Apple TV Set: Any thoughts ?

^ Licensing issues. If Google was requesting license fees from Apple along the same lines as what they are trying to extort from MS and Apple in other cases, then I could see why Apple would refuse.

Making a sky-high offer that no company would accept does not give one the right to say "we offered a deal but they refused." Nor should it give you the right to seek injunctions by calling the other party an "unwilling licensee."

Those assertions make for strong narratives, and good, meaty, angry discussions, but they're not exactly based in reality. The license deal was about much more than fees. Neither side was willing to concede on certain things, and thus Apple decided not to renew its agreement.

Part of the terms of the original license agreement meant that Apple could no longer ship a product called Google Maps should they walk away from that agreement. It's as simple as that. The upside, iOS users now have another large company trying to improve the maps experience for the platform. Apple now has full control over its Maps app, exactly how they like things. Likewise, Google has full control over its maps experience on iOS now.
 
I don't think an Apple-branded television set will be a big success. But who knows, could be huge. I wouldn't buy one, though.
 
That's just not true. Features like turn-by-turn navigation were always on the table..
Nonsense. if that was the case, Google would have never let it get as far as it did. The fact is that Google screwed up here. Apple didn't, Google did.
Of course, within 6 months, we had a TBT app for the iPhone /iOS from Google, which merely proves this point. This was never realistically on the table for Google. If it was, again, they would still be right there, at the top in Apple's Maps area.
 
Nonsense. if that was the case, Google would have never let it get as far as it did. The fact is that Google screwed up here. Apple didn't, Google did.
Of course, within 6 months, we had a TBT app for the iPhone /iOS from Google, which merely proves this point. This was never realistically on the table for Google. If it was, again, they would still be right there, at the top in Apple's Maps area.

This reply is "nonsense."

You state it never realistically was an option, then concede it may have been. Which is it? Correlation does not imply causation. It was on the table, and frankly, you're sucking this out of your thumb since you weren't privy to those discussions. So saying what was or wasn't realistic is moot, as you couldn't have known, nor I. Anything else is merely an assumption.

I was hired shortly after most of this took place, but from what I've gathered talking to my fellow colleagues, the Google Maps app was in development before the negotiations concluded. That was never a secret, and proves very little. It's called being prudent. Likewise, Apple had been working on its own Maps product for quite some time before any of this. It's something they've wanted to do for awhile. You're of the opinion Google screwed up, and fair enough, you're certainly entitled to think that. But, I think this was bound to happen sooner or later, regardless.
 
You state it never realistically was an option, then concede it may have been. Which is it?
It never was a realistic option. Google did everything they can to make sure that was so.
Them introducing the new map app into the store was all about them reclaiming market share
 
It never was a realistic option. Google did everything they can to make sure that was so.
Them introducing the new map app into the store was all about them reclaiming market share


My interest in this thread was only to report on some history that I knew about personally, to correct what I thought was an incomplete version of events. I regret that it has gone into such a back and forth. It wasn't my goal to go so far off topic, but I feel it would be sort of rude to leave you hanging mid-thread. However, I feel like: (a) You're trying to argue with with my version of events, where I've actually had the benefit of sitting down with colleagues who were involved in the matter and speaking candidly about it, and you (as far as I recall) have not. (b) You are trying to argue about the stated motivations for decisions that you were not a part of.

Maybe my impressions are wrong, and my colleagues are flat out lying to me. But given this, I don't think I can reply in a way that would be constructive or keep this conversation from going in circles. So I'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Those assertions make for strong narratives, and good, meaty, angry discussions, but they're not exactly based in reality. The license deal was about much more than fees. Neither side was willing to concede on certain things, and thus Apple decided not to renew its agreement.
I was sure I posted this earlier....

I never said it was about fees. I said "if" Google was requesting fees in the same manner as they were in other cases, then I could understand Apple's refusal.

Google(Motorola) has been abusing SEP's. They ask for a sky-high rate that no company could ever agree to and then turn around and label that company an "unwilling licensee". Then they try to get injunctions on products using the "unwilling licensee" excuse. This is a form of extortion - seeking ridiculous amounts of money for a patent previously declared part of a standard over the threat of a sales ban.

Here's the "arrangement" between Google and the FTC over these issues:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm
 
I was sure I posted this earlier....

I never said it was about fees. I said "if" Google was requesting fees in the same manner as they were in other cases, then I could understand Apple's refusal.

