Apple TV: Can channels become apps?
Steve Jobs hinted at a product with “the simplest user interface that only you could imagine” - and an article about what it could be.
Look for the word “cracked” in the biography of Steve Jobs from Walter Isaacson , or scroll down to page 555 if you have an offline version. The second match will give the result:
')
We are talking about the mythical Apple iTV. Even in spite of the fact that Walter’s report on the July 2011 conversation didn’t point at all to the mentioned decision, the 11-hour revelation once again kindled old rumors and agitated the blogosphere. “If Steve said he solved the problem, then so it is!”
At first, I had dirty thoughts: I imagined how the Dear Leader, who had broken away from the redesign of the monastery of St. Peter, makes fun of us - abandoned mortals. “Let it take them a little bit - and distract from such awkward topics as incompatibility between file formats in iOS and Mac”
However, a couple of days later, I read two publications that made me rethink my dismissive attitude.
In the first of these, “ Applications as new channels, ” John Graber reflects on the idea of channel-as-applications (based on iOS, of course):
Imagine watching a baseball game on TV when ESPN is a fancy application, not just a channel. While watching the game, you can force the TV to show the statistics of the current player. You can request from the HBO application in which other films the actor starred.
In the second, a kindly overdressed publication, “ Okay. I’ll talk about Apple television or iTV, whatever it is called, ”Brian Hall led me to an article in Nielsen Wire , which included the following diagram:
40% and 42% of users of smartphones and tablets, respectively, use their devices daily while watching TV. The statistics itself is hardly surprising, especially for parents who have seen their multi-tasking kids grow into young adults. But when I looked at the graphics, an obvious connection lit up me: smartphones, tablets and iTV - they all use applications. (I stopped using the precautionary “supposed” when talking about iTV)
Based on the above facts, suppose what the iTV might look like?
As it was already discussed in the previous article, if iTV is a monoblock, then the computer itself will become outdated earlier than the monitor itself. Adding to “Full HD” (1920 * 1080 pixels) any “enhancement”, like 240Hz or something similar and everything - any marketing massums become invisible to the average user. In other words, you hardly want to upgrade your TV in 18 months, as many of you do with your laptops, tablets and smartphones. (Of course, someone can imagine a replaceable iOS module inside the iTV, but this already sounds a bit clumsy and can create a number of problems). And more importantly, iTV in the monoblock format will force to replace the millions of already installed HDTV sets.
Moreover, I still can’t imagine how 50 ”TV sets are brought out of the Apple Store. After all, it is already quite problematic to take out the 27 ”iMac - or bring it back in case of a problem. Also, I can’t imagine the battalions of Apple mobile engineers rolling out all our equipment to repair our houses.
And if there is no monoblock iTV, let's imagine iTV as a separate module - the next generation Apple TV. Then, in order to actually take a position in the market and attain iPod status, the module will have to “swallow” the set-top box, including the DVR. If this does not happen, we still have to fight in the battle between a bunch of consoles and devices: the set-top box is the main source of TV feed, connected to the main HDMI input, evicting the iTV to an additional input. Definitely not the elegant decision Jobs talked about.
Moreover, the absorption of the set-top box and its DVR will pull the conclusion of agreements with cable operators - businesses that are more numerous, less intricate, and Apple is more afraid than cellular operators. While the operators knew that smartphones would increase their ARPUs, cablemakers still don’t understand what will happen to their channel packages if Apple enters the game. (Try adding a single channel to your Comcast package: in Polo Alto, for Comcast you will need to fill out and send the form by e-mail. You cannot do this by phone, even if you manage to communicate with a person after a 20-minute wait).
But, there may be a solution - connect the set-top box to the HDMI input on the iTV, then connect the iTV to the released main input on the TV. This partly solves the problem, but still does not eliminate the heaps of consoles.
And here, for the first, but not the last time, applications come onto the scene: download Apple's iRemote on your iOS, Android, Windows Phone smartphone or on a tablet, and everything is ready.
