Apple should buy Tivo redux

Businessweeks thoughts on my post :P (http://www.business2.com/b2/web/articles/0,17863,515587,00.html)

So it's time for Apple to step in. Steve Jobs is the only man in techland who can stand up to the content companies on his own terms. Not only does he understand the entertainment industry -- his other company, Pixar, is a Hollywood hit machine -- but he also deeply understands the consumer. Apple's "Rip. Mix. Burn." approach has captured the essence of how consumers feel about music: It's theirs.

Beyond that, Jobs used the iPod to help curb music piracy: The device is wedded to one computer at a time, making tune theft more trouble than it's worth.

TiVo should find a soft spot in Jobs's heart for other reasons. In January, TiVo announced that upcoming devices would use Apple's Rendezvous networking technology to allow TiVo-equipped TVs to play music and display photos stored on a Mac. Also, TiVo is similar to Jobs's erstwhile NeXT Software -- an expensive and risky endeavor, but eerily prescient. When Jobs returned to Apple, he brought NeXT with him, and its core technologies are burrowed deep into OS X, the elegant operating system at the center of Apple's new "iLife" media strategy.

Jobs could do the same with TiVo. With a depressed market cap and nearly 625,000 customers, TiVo is a steal. Jobs would have to unwind some messy licensing agreements, but he's done that before. His next step would be to apply Apple's design elegance and create an "iTV" device that integrates with Macintosh OS X, the Internet, and your cable or satellite box. Talk about a revolution. Once Apple turned on the marketing and PR offensive, we'd have one hell of a Hollywood drama unfolding. And with Jobs in the lead role, it'd be awfully fun to watch.

Yup it would be fun. Will Apple have the stones??

Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.

Originally posted by AirSluf
This won't happen unless Steve has a DRAMATICALLY MAJOR change of heart on the TV vs computer thing. He has ben very vehement for quite a years that you use computers to use your brain and TV to turn your brain off; therefore there is no realistic confluence between computers and Apple included TV functionality.

TiVo has quite a few warts on the business level, not the service provider level, which are holes they dug themselves. Those business issues are more of an impediment than the service marketing. Apple would almost be better off to take their new HD codecs and experience running the iTunes service to start from scratch and finish TiVo off, rather than try to keep TiVo alive. It could be the next killer application for the iMac, especially if it could be paired with an evolved AirPort Express for audio and video.

Steve needs to be out of this one. If the acquisition happened it should be the newly formed iPod division handling this and not SJ. Perhaps his cancer scare will have him thinking differently. The TV is just becoming a large monitor. HDTV is great for photos and many people have stereos connected. Apple can leverage this into more Airport Express sales. Apple is in danger of falling behind the curve. DVR software is available from plenty of PC companies. El Gato is all we have now. The problem with Apple "rolling their own" is that they don't have the brand recognition of Tivo nor do they have the built in installed base of 1.6 million users. If the iPod has a Halo Effect then imagine how many Tivo users would convert to Macs for great functionality.

We have to face the facts that Steve Jobs will be sitting across from the MPAA in meetings within 5 years to hammer out video on demand licensing of their content He will have much more sway if walks in with 2 million Tivo users and success from iTMS. Tivo's current problem is getting their product in homes where TW and Comcast are blowing DVRs out for cheap. The thing is they all have crappy UI. Apple's Tivo of the future could be the testbed for Quicktime in a CE environment.

Also put it this way. Apple paid $66 million for Powerschool and has done nothing but lose edu marketshare. Waste of freakin' money. Tivo's cap is only $300 million but the IP and inroads Apple could make would be worth much more. We all know Apple is going to need a home unit soon for iTMS track playback. Apple could build Tivo back into a billion dollar company. They have the retail stores and distribution to make it work. They have a CEO that the entertainment industry will listen to. They have every incentive to do so with far little risk.

If Apple can get people to pay $399 for an iPod they can get people to pay $500 for a homepod with full Tivo access.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay, when will this madness end?

Yes, Steve has said that there are differences in the way people relate to and use the two devices (TV and computer). But everyone assumes this was meant negatively rather than simply factually...or an observation. That is not my take at all. Everyone has turned this into "Steve hates TV." I don't know that that is the case at all. He is simply reflecting on how people use the devices. A great many people "turn their brain off" when they listen to music as well.

Some quotes from an interview:

Do you have any other thoughts about where your competitors are taking their strategies? For example, Windows Media PCs are computers attached to TV sets.

Well, we've always been very clear on that. We don't think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge. We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.

Are there some complementary aspects to it?

Well, they want to link sometimes. Like, when you make a movie, you burn a DVD and you take it to your DVD player. Someday that could happen over AirPort, so you don't have to burn a DVD -- you can just watch it right off your computer on your television set. But most of these products that have said, "Let's combine the television and the computer! have failed. All of them have failed.

So what he is saying is, that you shouldn't expect to see a product from Apple that allows you to use your TV as a computer, but a product that allows you to see your photos and movies on the TV is viable.

This interview is pre AirTunes, and I would expect to see an AirPort Express 2 with video capabilities.

PS: Since TiVO has problems it seems that Jobs has a point.

Originally posted by JLL
Some quotes from an interview:

So what he is saying is, that you shouldn't expect to see a product from Apple that allows you to use your TV as a computer, but a product that allows you to see your photos and movies on the TV is viable.

