Spork Boards

The "10 foot interface"

stan adams's Avatar Picture stan adams – December 02, 2011 01:35PM Reply Quote
What are the odds that Apple really and truly will sell something that is targeted at the "minds off" crowd??

With the legions of "Apple Haters" growing (as evidenced by the hordes of Android phones, because so far as I can tell they certainly are not any more functional than iPhones...) and the growing danger of "falling prices" is is wise to enter into the space where some of your "frenemies" would love to tie up your products with litigation?

Is there some strategy that could leverage enough of the rocky content agreement of iTunes legacy and dream up a model of profitable use of iCloud infrastructure that would not "lose money on every set"? http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/press-here/Apple-TV-Rumors-Sparks-Industry-Response-134834948.html

if they did decide to accept those loses what would that do to the competitive responses from folks like Amazon and Google, both of whom are probably worth thinking about in terms of content being a means to an end and not really distraction from their core businesses of selling physical goods and advertising respectively...

Is there a chance this is all a giant game of "telephone" where too many messages have gotten blurred?!?



John Willoughby – December 02, 2011 01:56PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I think that Apple definitely will make a play in the TV space. Too many signs point to "yes." Did Steve really "crack" the issue? Will customers agree? Who knows? I'm thinking IPTV, deals (or apps) providing network content, AppleTV features, DVR functionality (local or cloud-based), Siri remote, sharing with iOS devices, and possibly glasses-free 3D. But I have never predicted Apple's leaps with great accuracy.

If it IS IPTV and if Apple does it right and the machine takes off, I predict massive cable operator push-back and clogged internet pipes.

stan adams – December 02, 2011 03:44PM Reply Quote
Steve's dislike for the phone companies was legendary. They spent a lot of time spitballing what it would take to replace carriers with some other WiFi-ish solution. I suspect that there is some kind of plan to use some of the cash horde to move the iCloud down to the iConnection level -- would Apple buy up all the assets of Sprint then fillet out anything not needed to re-roll the company as the "wireless data company"???


El Jeffe – December 03, 2011 03:45PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
On one hand, I see no need to tie a Apple TV brains to one/few displays. On the other hand, same logic says why offer iMac. So, Apple very well could.

Watching The Hobbit filming youtube videos, they are shooting in '5k'. I could see Apple trying to target the next step up from today's 1080/HD. And because of that, perhaps they could get all their ducks in a row for 'The Next Big Thing' --> that being 4k TeeVee ???

Also, samsung has left a bad taste in Apple's mouth. I'm sure they can't cut-and-run fast enough from their LCD panel agreements.

I am just sad they are letting 'content creators' and the tech (iMovie, cameras, enabling tech, Final Cut Pro) effectively wither on the vine whilst their attention is diverted to the tons of iOS/consumer devices. shrug - life goes on.

porruka (Admin) – December 03, 2011 04:36PM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.
I honestly don't know what the "analyst" who claims Apple's television will be 2x the price of competing models is smoking, but I *don't* want any of it. Clearly, it's a negative hallucinogenic.

First, that's not Apple's way these days.
Second, if AppleTV (the standalone box) is being sold for $99, Apple could incorporate that into a television at the noise level for component costs.

Whatever Apple comes out with for television will almost assuredly:

* be priced at a point that will undercut tv+roku/similar box
* include Siri technology as well as iPod/iPad/iPhone control
* utilize parts/suppliers that Apple can lock up for some component; I read an article relatively recently about how the supply chain is a competitive weapon for Apple, and with the cash on hand, deliveries can be locked up
* will take advantage of iCloud - imagine your DVD collection in the cloud without having to rip them...

More visionary would be some agreement/service to supply the cord cutters with an alternative (so less assuredly, but still on my radar for expectations).

Regarding 4kTV, IIRC, Japan has standards for nextgen HDTV, but the bandwidth is still a major issue (as is the exclusivity of high-end digital projectors in theaters that project higher than 2k). If Apple were to go that level, then yes, I could see the higher prices (yields on those panels of sufficient size being difficult) but I'm not expecting that in the first few iterations.

Dave Loudin – December 04, 2011 06:20AM Reply Quote
Unless you can stuff it in a 6 MHz bandwidth, we will never see any better than 1080i over-the-air. IPTV could be a different matter.

El Jeffe – December 04, 2011 10:39AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
Bandwidth? LMAO: Start watching this video at 11:00 minute mark. http://tinyurl.com/72h7b9r

These statements have stuck in my mind ... and highlight the progression of his discussion/argument...

"1966 copper wire carried one phone call. A kilobit per day? Or average much less..
in 1980s the phone companies wanted to attract interactive tv. SUDDENLY that [same copper] wire could carry a megabit. We called it DSL.
Capacity of the wire...is set by BUSINESS MODEL not by physics.
We have 100% broadband NOW...for a century... no additional cost."

"If you say the internet is high speed and if we don't have high speed it's nothing (and then) let's throw it away....you're guaranteed to lose. If you can take advantage of the resources available, instead of saying nothing can happen unless you give me everything I want

(eg - Dave Loudin "Unless you can stuff it in a 6 MHz bandwidth, we will never see any better than 1080i over-the-air.")
... you can have abundance. [It's prescient - as if he expected Dave Loudin to post that! wow.]