Of course, the idea of a smartphone-like-remote tried to implement earlier . One example is the Xfinity iPad / iPhone app . You prepare each console in your home, download a TV program on iDevice and you can use it. When you start a channel change command, it goes through the network to the Comcast cloud, and then is routed back to your set-top box via the Comcast cable:
Why drive through Comcast? Because your smartphone / tablet and console do not understand each other. The first communicate via WiFi / BT, the latter only understand the IR signal.
Unfortunately, in my case, it all worked once and then it no longer worked.
Judging by the comments in the App Store, I'm not alone.
In addition, relying on cable operators - and there are more than 25 of them in the States - to allow an application to control a variety of set-top boxes using the circuit path described earlier, we can say that this is not the elegant solution that Jobs had in mind.
How about the conversion between the smartphone / tablet and the console through implementation
intermediary device, WiFi / BT to IR converter ? When iTV is connected to the set-top box and the TV via HDMI, you will still encounter a complex organization: Your home WiFi point provides an Internet connection for the smartphone and iTV, and the WiFi-to-IR converter listens to the smartphone and signals via the IR TV and set-top box:
It looks poor and becomes even more miserable in the process of use, since there is no two-way communication between the TV / set-top box and the “remote control”, the “remote control” does not know if the TV is currently on, which input is being used, which channel is playing. As a result, it is easy to drive the system into a state of “I don’t understand something,” a disappointing majority of mortals and forcing the creators of “ harmonious consoles ” (such as Logitech) to use complex workarounds.
For most users, the chances that the set similar to that described above will work and will continue to work are very insignificant.
Now let's consider channels as applications. Why TV on iTV should be the same as TV received through the console? Newspapers and magazines on tablets (and smartphones for some press, for example, NYTimes) differ from the paper version. Adapting to new media is not always beautiful, but there are some great examples: look at the Bloomberg Businessweek tablet or the New Yorker .
The same goes for TV. Not all channels adapt quickly and accurately. But as the “channel applications” evolve, we will see new ways of using the environment. As Gruber already said, imagine a football match as an application on an HD screen, with statistics on demand, plus streams from Twitter and Facebook. (Actually, I am not going crazy about having a wild amount of additional content on the screen during the game, but I can be in the minority)
Delivery of channels as applications frees our “model of looking” from two sides: it breaks today's limited format of channel delivery and bypasses the TV set-top box . Today I can watch the “direct” version of “60 minutes” on TV (live or recorded), or I can sit at the computer and watch a fresh episode plus additional content ... or I can buy an iPad version for $ 5 and get all the same in more attractive form (interface, as well as elegant navigation through the extensive library of past episodes). Port this application to your iTV device and everything is ready. With channels as apps, all you need is just an internet connection (in some cases provided by the cable operator). And you can throw away your set-top box.
Will consumers pay for iTV apps / content, just like I paid for “60 minutes”? It is possible, and we will not have to pay for everything. Just like today, combining free and paid programs.
Of course, there is “the simplest matter of implementation”: someone will have to write all these programs - channel sinks. But as the movement gains power and becomes widespread and understandable, it will be easier than you think. Half a million iOS apps already confirm the availability of basic knowledge.
In the meantime, if you don’t have an iPad, borrow from someone, spend $ 5 on an app 60 Minutes and imagine the same thing, but only on an HD screen. Is this the very future that Jobs was talking about?
Note from the translator:
I would like to explain where such thoughts come from. As you know, the TV market in America is a cable channel market. The average subscription to a dense, high-quality set costs the Americans 75-100 dollars. Hence the emphasis on "throw out or not throw out" TV set-top box. Those. it's not even about the innovative approach to programming TV, but about reducing costs. By the way, the popularity of the Netflix service is connected with exorbitant checks for a subscription. 9-15 dollars against 100. It is clear that there is no superpopular content on Netflix, but they are ready to put up with this.
Well, about the relevance of iTV for Russia. It is clear that as long as there are no such application channels, iTV in Russia will not bear any semantic load. Netflix, Hulu, HBO in Russia are only available via VPN with American IP + for applications you need an American account in iTunes.