This interview is pre AirTunes, and I would expect to see an AirPort Express 2 with video capabilities.

PS: Since TiVO has problems it seems that Jobs has a point.

I haven't said that Steve is wrong...only that his comments have been interpreted as a) an indication that he "hates" TV, and b) that Apple would never produce a product related to TV. I think both are false assumptions. I think a correct assumption would be that Steve (and Apple) recognize the different ways the devices are used and that the idea of "TV on my computer" is a limited market...just as "computer on my TV" is. In other words...I think he's saying "A computer is a computer and a TV is a TV and merging them makes very little sense for MOST customers."

Like you...I can imagine an Airport Express with video streaming too. This could blow away TiVO.

But TiVo is much more interactive than normal TV. Even Steve can realize that TV can be so much more than just sitting on the couch and switching your brain to 'off'.

If that's really his take on TVs or watching TV on the computer then he should just resign from Pixar because he doesn't have a clue of the future or why he's at Pixar.

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I haven't said that Steve is wrong...only that his comments have been interpreted as a) an indication that he "hates" TV

I was actually supporting your argument that he never said that :)

Homegrown or a buyout of TiVo, either way Apple would have to do pretty much the same things. I don't know if just the 1.6 million DVR owners are enough difference for the $300 mil. I would be much happier to see a DVR addition to the iLife suite, a video APExpress and provide the program guide service (which is the heart of TiVo) as part of .Mac.

I have to disagree. I think for $300 million owning the Tivo name is far better than starting from scratch. It means paying for less marketing because Apple would receive much more press over taking over the "beleagured Tivo" versus coming out with a whole new product. Chances of success are increased when you hit the ground with a million plus users. Tivo is failing because without purchasing the lifetime guide data or monthly it's a anchor. Apple could create a DVR for iLife but that's a bunch of development costs that could be avoided buy purchasing Tivo and using their software.

Someone is going to purchase Tivo soon. Apple would be such a good fit I can't believe they have $5 billion in the bank and would pass on this. Sure they could roll their own but why duplicate? Apple is struggling trying to make dot mac usefull. 500 thousand customers is nothing and I keep hearing from current users that aren't going to renew.

My mother is a tech neophyte but she LOVES her Tivo. She will never give it up. She recognizes its well done UI and enjoys it. My next goal is to get her on Macintosh. Be nice if I could tell her Apple bought Tivo.

Man Apple just have everything needed to pull this off and get paid.

Rendezvous/Opentalk- Imagine easy networking and sharing of movies within a Home Network.

Airport - Apple has already done great things with AEX but adding this to Tivo is even better because AEX requires a computer to handle the processing. Tivo would do this on its own.

Quicktime - Not only are we talking about video and audio but let us not forget that we could access Midi files and even Karoake if you are so inclined.

I eventually see the ability to basically run OSX lite on a STB. Imagine the possibilities.

The year is 2008

I come home from a long grueling workday. I turn on my 61" LCD monitor and tune to the daily news. After the news I switch video inputs and look at my newest Tivo information. I have set up automated actions that has the Tivo pull my email messages from my Powermac in the office. I quickly read my email. I notice that my Aunt Peg has sent me a iChat file. I open it up and I'm now watching Aunt Peg speaking into her iSight..the motion is 30fps and smooth. I check to see if Aunt Peg is still online. She is; I contact her using iChat AV and enable my iSight. We chat for a bit and she sends me a few documents which iChat downloads quickly. We end the call.

I decide I'm in the mood for some background music. I queue up some playlists from iTunes and begin Random Play. The phone rings and iTunes automatically pauses(that features been in the iTunes API for a couple years now) I grab my wireless headset and take the call. The call ends and my iTunes immediatly springs back to life right from where it left off. I listen for about 15-20 minutes and then decide I want to look at some of the editing I recently finished in Final Cut Pro

I do a quick Spotlight search and find my latest file. A HD video of the families last vacation to the Grand Canyon. I've added titles and a backing track and even composited some elements in for show. I've encoded it to AVC and it streams easily to my LCD panel through the STB. I love the way my video encompasses various multimedia elements. I've got motion graphics, 3D, great sound and HD photos that are panned just like Ken Burns. It's really a slick presentation. I smile and stop the video. I'll tweak more later.

I'm ready to pick up my children but before I go I grab my wireless keyboard and call up my iCal Calendar to add some meetings and family functions. I notice that tomorrow I have a 40,000 checkup on the car...glad I checked because I had forgotten this. I shut down the LCD and Tivo, grab my keys and I'm out the door.

It may sound like science fiction but peoples lives today are busy. They need access to tools and Entertainment devices will start to meld with Productivity devices. Apple needs to parlay their iPod success into hit after hit. The Mac is not the savior here..the nice Apple technologies are.

Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.

Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.

Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.