".. do more complex math.. and go faster"
Then we figured out (years ago) ... "Instead of pretending to whistle (modem sounds being digitized) if you knew the rules.. you can go into full (speed)... just as fast as ISDN"

"... (the businesses.. tell people stories that they believe... that there is a magical limit."

The best part is this at 34:58
"How many bits does it take to represent the Encyclopedia Brittanica?"
Answer in WHITE TEXT HERE --> Highlight to reveal --> TEN DIGITS !!!!!

WTF? you say.... well, you can listen but unless you listen all the way up to this part, which is the comprehension he has been driving towards during the whole discussion, the answer could perhaps be lost on you. But it emphasizes his point of that it's easy to fall into the trappings of solving challenges/puzzles the WRONG WAY.

His great network resources: http://www.frankston.com/ (left pane)

porruka (Admin) – December 04, 2011 12:50PM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.
Sadly, I don't have the time right now to listen your sources, Bill. I'll just leave it as:

* I never claimed it was a technology limitation, though there *are* limitations in current technology (that could be solved given carrier investment)
* There's no benefit in a fat data pipe that you cannot afford to fill (more a problem in the US than many other countries)
* There is a business model issue (and technology issues) with creating content to fill enhanced formats, given that entertainment companies are fighting tooth and nail to preserve some element of uniqueness for theatrical experiences. "They" don't get it yet that the pie could actually be made larger rather than dividing the pie (and pissing off customers, ala "3D" surcharges for crap conversions)

But back to Apple, I don't see them leaping that far out in front of the delivery tech. The future of physical disks is in question in many quarters, with the long-term prognosis negative. That leaves OTA/OTW delivery that cannot (currently) survive a metered pipe. Just watch Netflix when the cable/wireless carriers start turning the screws... because you know Verizon just bought all that capacity from cable carriers for the hell of it.

[EDIT] Oh, and I'll cherry-pick one thing from your post: bits for EB. Non-sequitur when it comes to video delivery.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/04/2011 12:52PM by porruka.

ARL (Moderator) – December 04, 2011 10:45PM Reply Quote
Long article, but read this Bill:


Spectrum is spectrum. And spectrum is almost limitless.

porruka (Admin) – December 10, 2011 01:50PM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.

Jeff Cooper – December 10, 2011 03:01PM Reply Quote
Awesome! Now we'll be able to see our compression artifacts in even greater detail!

Dave Loudin – December 10, 2011 04:36PM Reply Quote
To me, "TV" refers to program delivery first done over-the-air, then supplemented/replaced by cable and direct broadcast satellite. Over-the-air TV in the US will never use more than 6 MHz per channel. In fact, thanks to the incessant lobbying by wireless operators, OTA operators may end up with half that. With at least $1 million per station spent to build HD facilities, nobody will be in any hurry to rip out everything to put in higher resolution equipment. And, if local plants don't upgrade, cable and DBS don't get higher resolution versions of prime-time programming. Oh, if broadcast TV upgrades the resolution, everybody will need new tuners, be they for OTA, cable, or DBS.

Higher-res sources will have to come via the net and on shiny discs first.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/10/2011 04:42PM by Dave Loudin.

Dave Loudin – December 10, 2011 04:41PM Reply Quote
Tony Leggett
Spectrum is spectrum. And spectrum is almost limitless.

True, but exploiting that spectrum costs a bunch, and you can't just blast into someone else's slice. See 4G versus GPS and OTA TV versus the wireless industry.

John Willoughby – December 10, 2011 05:31PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
My perception is that 2k or 4k doesn't matter; my local cable provider compresses it down to whatever suits their pipes anyway.

Jeff Cooper – December 10, 2011 08:43PM Reply Quote
John Willoughby
My perception is that 2k or 4k doesn't matter; my local cable provider compresses it down to whatever suits their pipes anyway.

Exactly. It's not like I'm receiving 1080p at this point anyway, even though most televisions sold today are capable of that. I can't imagine that we'll see broadcasts at resolutions higher than 1080p, or streaming video for that matter, anytime soon.

ARL (Moderator) – December 12, 2011 08:05PM Reply Quote
Dave Loudin
Tony Leggett
Spectrum is spectrum. And spectrum is almost limitless.

True, but exploiting that spectrum costs a bunch, and you can't just blast into someone else's slice. See 4G versus GPS and OTA TV versus the wireless industry.

Oh, no doubt. I was just saying from a technical point of view there's virtually no restriction. From a practical/legislative/economic perspective it's more difficult.

There's no reason why 1080p shouldn't be the standard for the next 20 years. Broadcast TV was at VGA resolution or below for the best part of 50 years, no?

El Jeffe – December 15, 2011 06:33PM Reply Quote
What a journey.
another interesting article showing the possibilities of old wires

bahamut – December 16, 2011 10:08PM Reply Quote
in our town everyone is losing the twisted pair to fiber… not even sure we have it anymore. last place we were renting, it was taken off in favor of fios.

El Jeffe – December 17, 2011 05:46AM Reply Quote
What a journey.
precisely what my twit/triangulation interview discusses. There is a reason for it. Again, great listen IMO. One of the best of the thousands of audio programs I have listened to in years.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login