Look for the word “cracked” in the biography of Steve Jobs from Walter Isaacson , or scroll down to page 555 if you have an offline version. The second match will give the result:
')
This will have the simplest interface you can imagine. I finally hacked it
We are talking about the mythical Apple iTV. Even in spite of the fact that Walter’s report on the July 2011 conversation didn’t point at all to the mentioned decision, the 11-hour revelation once again kindled old rumors and agitated the blogosphere. “If Steve said he solved the problem, then so it is!”
At first, I had dirty thoughts: I imagined how the Dear Leader, who had broken away from the redesign of the monastery of St. Peter, makes fun of us - abandoned mortals. “Let it take them a little bit - and distract from such awkward topics as incompatibility between file formats in iOS and Mac”
However, a couple of days later, I read two publications that made me rethink my dismissive attitude.
In the first of these, “ Applications as new channels, ” John Graber reflects on the idea of channel-as-applications (based on iOS, of course):
Imagine watching a baseball game on TV when ESPN is a fancy application, not just a channel. While watching the game, you can force the TV to show the statistics of the current player. You can request from the HBO application in which other films the actor starred.
In the second, a kindly overdressed publication, “ Okay. I’ll talk about Apple television or iTV, whatever it is called, ”Brian Hall led me to an article in Nielsen Wire , which included the following diagram:
40% and 42% of users of smartphones and tablets, respectively, use their devices daily while watching TV. The statistics itself is hardly surprising, especially for parents who have seen their multi-tasking kids grow into young adults. But when I looked at the graphics, an obvious connection lit up me: smartphones, tablets and iTV - they all use applications. (I stopped using the precautionary “supposed” when talking about iTV)
Based on the above facts, suppose what the iTV might look like?
As it was already discussed in the previous article, if iTV is a monoblock, then the computer itself will become outdated earlier than the monitor itself. Adding to “Full HD” (1920 * 1080 pixels) any “enhancement”, like 240Hz or something similar and everything - any marketing massums become invisible to the average user. In other words, you hardly want to upgrade your TV in 18 months, as many of you do with your laptops, tablets and smartphones. (Of course, someone can imagine a replaceable iOS module inside the iTV, but this already sounds a bit clumsy and can create a number of problems). And more importantly, iTV in the monoblock format will force to replace the millions of already installed HDTV sets.
Moreover, I still can’t imagine how 50 ”TV sets are brought out of the Apple Store. After all, it is already quite problematic to take out the 27 ”iMac - or bring it back in case of a problem. Also, I can’t imagine the battalions of Apple mobile engineers rolling out all our equipment to repair our houses.
And if there is no monoblock iTV, let's imagine iTV as a separate module - the next generation Apple TV. Then, in order to actually take a position in the market and attain iPod status, the module will have to “swallow” the set-top box, including the DVR. If this does not happen, we still have to fight in the battle between a bunch of consoles and devices: the set-top box is the main source of TV feed, connected to the main HDMI input, evicting the iTV to an additional input. Definitely not the elegant decision Jobs talked about.
Moreover, the absorption of the set-top box and its DVR will pull the conclusion of agreements with cable operators - businesses that are more numerous, less intricate, and Apple is more afraid than cellular operators. While the operators knew that smartphones would increase their ARPUs, cablemakers still don’t understand what will happen to their channel packages if Apple enters the game. (Try adding a single channel to your Comcast package: in Polo Alto, for Comcast you will need to fill out and send the form by e-mail. You cannot do this by phone, even if you manage to communicate with a person after a 20-minute wait).
But, there may be a solution - connect the set-top box to the HDMI input on the iTV, then connect the iTV to the released main input on the TV. This partly solves the problem, but still does not eliminate the heaps of consoles.
And here, for the first, but not the last time, applications come onto the scene: download Apple's iRemote on your iOS, Android, Windows Phone smartphone or on a tablet, and everything is ready.