Here's a cut-n-paste from a Business 2.0 article. I've highlighted the cool parts in Bold

In January, TiVo bought van Hoff's tiny startup, Strangeberry, for an undisclosed sum. Hardly anyone noticed. But for TiVo, the deal is shaping up as a masterstroke. Van Hoff is known in elite computing circles as one of Silicon Valley's most brilliant minds. Prickly? A bit. Nerdy? You bet. But, among other career highlights, van Hoff was one of the chief developers of Sun Microsystems's (SUNW) Java programming language, now seen as being among software's most momentous technical feats. Even Sun co-founder and industry legend Bill Joy calls van Hoff "a great programmer." Marimba founder Kim Polese, who worked with van Hoff at both Sun and Marimba, calls him a "giant in the software world."

More to the point for TiVo, van Hoff is an absolute nut for its technology. He owns five TiVo boxes. At Strangeberry, he and a fractious posse of coders put their minds to building the elusive dream machine that TiVo and every other convergence player has long sought: the single, elegant, indispensable device that will control all the elements of home entertainment, from computing to music to movies.

A number of analysts and other third-party observers who've seen the fruits of van Hoff's labors believe that his team may well have succeeded. Strangeberry software gives users the power to do things that no other set-top box or PC has been able to do. You can stream any content from the Net, watch it on your TV, or route it wirelessly to any other device -- MP3 player, PDA, laptop. It can all be done with the ease that TiVo's 1.6 million subscribers already have come to relish: You'll never need to click more than a button or two on a single remote to pull entertainment into any room in your house. "Nobody else has technology that comes close," says Daniel Ernst, managing director of New York investment bank Rodman & Renshaw.

And perhaps most significant, TiVo has a fortress of intellectual property protecting the new technology, meaning that rivals will find it more difficult to quickly ape TiVo this time. That could give it enough breathing room to execute a dramatic and difficult shift in its business model. TiVo expects snazzy new features enabled by the Strangeberry software to goose sales of its own boxes. But it wants to pull back from the brutal, margin-sapping hardware game.Instead, it envisions licensing van Hoff's software to some of the very cable companies and other box makers that have been pounding TiVo into the dust, making Strangeberry the software standard for the convergence revolution and guaranteeing it a defensible -- and lucrative -- position in the battle for the living room.

Is TiVo dreaming? The new approach clearly remains something of a Hail Mary pass. TiVo's rivals, ranging from Microsoft (MSFT) to Time Warner (TWX) (the parent of this magazine) to satellite-TV operators to consumer electronics makers, all have similar projects in the works and vast resources to develop them. TiVo recently took another body blow when DirecTV, which offers TiVo as part of its satellite service and is a big contributor to the company's revenue, announced that it will also begin offering a rival's DVR technology.

Still, for the first time in many moons, there's a quickening of TiVo's pulse. Its revenue rose almost 50 percent to $141.1 million in the fiscal year that ended in January. Its net loss of $32 million was painful, but less than half of last year's figure. Mike Ramsay, the company's CEO, says subscribers will double to more than 3 million early next year and hit 10 million by 2007. Analysts predict that the company will turn profitable by the end of next year. "TiVo is executing brilliantly," Ernst says. "There's a strong case that this company is going to survive."

It's largely van Hoff's technology that will prove that case, one way or the other. Last year, in a burst of enthusiasm not uncharacteristic for TiVo fans, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell called its device "God's machine." Van Hoff's work, more than anyone's, will determine whether TiVo meets its maker anytime soon.

"You're calling me lucky?" snaps van Hoff from across a table in a crowded Silicon Valley cafe. Van Hoff, 6-foot-4 and built like a bull, doesn't like being asked how he, of all the world's coders, wound up a key team member during the early days of Java at Sun. "It's all skill," he says, his gaze steady behind round metal frames. The 41-year-old programmer won't hear anything about serendipity, alignment of stars, or pure luck.

Sun scientist and Java inventor James Gosling heard about van Hoff through colleagues in 1993, while the Dutchman was still earning his master's degree at Scotland's prestigious Strathclyde University. The son of an entrepreneur, van Hoff started coding with punch cards in high school during the 1970s. By college, he already had a reputation for creating from "whole cloth," meaning he'd take a project from idea to architecture to execution, a rare talent for a programmer. He is also fast, known for humbling even veteran engineers by boiling down 15 pages of their hard work to three clean lines of code. Gosling persuaded him to work on the then-nascent Java project.

Van Hoff's talent, coupled with an entrepreneurial ambition, helped him build a tight-knit crew, each member hoping to get in on the interesting projects that always seem to bubble up around van Hoff. "Arthur is somebody who makes things happen," says Jonathan Payne, a Java veteran who, along with Adam Doppelt, has worked with van Hoff for more than six years. Though close, the three will scrap. "They're like old married couples," says Thomas Banahan, a former colleague of van Hoff's who is now global head of Lehman Bros. Venture Capital Group. "They all challenge each other, get grumpy, and go back to their corners." Not always. Pavni Diwanji, now chairman of spam fighter MailFrontier and a former Java team member, recalls a few fistfights during the all-nighters at Java central. "For Arthur, everything had to be perfect," she says. "There were no compromises with him." Still, when van Hoff left Sun in 1996 to help found Marimba, his team went with him.

That startup was one of the most hyped ventures of the pre-dotcom era. But van Hoff grew bored as an executive at the new company, which tried to develop ill-fated "push" technology to move Internet content to desktop computers. He preferred to code, rather than collate reports. "I'm not a manager," he admits. "I'm not interested in running companies. I'm much more interested in technology."

