same thing: If this TV stuff requires the same kind of hardware-level video encryption (and licensing) as Blu-Ray, Apple has most excellent reasons to give them the finger and wait for the future.

Of course, Blu-Ray is and will remain a niche market, so there's no real pressure to implement it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're just underestimating the room for improvement in the state of HTPCs today. There really is as much left to do as there was for mp3 players in 2001 or smart phones in 2007.

Given you don't rate the chances of Siri on a TV, what is there to do beyond bolting EyeTV to AppleTV/Front Row?

Even if you throw in trying to improve interaction with web browsers on an HDTV (Arguably beyond the scope of a HTPC), I don't see there is really all that much to do.

[Salty]

The problem is that there are too many companies to please who all rely on each other and aren't interested in giving Apple a slice of their pie. It's one of the reasons Apple partners with Netflix, because in many ways Netflix is what Apple would do.

The thing is unlike music, people don't generally care about owning their TV shows. Now some people like to buy series on DVD, but nobody's going to buy Anderson Cooper on DVD. People aren't going to buy Jerry Springer on DVD ... least I hope not. There's a wide breadth of content that people like, and it's in a model that while it's seen some decline recently, actually does work reliably for a lot of people.

For some of the people who are on this forum, you have no idea how customers actually like to watch TV and how resistant I'd say over half of your potential base is.

I work for a cable company and we have our old way of ordering channels that's been the same since the 1990s, and we have a more recent one that allows you to pick the channels based on interest type. IE, sports 1 and 2, entertainment 1, 2 and 3, family etc. You buy the group that you like. The idea was that For a lot of people instead of paying 66 bucks a month for their current cable service and us having to pay tons of licensing fees, we could keep that customer happy charging them 35 bucks for the basic thing and allowing them to add on just the channels they like, assuming that most people have 1 or 2 theme groups they'd want.

You know what the conversation ends up being? Often times people flip out that they have to pay 20 dollars for channels that they, "Already had!" It doesn't matter to them that they're actually spending less money, they don't want to have to pay for what's seen as an add on.

For a lot of people paying 70 bucks a month for cable is fine and they've been doing it for a long time. But paying 20 dollars a month for just Glee, Parks and Rec and Community won't sit well with them. Even if those are the only shows they actually care about. For a lot of people they actually just run it as background noise and they're used to that.

[Spheric Harlot]

So what does that mean in the light of this thread?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes. Exactly what I was saying about the state of HTPC, when I called them a tinkerer's frustration. That's what mp3 players were before the iPod and what smart phones and PDAs were before the iPhone. And it's what HTPCs are now, except in part for Windows Media Center, which I still found quite frustrating, but at least it seems like they're not as far away from what it "should be."

Completely agree here - I've got a thread in the Computer forum about trying to use the Mac Mini as a sort of HTPC. I think Apple could give HTPC a leap forward if it implementioned a simple and elegant "remote GUI" front end; but that doesn't address many of the hardware issues that are annoying to navigate.

I think it has to get there, though - a small HTPC box handling file-based media and TV-over-internet makes perfect sense as the ultimate living room solution. And I really think that only a company with hardware-to-OS control would be able to implement it with any workable sort of elegance.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Given you don't rate the chances of Siri on a TV, what is there to do beyond bolting EyeTV to AppleTV/Front Row?

What isn't there to do? Hot swappable hard drives with raid support or even simply a plan-b drive (raid was a common unanswered request on the EyeTV forum). Separate low- and high-power modules for front- vs back-end operations. Backup battery so you don't miss a show during a power failure (and letting an accessory or two piggyback on it, if you have your own powered tuner or hard drive (power is commonly needed for the decryption implementations)). Integration with applescript (could do a lot better than EyeTV had), iApps, iCal, Mail, addressbook, facetime (ever watch MST3K? or want to iChat up your mac and use it to watch TV from anywhere?). Text-to-speech on closed captions. TV as a programming library, accessible by any app, like QT is today; that would be another way for Apple (or whoever does this) to leverage the work of others to make their product more appealing and useful. How about when the recording app crashes, CrashReporter starts up a new recording in its place. And connects it to the crashed recording instead of confusing you with two files.

I'm not saying these pie-in-the-sky features are likely to happen any time soon, just that we're nowhere near a plateau of achievable improvements. And the real challenge is to make the features appliances, like Time Machine where something that was once so complicated is just point-and-shoot and you literally never think about it anymore. And look nice too... I can have a raid and a UPS right now (for example), or use a laptop which has a battery already, but it looks like total ass in my living room. When the disparate functions work so well together that you stop tentatively experimenting with them before expecting them to work, when you shoot from the hip, that's when the product has "arrived." Like when Mac OS stopped crashing every time you run an unfamiliar application You can call that "bolting x to y," but it's a gross simplification. There's a lot of work to do it, and it makes a big difference in the quality of the result.