1. Why Apple Needs to Reinvent the TV

    Personally I can’t wait for Apple to come in and reinvent the television. I envisage they’ll raise the bar like they did with the iPhone and make the market several times more competitive.

    Televisions were invented in the late 1920s and colour came in 1940s. Since then we’ve been subject to a business model pioneered by the television networks. They serve us content, they serve us advertising and we have the ability to pay for premium subscription services (such as Foxtel or Cable) and connect peripheral devices.

    At the moment the price point for TV’s is amazing. You can purchase a 40-inch Full-HD LED LCD for around $600 (AUD). Compare that to 4 years ago when I paid over $5000 (AUD) for 43-inch Semi-HD Plasma screen. Both the industrial design and the hardware is great, but this is not the issue. The issue with TVs is the experience.

    The experience with TV’s is appalling. Every user interface varies between brand and model. There is no consistency in terms of design and frankly it’s pathetic. Let’s talk about a common task such as changing the channel. You pick up a remote and try to hit the impossible bulls-eye. Occasionally you do and then the television takes it’s merry time trying to fulfill your request.

    With the UI aside have you forgotten about the plethora of boxes sitting within your cabinet? Let’s go back to 1993 when TV’s only supported one external device; now we have boxes for just about everything - cable networks, gaming consoles, network media devices, premium subscription services, convertors, boxes to connect more boxes and DVD & Blu-Ray players. It’s ridiculous!

    The Apple TV was important for Apple, because it was their entry into the market. Steve Jobs always claimed it was a ‘hobby’ and they ‘weren’t very serious about it’, but it was a lot more than that. The Apple TV was a market tester. Are consumer’s prepared to pay for content? Do people actually listen to music on their TV’s? Or how about viewing photos? Finally how long do people spend watching TV? The latter question is very relevant. I think we all know the answer and the potential market size.

    Now for the big unknowns. Has Apple thought extremely big? Does what their trying to do require commitment from networks all around the world? It’s quite possible. For example a feature such as trying to replay a TV program straight after it’s broadcast would require permission from the copyright holder.

    Will the Apple Television disrupt the model where content is restricted by markets? At the moment networks purchase programs from content providers after they’ve had widespread success in their local markets. But lets not forget the internet exists today and consumers aren’t prepared to wait 12 months to see what the trending topics on Twitter are all about. They want it now and technologies such as BitTorrent enable this. Could we see a global change to this model across the spectrum? One day they might even go as far as allowing you to determine your own programming. Talk about a total change. All of a sudden you will be dictating your own programming instead of the networks. Going out for dinner later tonight? Then watch the news now instead of at 7:00pm. Video on demand already exists, but not in this capacity.

    Last but not least I’m sure there is another billion dollar App market just waiting to be untapped in the living room. The problem Apple has here though is people aren’t going to get off the couch to touch their TV screens, they’ll have to use an iPad or a new category of device (remote on steroids). TheVerge (http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/18/2645399/apple-working-on-tv-new-interfaces-content-partnerships-wsj) claims people will use their voice which makes sense given the successful launch of Siri. I would love to check the weather, watch those videos I’d saved for later, play a few games or catchup on the news. There is definitely room for an App market here.

    For Apple, reinventing the television makes sense. It extends their walled garden into your living room. They already control your phone, tablet and computer and now they want the 10-foot experience. I hope they have solved all of the problems including creating a universal product that works around the world. I look forward to a product debut in 2012.

     
  2. 10:59 30th Mar 2010

    notes: 49

    comments: 0

    reblogged from: camh

    tags: ipadappletwitterapp store

    image: download

    camh:

I … I just don’t know anymore.

    camh:

    I … I just don’t know anymore.

     
  3. My Thoughts on the iPad

    Yesterday, Apple revealed their much-anticipated tablet device. As most of you probably know the announcement itself was quite controversial. It is still an impressive device, but it is virtually a larger form-factor iPhone. Mind you I would still love to get my hands on one.

    Lets start with the hardware. From the demo videos and the keynote we can see the device is really responsive and the 9.7-inch multitouch display looks gorgeous. According to Steve, the iPad has 10 hours of battery life and will be available from $US499. The device lacks a USB-port (although apparently there is an accessory), slots for removable media (Why no SD Support??) and a camera. The latter in my opinion is a big disappointment. This device could of been perfect for users at home talking to their friends all the way through to business users using the iPad for realtime video conferencing. However the real problem with this device lies with Apple’s trend towards creating a closed and restrictive computing platform.

    Why is it a problem that Apple has complete control over the platform? Because Apple already has a history of preventing competitive applications from being distributed on the iPhone/iPod Touch. A great example of this is Adobe Flash. Mind you as Apple further develops or improves the functionality of existing applications, there is nothing stopping them from restricting or blocking third party applications.

    Whilst Apple has not officially specified whether or not the iPad supports flash, a popular image has been travelling around internet taken by an Engadget blogger.

    Missing Plugin

    Was this website viewed intentionally by Steve in the keynote? The answer is yes, but was this website used to demonstrate that the iPad will not support flash? I am unsure even though the missing plugin icon makes us certain. Without Adobe Flash support on the device, users will not be able to access the full range of content available on the web. Adobe Flash accounts for over 70% of games available on the web and 75% of online video. However Apple has ignorantly restricted their platform (through the App Store approval process and the absence of core software APIs) to make Flash on the iPad impossible.

    Apple has always argued that a fantastic user experience of both their hardware and software is paramount. I can definitely see how its in their best interests to create this type of platform. They get to sell the hardware, develop the guidelines and the core software, restrict competitors and benefit from the 70/30 revenue split with developers. The end result is complete control of their platform. Maybe they can argue there is no room for Flash because it affects the stability and battery life of the device? I’m certain that this is not the case and that their motives are quite different. I believe its about suppressing the competition.

    I’ve been an Apple user now since mid-2007 after jumping ship when Vista arrived. I believe as the web is moving more and more towards open technologies, Apple is severely damaging itself by creating this restrictive ecosystem. It affects developers, users and ultimately the progression of the web itself.