In 2002, van Hoff quit Marimba. Doppelt and Payne joined him in a new startup they called Strangeberry, a name the team came up with after a late night of random word association. Van Hoff didn't know what Strangeberry was going to do, but he started with two rules: Don't build anything like what Marimba was making. And have fun. (Van Hoff does have a lighter side; one of his hobbies is programming Lego robots to ride around on two wheels like a Segway.)
First the Strangeberry team built a jukebox programmed to run their music. But a lot of things the trio thought would be fun turned out to be "mind-numbingly dull," Doppelt says. Eventually they turned to brainstorming about the future of home networking, digital media, and home video, and how it would all converge in a house. Van Hoff was already a TiVo junkie, but he was also thinking way beyond the DVR. "We tried to imagine 10 years from now," van Hoff recalls. "What is going to be connecting the back of your TV?" Coaxial cable? Ethernet? Wireless? Ultra-wideband? The answer, he thinks, is irrelevant. "You won't be recording shows anymore," he says. "You'll just be viewing them. Why record them when you can just play them directly from the Internet?"

Van Hoff's crew built some basic DVRs and started experimenting. They dabbled with an intuitive interface that guided kids through the TiVo screen, and pitched it to the company, but TiVo wasn't interested. In July 2002, Payne bought a $300 AudioTron, a piece of hi-fi gear that transmits music files from a computer to a stereo; he'd ripped all his CDs but still wanted to listen to them on his stereo. Payne says his colleagues "all made fun of me" for paying so much instead of building something himself. But it set Doppelt thinking, and within days he pitched the "videotron." As he put it at the time, "Marry the power of the PC and the elegance of consumer electronics, and you have a killer product."

This was not a particularly startling revelation; people started working on the PC-TV meld many years ago. What was different was that van Hoff and his team had the coding chops to come up with a new software-based approach to convergence's central problem of getting various devices and forms of content to work easily together. The group dived into the project -- and nearly blew apart. "There were some knock-down, drag-out fights" over technical directions and how to steer the business, Doppelt says. He considered quitting many times, but despite "butting heads" with van Hoff, he stayed. All the squabbling, Doppelt says, was ultimately good for the team: "Out of this crucible, you get something beautiful. If everyone is willing to get along, you get mediocrity."
Remarkably, the team had a prototype up and running within two weeks. By fall of 2002, they were showing VCs a box that could transport content to a TV screen from virtually anywhere. The VCs had two reactions, Doppelt recalls. The first was "We've never seen anything like this." The second was "How the hell is a software company going to make money in the consumer electronics business?" The VCs politely passed.

Six months later, van Hoff wangled a meeting with more VCs, this time at Redpoint Ventures. Ramsay, TiVo's CEO and an engineer himself, dropped in as a casual observer; Redpoint was one of his investors. He was floored. "We had a meeting of the minds," Ramsay recalls. The acquisition came together within six months. If it ever troubled van Hoff that TiVo was bleeding, he isn't saying. "We really liked TiVo," he says. "Great product. Good karma. Great engineers."

So how does Strangeberry give TiVo a fighting chance? For starters, van Hoff and his team joined up and brought their coding wizardry. Far more important, of course, is the Strangeberry software and what it promises for TiVo.

Right now TiVo machines can do their recording and time-shifting magic only on programs piped in from standard cable or satellite feeds. That has made it easy for cable and satellite operators to attack by, for instance, offering cut-rate digital video recording as a way to hold on to new customers. Time Warner Cable sells DVR service for $3 to $4 a month less than TiVo's $12.95 offering -- and you don't have to buy the TiVo box, which runs about $150. Meanwhile, Microsoft and partners Gateway (GTW) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) are blazing away from a different angle, trying to make the PC, not the television, the living room's hub. Add in the fact that some in the entertainment industry see TiVo as a tool for the potential Napsterization of film and it's easy to see why so many people have blown taps for TiVo.

The copyright issues will take years to sort out, but for the more immediate competitive pressures, Strangeberry provides several defenses. First, van Hoff and his coders are expected to quickly create new features for upcoming TiVo boxes that should help the company pump up subscriber revenue. Already, the Series2 TiVo enables users to move music and photos from computer to TV. And it doesn't hurt that more and more consumers want a DVR: The overall market is expected to hit 25 million units in 2008, up from 4.3 million this year.

The bigger payoff, as TiVo sees it, will come from far more elaborate things that van Hoff's software will enable. One of Strangeberry's distinguishing bits of technical hocus-pocus is that it can recognize any digital content format -- MP3, HTML, DivX, and the like -- and massage it into the familiar and friendly TiVo interface. That enables Strangeberry boxes to quickly and easily draw in anything on the Web and move it to the TV, which consumers generally prefer to the PC as a comfortable place to get their entertainment, especially video. The content then becomes subject to all the tricks -- freeze-frame, ad zapping -- that TiVo is already known for. When fully loaded TiVo boxes hit the market next year, they will add new layers of interactivity and potential customization.