Of course, the idea of a smartphone-like-remote tried to implement earlier . One example is the Xfinity iPad / iPhone app . You prepare each console in your home, download a TV program on iDevice and you can use it. When you start a channel change command, it goes through the network to the Comcast cloud, and then is routed back to your set-top box via the Comcast cable:
Why drive through Comcast? Because your smartphone / tablet and console do not understand each other. The first communicate via WiFi / BT, the latter only understand the IR signal.
Unfortunately, in my case, it all worked once and then it no longer worked.
Judging by the comments in the App Store, I'm not alone.
In addition, relying on cable operators - and there are more than 25 of them in the States - to allow an application to control a variety of set-top boxes using the circuit path described earlier, we can say that this is not the elegant solution that Jobs had in mind.
How about the conversion between the smartphone / tablet and the console through implementation
intermediary device, WiFi / BT to IR converter ? When iTV is connected to the set-top box and the TV via HDMI, you will still encounter a complex organization: Your home WiFi point provides an Internet connection for the smartphone and iTV, and the WiFi-to-IR converter listens to the smartphone and signals via the IR TV and set-top box:
It looks poor and becomes even more miserable in the process of use, since there is no two-way communication between the TV / set-top box and the “remote control”, the “remote control” does not know if the TV is currently on, which input is being used, which channel is playing. As a result, it is easy to drive the system into a state of “I don’t understand something,” a disappointing majority of mortals and forcing the creators of “ harmonious consoles ” (such as Logitech) to use complex workarounds.
For most users, the chances that the set similar to that described above will work and will continue to work are very insignificant.
Now let's consider channels as applications. Why TV on iTV should be the same as TV received through the console? Newspapers and magazines on tablets (and smartphones for some press, for example, NYTimes) differ from the paper version. Adapting to new media is not always beautiful, but there are some great examples: look at the Bloomberg Businessweek tablet or the New Yorker .
The same goes for TV. Not all channels adapt quickly and accurately. But as the “channel applications” evolve, we will see new ways of using the environment. As Gruber already said, imagine a football match as an application on an HD screen, with statistics on demand, plus streams from Twitter and Facebook. (Actually, I am not going crazy about having a wild amount of additional content on the screen during the game, but I can be in the minority)
Delivery of channels as applications frees our “model of looking” from two sides: it breaks today's limited format of channel delivery and bypasses the TV set-top box . Today I can watch the “direct” version of “60 minutes” on TV (live or recorded), or I can sit at the computer and watch a fresh episode plus additional content ... or I can buy an iPad version for $ 5 and get all the same in more attractive form (interface, as well as elegant navigation through the extensive library of past episodes). Port this application to your iTV device and everything is ready. With channels as apps, all you need is just an internet connection (in some cases provided by the cable operator). And you can throw away your set-top box.
Will consumers pay for iTV apps / content, just like I paid for “60 minutes”? It is possible, and we will not have to pay for everything. Just like today, combining free and paid programs.
Of course, there is “the simplest matter of implementation”: someone will have to write all these programs - channel sinks. But as the movement gains power and becomes widespread and understandable, it will be easier than you think. Half a million iOS apps already confirm the availability of basic knowledge.
In the meantime, if you don’t have an iPad, borrow from someone, spend $ 5 on an app 60 Minutes and imagine the same thing, but only on an HD screen. Is this the very future that Jobs was talking about?
Note from the translator:
I would like to explain where such thoughts come from. As you know, the TV market in America is a cable channel market. The average subscription to a dense, high-quality set costs the Americans 75-100 dollars. Hence the emphasis on "throw out or not throw out" TV set-top box. Those. it's not even about the innovative approach to programming TV, but about reducing costs. By the way, the popularity of the Netflix service is connected with exorbitant checks for a subscription. 9-15 dollars against 100. It is clear that there is no superpopular content on Netflix, but they are ready to put up with this.
Well, about the relevance of iTV for Russia. It is clear that as long as there are no such application channels, iTV in Russia will not bear any semantic load. Netflix, Hulu, HBO in Russia are only available via VPN with American IP + for applications you need an American account in iTunes.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/133055/
All Articles