Doppelt cites this example: Fox Entertainment could green-light an American Idol app that would allow viewers to vote with a click of the TV remote rather than by phone. Fans could zip back and review clips of the performers while making their decisions. Another possibility: TiVo users could swiftly tap into Netflix's vast catalog of films and enjoy them on-demand rather than waiting for them to arrive in the mail. (Netflix has said it will put its catalog online next year, and TiVo CEO Ramsay is a Netflix director.) Or ESPN could use Strangeberry technology to create customized channels -- say, an A-Rod network that would send daily clips on the MVP shortstop's doings to a system's hard drive. "Strangeberry works and it's totally cool," says Marc Canter, co-founder of Web media tool maker Macromedia, who was given an early view of the technology.

None of TiVo's current competitors can do all the things Strangeberry makes possible. DVR devices built by Scientific-Atlanta (SFA), which makes set-top boxes for Comcast (CMCSK), Time Warner, and other cable companies, have recording capability but no Internet connectivity (see "The 800-Lb. Copycat"). Microsoft has stumbled repeatedly with its MSN TV service; these days it's more focused on its Media Center software, which uses a computer screen, not a television.

Selling more of its own boxes won't save TiVo, and TiVo knows it. Its real bet is that the Strangeberry software's power and appeal will drive licensing revenue skyward. And the targets of TiVo's gamble are some of its biggest tormentors. Cable and satellite operators have spent millions vainly trying to create something that does what Strangeberry does; TiVo hopes to persuade them that it's cheaper and easier to simply license van Hoff's software. Ramsay says he's been talking to all the big cable and satellite operators; no luck so far. But David Miller, an analyst at research firm Sanders Morris Harris, says that is nonetheless TiVo's road to salvation. "I think TiVo will survive, but as a provider of technology to cable companies" and not a hardware maker or service provider. "The right question to ask," he says, "is whether they can make big money off licensing deals."

Another intriguing strategic twist involves the company's plans for ads. The feature that gave TiVo instant buzz when it debuted was its ability to skip commercials; many advertisers have loathed it ever since. But TiVo's technology collects reams of data on viewing habits, and its user base is heavily skewed toward the 18- to 34-year-olds whom marketers lust after. Ramsay believes Strangeberry software could create highly interactive ads. It will take time to get advertisers' trust, he concedes. But he says that within three years, basic digital recording, which today provides about 90 percent of TiVo's revenue, will drop to about a third. The rest will come mostly from software licensing and ads.

In the end, TiVo still could simply be overwhelmed by the pressures it faces -- even if the Strangeberry software itself is a hit. Many observers think a likely outcome is that rather than partnering with rivals, TiVo will be swallowed by one, as happened to Netscape and many other tech pioneers that couldn't parlay their breakthroughs into lasting independent businesses. Van Hoff insists that this won't happen. "I'm at the center of a revolution," he says. If he succeeds, he'll probably lose the first part of the usual obscure-but-revered tag that people use to describe him. And he'll force a lot of hasty rewriting over on the obit desk.

The Strangeberry software will not be licensed by the cable operators until they are pressured. They don't know "cool" they know profits. Tivo has to create the "proof of concept" with Strangeberry software and when they have a buzz then they can start to license. Apple would be even better as Steve Jobs carries far more weight than Ramsey. Jobs is a Hollywood Fellow..he runs Pixar and is insider moreso than any CE CEO. Tivo has the talent but they just don't have the confidence. Apple brings that confidence and can secure nice IP from Stangeberry that can e licensed and utilized to extend Apple's platforms.

Originally posted by mmmpie
You are missing the point.
Watching TV/Movies is a passive experience. You sit down and watch what someone else has decided to make. You dont have to make any decisions, it isnt interactive.

This means that the ergonomics of the experience can suit that model of engagement. You can sit back in you sofa with a beer.

Computers are interactive. When you use a computer you are making decisions constantly.

This dictates certain ergonomics of operation as well. You tend to be close to the screen so that you can see it clearly, and have an upright seating position.

It certainly isnt impossible to watch TV on a computer. But the ergonomics of the computer arent really suitable to relaxing and taking part in the passive world that is TV. Computers arent set up to be relaxing, TVs are.

What this boils down to is that you shouldnt watch TV on your computer and you shouldnt use your computer on a TV. There are certainly exceptions:

You might only have a computer.
You might not have enough space for both.

So there is a limited market for computers that can watch TV. There are also people that will fall into this realm, e.g.: previewing your own movies.

Why doesnt this apply to music?
Because you can choose to relax while listening to music, and do nothing else. But you can also enjoy music while being actively engaged in something. Im listening to music right now.


You say all this as though they are facts...they're not. TV could become an interactive experience like I said earlier...it doesn't need to remain a passive experience. And a recent survey shows that a shitload of people watch TV while they're using the computer. So bringing TV *TO* the computer is *NOT* the limited market you make it out to be.

As computer monitors get bigger, I see less and less reasons why TVs and computers should be separate products. Your lack of foresight, mmmpie, makes it clear that there are people like you out there stunting technology expansion/growth.

The DVD Player in Mac OS X was a bad idea then?

There's absolutely no point in buying two different devices that do the same thing: display images on a screen.

So you use your computer for work...who cares...most use their computers for games and other forms of entertainment such as chatting and web browsing. Using your computer for TV is not the ridiculous idea you make it out to be.

There's no doubt in my mind that in 7-10 years, TV channels will be fed to the computer via the internet...this will slowly decrease the usefulness of TVs.

People will be able to buy monitors and place 'em around the house and channels will be transfered wirelessly to them via the central computer. I'd say we're about 10 years away from that.

And comparing a super low res CRT to a 30 inch Cinema Display was a pathetic attempt to make me believe 6 inches for 2000 dollars less would be the better deal.

Originally posted by Kickaha
Unless you want to do two different things with them.

ie, work, and off-in-the-corner-keeping-you-company-entertainment.

Or do you think that multiple monitors are a bad thing, and instead we should just have *larger* monitors?

Separating mental focus by separating tasks in physical visual fields is a highly efficient and effective approach.

Heck, I use virtual desktops to partition my mental focus - one for iChat, social email, fun surfing, and another three for various stages of my workflow. Even the desktops are different. I'd *love* it if I had separate displays, but that's a little difficult with a laptop on the bus. :)

I never said multiple monitors is a bad thing...in fact, it would be possible *today* to hang a 30" on the wall with the primary objective to view movies and TV and have a smaller monitor on a desk in the same room or the room right behind the 30 incher for computer purposes.

The 30" would only be a second monitor...and with wireless bluetooth gizmos, the 30" could be used as a computer.

Of course, it's possible right now but rough around the edges since no two people could be using the one computer at a time...but as computers get faster and as wireless becomes better, I don't see why one computer could allow for multiple users simultaneously via multiple monitors around the house.

The computer would handle all your iChatAV/phone needs, movie/TV needs. The computer would act as the computer we all know, a phone, a TV, whatever.

As a general purpose tool, the computer is *MEANT* to merge existing technologies. Otherwise there would be no point to Skypes, iChatAVs, DVD Players, iTunes', etc.

Someone could have invented a audio/video phone and make it mainstream and someone would be wondering the purpose of iChat AV..."why would I want to talk and see someone while I'm working? I'd rather use a separate device." "Why iTunes when I can listen to my music through my sound system?"

I was in fact contemplating the very idea of having a monitor in the next room. My computer is in my bedroom and the living room is right behind the wall my computer is up against. The monitor would have been used primarily for movie viewing, photo viewing, console emulation, but also general computer use. But I'm waiting a year or two so I can buy a G5 with bluetooth, PCIe, and a 30" Cinema Display when they're a little less expensive.

There's no point buying an Apple LCD without buying the computer to go with it since you barely get any warranty on the screen when you buy it seperately. And I wouldn't be able to set up the living room monitor as a computer without bluetooth. And I'd have to buy a videocard that allows 2 monitors. So I might as well wait until my next computer purchase.

But anyone could do this right now if they wanted to. It's up to Apple to make the setup more elegant to the end-user.

Bringing TV to computers is not a stupid idea. It's just too bad most of you can't see beyond 'today'.

edit: I actually have no idea what the iMac 3 will bring but having all the computer components behind the monitor and keeping the enclosure as thin as possible would bring everyone one step closer to what I've described.

If Apple can market such a thing cheap enough, people will be able to buy these and hang them in various rooms of the house. Wireless networking and Rendezvous/OpenTalk will make all of them aware of each other...Xgrid in the future will combine their CPU power to act as one computer...each computer could act as a node to something: a phone line, the internet, TV cable, a powerful sound system, a single printer and all computers would share these as though they were connected to it physically. Some of the computers could simply be used as photo frames (iPhoto slideshow), another computer could be set up in the kitchen as a TV and 'recipe book' that voices out instructions as you cook (iRecipes anyone?) If Apple could come up with some good speech recognition software, people could simply voice out a command to a nearby computer to change the photo in the hallway or music that's playing or search for a recipe.

I think I'll revise the time to 5 years. In 5 years, this stuff will easily be possible. It's only some clever use of Xgrid, wireless networking, and speech recognition and speech synthesis.

Apple can do it. But Steve has to realize that TV on computer isn't a stupid idea. Once that is done, the computers will be able to populate every room of the house including hallway walls.

TV, iChat AV, DVD movies, music, etc... in every room of the house (this won't happen until computers are extremely cheap but I can see the beginning of such a set up.)

I don't care much about TVs and Computers merging. I just want Apple to take advantage of opportunity. Tivo is getting hammered, not because they don't have a good product but because Wallstreet's faith in them is lacking. Apple should Carpe Diem.

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."

Thomas Alva Edison.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
Apple can do it. But Steve has to realize that TV on computer isn't a stupid idea. Once that is done, the computers will be able to populate every room of the house including hallway walls.

Steve answered this with a very simple thought problem: You've set your PC to record The West Wing at a certain time. Your sister decides to work in FCP, maxing out the PC's resources, and overlaps that time. What happens? Should Apple start putting in exceptions to the age-old rule that the interactive process commands the highest (userland) priority? Or do you let the PC be the PC, and let the TV be the TV, and keep them out of each others' way? As Steve put it, if he set a machine to record The West Wing then it had damn well better record it; but that means leaving the person actually using the PC interactively with a laggy and jittery user experience.

The problem, in this case, is that Apple's software strategy involves squeezing out every last drop of performance from their hardware in order to make it as attractive as possible. So real-time, compute-intensive background processes that aren't related to the current interactive work are bad.

That's not even touching on copyright issues, which are guaranteed to be 10x hairier with digital content than with the currently prevailing analog content. The content providers want their content to appear in a dedicated, locked-down box that is guaranteed to be the final destination for that content. They don't want someone releasing the Phantom Edit of their show, and they have spent millions to prevent that from happening. For anything like the future you envision to happen, the industry will have to turn 180 degrees around (in a direction where publishers have not been willing to go for the entire history of copyright law), and a few laws will have to be struck down or repealed. That, more than Steve or an unwillingness to have computers perform triage with user requests, will keep convergence from happening any time soon.

I think some people might be approaching this the wrong way. Let's stick to the idea of a Mac as a digital hub, not fusing the TV and Mac together in the same box, but using the Mac as a sort of tuner, jukebox or, as hmurchison originally pointed out, as a TiVO. Here is your best argument for a headless iMac: having one computer and multiple displays, one for viewing at your computer, one as a TV monitor (as opposed to tuner), and the CPU can be remote from both potentially (bandwidth issues apply!). Now, we might have to think how a computer handles all this stuff: the memory, the badnwidth, the CPU and GPU performance and so forth. You might need a central DB type of hub and satellite processors for TV, computing, music, etc. It seems to me anyway that any sort of convergence would mean that both ends of this proposal would have to move towards one another. Leaving the computer, our definition of it and its implementation, relatively immutable doesn't seem like a good frame of reference for something like this. Computers will have to be more like consumer electronics devices (stereos, TVs, etc.), and these electronics devices will have to be more like computers as people conventionally define that.

Originally posted by AirSluf
1. Mach has real time threads which eliminates the recording performance issue.

*Eliminates*?

Um, no.

If the DVR process wants 60% of the CPU, and FCP wants 80%... you're going to see FCP choke. Unless of course FCP is *also* RT (which, using QT, it is), in which case you're *really* screwed. Both processes choke.

Since when has real-time every magically increased your CPU capabilities??

2. To counter background recording killing application performance you give the user the option to override it. The user stays in control of what their priorities are and chooses their desired front app performance impact consciously. The only issues then are on shared machines and that is a social problem, not a technological one--someone is going to win and that is usually the one with an administrators password.

Explain that to Average Joe. Nuh-uh.

3. That problem is already here even with the current TiVo and related other recorders. It won't get much worse with access on generic computers as once the first digital pirate is out distribution is ridiculous fast and Pay Per View has gotten smart by showing on the same day the DVD is released, making it a technological wash as to where the originals could come from anyway.

Actually, the problem is *not* here already because a TiVo is a dedicated device - you're not going to be editing FCP projects on it.

Gee, you *don't say*... :P

The assertion that real time threads 'eliminate' this problem is naive.

And no, until now the possibility of such a situation really *hasn't* cropped up for the average Mac user. Name me one other situation that has already been widespread, if you would, where you have:

1) a highly computationally intensive process running in the background owned by user A that demands real time threads (and before anyone screams that it's not computationally intensive - do you really think that with H.264 lying around that Apple would use a lesser quality codec if at all possible?)

2) a highly computationally intensive process running in the foreground owned by user B that demands real time threads

No rush, I'll wait.

That's the situation you're looking at popping up with DVR capabilities on a Mac... I would *love* to have those capabilities, but I also am one of the minority who understand the ins and outs of the system, and potential consequences of running into such a scenario as above. User B, who may really really need that process *now* can't do squat about user A's process, unless B is an admin... and even then, user A is going to be a little peeved that their process was terminated and they don't get to watch their soap opera du jour. This is utterly not the same as the one user launching Doom while encoding an MP3 and burning a DVD - they control all the processes at that point, there are no surprises.

The closest thing we've had come up so far is fast user switching, but even then you don't necessarily have the scheduling issue, where user A's process suddenly pops up and wants a large chunk of the CPU time, like, now.

Bottom line: the mere existence of real time threads means bupkus in this situation. They don't magically make the problem go away. That's all.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
What the hell? You're bringing a completely unrelated problem to the scenario...a problem that exist with dedicated devices anyways.

Read back a little more closely. I was responding to AirSluf, who was responding to Amorph, who brought it up as a point that Steve Jobs made as to why DVR tasks can cause user issues. It's a very real problem.

If person A wants to use the VCR to record a show and person B says "Nuh uh, I want to watch something or record something else" then the same problem exists. If someone wants to watch TV and someone else wants to play Nintendo, one of the two is going to have to give. Get another VCR, TV or computer if conflicts like these occur.

BINGO. 'Get another device if conflicts like these occur.' It's called a DVR. That's your 'other device'. Then, no conflicts.

You hit the nail on the head, even if you didn't mean to.

I'd love to have DVR capabilities too. I just see that there are some very real resource conflicts that can occur and need to be taken into consideration. And no, real time threads don't make them magically go away. They can help, but they don't make them go away.

Originally posted by Kickaha

I'd love to have DVR capabilities too. I just see that there are some very real resource conflicts that can occur and need to be taken into consideration. And no, real time threads don't make them magically go away. They can help, but they don't make them go away.

Resource conflicts have *always* existed...don't pretend like they haven't. There is absolutely nothing new here.

The point that you make about DVR bogging down FCP is moot.

Don't do 4-way iChat video-conferencing while using FCP...it could get ugly. In fact, Steve decided to remove 4-way video-conferencing from iChat 3 because it could cause 'resource conflicts'. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Kickaha
Why do you think they limited iChat to 500MHz G3s? Quality of the video. Could slower machines do it? Sure. Was it 'acceptable Apple quality'? Nope. So they disabled it. The precedent is there... if it isn't 'up to snuff' at the user end, it simply won't be allowed.

So you agree that DVR can potentially be added to top end computers? :) And that buying a dedicated DVR device is a waste of money if the computer *could* run a DVR app and FCP simultaneously and acceptably?

That wasn't so bad was it? TV viewing and TV recording has a place with computers. I'm glad you agree.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
So you agree that DVR can potentially be added to top end computers? :) And that buying a dedicated DVR is a waste of money if the computer *could* run DVR and FCP simultaneously and acceptably?

That wasn't so bad was it? TV and TV recording has a place with computers. I'm glad you agree.

Oh please.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.

And the PowerMacs today (which are the likely computers that *would* be running FCP) could handle FCP and DVR.

If two 2.5GHz CPUs can't handle encoding and FCP at the same time...I'd be surprised.

Of course, if we're talking super high image quality encoding, there would be some problems. :)

Thank you. Sheesh. And those problems of quality are precisely the types of things that Apple^h^h^h^h^hJobs finds unacceptable. When the hardware is sufficient such that the user doesn't have to think about "Oh, is it okay if I run this now, or should I check to see if there's an iDVR run scheduled?", only then is there a possibility of it becoming an iApp.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.

Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).

The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).

I see the the following issues:

a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.

b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.

In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.

What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.

User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.

You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).

The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?

The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.

"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."

TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.

What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.

Originally posted by mmmpie
Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).

The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).

I see the the following issues:

a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.

b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.

In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.

What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.

User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.

You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).

The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?

The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.

"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."

TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.

What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.

No. no. no and NO!

I don't agree with anything you've said...Not one.

Ergonomics have nothing to do with anything. What you said about ergonomics is just a bunch of nonsense.

Computers don't need to be personal devices...they can be as social as TVs...and TVs can be as personal as computers. People can play games together on the same computer just like someone can decide to watch a show that someone else doesn't want to watch.

In the future there will always be software that pushes the limits of hardware...the problems you and Kickaha talk about have never been new and will continue to exist in the year 2153. So whether DVR comes now or in 10 years...there will always be a program that *could* use up all of the CPU and not share enough CPU with the DVR app or even MP3 encoding app. Of course the OS won't allow that but there will always be apps that don't run at full speed...that's the nature of things.

Of course, my year 2153 example is a joke...I'm sure by that time the whole computer experience will be different...and I'm sure between now and 2153 there will be computers with multiple cores, etc. that will allow multiple CPU-hungry apps to run well simultaneously.

Sure...the dedicated device will probably always offer the best performance...or else there wouldn't be a market for it. But saying computers aren't up the the task or that it wouldn't work well with the computer concept is bullcrap, IMO.

User interfaces have nothing to do with anything...computers OSs will eventually move to resolution independent GUIs and monitors will become larger...and you'll be able to see and read things on the screen clearly from across the room.

You won't necessarily need a keyboard. OS X has speech recognition now...and Kickaha has been part of a project that allows some very user-to-computer interaction using you fingers.

Sailings also offers a way to turn your cell phone into remote to control things like iTunes, DVD Player and *gasp* a TV viewing app.

You don't always need to use a keyboard and mouse to get a rich computer experience. The computer has all the input devices you want. That's the point of the computer...it's a general purpose tool.

The convergence of TV and computers is not a false dream. It will happen. It's just a matter of who's going to start the convergence.

There's no reason to believe the computer won't handle all the TV needs, all the phone needs, all the home security needs, all the gaming needs, etc. in the future.

The only thing that stops the convergence is the capitalist society that is ready to pay money for separate devices.

If I had my way, everyone I know would be using iChat and instead of phoning people, I'd have AV chats with them. But, unfortunately, I have to pay tons of money to a monopolistic company called Bell Canada, a company that undoubtedly hates the idea of iChat and VoIP.

Originally posted by kim kap sol
So...ummm...does this mean we'll never get DVR on computers ever?

Don't be silly.

It's transparently clear from my argument that we won't see DVR on computers while DVR is resource intensive relative to the capabilities of a personal computer. As soon as it isn't, well, then we can look at it again.

Of course, that assumes that video won't get richer and more computationally intensive to take advantage of ever-faster hardware. MP3 is old and fairly primitive. What happens when we have the audio equivalent of H.264 with 7.1 surround? Or (and this is something I'd love) music released as multitrack, complete with MIDI sequencing, so that you could do things with it that made 16-band EQ look like a silly hack.

DVR doesn't need to be something that's available to G3 or even G4 users. It could be something only installable on Dual G5 computers.

Because that state of affairs is completely acceptable to gamers right now, isn't it? Besides, the G5 is a pro machine. Those are the last people who are going to be using their workstations as DVRs. Since you're so hung up on "vision," we're talking about getting a cheap consumer technology to consumers, right? So until it's feasible on consumer hardware, there's no point doing it, right? It's not going to kill anyone to use the DVR that their cable company is more than happy to supply them in the meantime. Hell, you've recommended that yourself.

clicked reply instead of edit