Google(Motorola) has been abusing SEP's. They ask for a sky-high rate that no company could ever agree to and then turn around and label that company an "unwilling licensee". Then they try to get injunctions on products using the "unwilling licensee" excuse. This is a form of extortion - seeking ridiculous amounts of money for a patent previously declared part of a standard over the threat of a sales ban.

Here's the "arrangement" between Google and the FTC over these issues:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/google.shtm

I realize that, but I still don't agree with those assertions.

It cuts both ways, and the suit was actually dismissed by the Judge and a separate agreement was reached with the FTC (based mostly on allegations). Motorola, under the deal you're referencing, was entitled (under ETSI's IP Rights policies) to condition its license offer to Apple on receiving a reciprocal license for Apple SEPs. They didn't or simply ignored the fact that Motorola was giving other FRAND licensees less than 2.25% with reciprocal conditions. Apple didn't want to share ANYTHING and didn't want to be charged more than $1 per device (regardless of what the court decided). In other words, they wanted their cake and eat it too. I don't call that being extorted, and kind of does paint the picture that they were very much an "unwilling licensee". But this has nothing to do with the Maps deal either, which is what I was replying to.

Back on topic, though, I don't see Apple selling an actual television anytime soon. Apple TV, the product, will most likely get a bit more meat though. At least I hope so.
 
I don't think an Apple-branded television set will be a big success. But who knows, could be huge. I wouldn't buy one, though.

I don't know if you've heard of XBMC or Plex but they are very popular media playing interfaces which combine playing media files with live streams to create an immersive theatre like experience. The Apple TV box (the small black one) is the most popular hardware (outside of dedicated HTPC's) used for achieving this experience.

Smart TV's have attempted to capture this market but they are failing because they don't put the money and resources into making the Smart TV interface both useful and useable!!

This reminds me of the mobile phone market just before the iPhone came out. You already had lots of large screen phones that had apps (applications/programs) and many were even touch screen (via a stylus). Apple came along and all they did was dumb things down. They refined the user experience by removing the stylus from the touch screen and simplifying the apps from full programs into little more than a shell that completed a handful of functions.

The reality of the iPhone was that it was a phone with far inferior hardware than Nokia's and Sony Ericsson's of the time. I mean they didn't even have 3G which was the industry standard at that time. But what Apple did right was that it reduced the user experience down to the very basics.

The Apple apps did less, the phone had worse specs, a rubbish camera, no video calling (unlike my two year old sony ericsson) but as a package it all worked really smoothly and was so simple that toddlers could (and did) use the phone. The windows phone system of the time was really ambitious compared to iOS with browsers and office suites and all sorts of hardware, Microsoft were trying to make it into a mini PC but the software was hard to navigate and you had to wait forever for things to load up and work. You had to be a bit of a geek to understand how to add programs and how to make things work properly.

Apple said forget about all that, let's just dumb the whole experience down so a random child can use it. They did and they haven't looked back.

Getting back to the smart TV's they are exactly where smart phones were before the iPhone came out. All Apple have to do is copy the XBMC experience, restyle it within an OSX or iOS skin. Dumb it down and release it inside a TV. As long as they make the user experience their priority (as they always do) they will make a killing.

Straight after they do that, you will have all the other TV companies thinking why the hell didn't we spend more money on our user interface and features and you will have another 'new and revolutionary' iProduct that will 'change' the face of the industry. Google could have made an Android based Nexus TV long ago. Especially since they already have noted TV making companies like Samsung and Sony making Android phones for them. But no they will wait till Apple does it and then just copy them.

And @quillz you may not buy an overpriced and underspec Apple TV when it comes out but at some point down the line you will probably buy one of the TV's that will be 'inspired' by it.
 
Not sure about a bottom.
My [BUY] is based on iTV (which Apple hasn't even confirmed they are working on). (I think they should be).
I don't know if Apple's pressure from Samsung et al. is fully priced into the stock.
Clearly the Galaxy X3 and X4 are a huge success.
Here's a bullish article also mentioning the possibility of a new product launch: http://www.caseyresearch.com/cdd/apple-buy

However with the recent decline I can easily see it go to 360. Which seems cheap to me, if the overall market doesn't correct in a big way.
 
The key time to buy would be if they confirm they are working on iTV.
People don't realize the implications of an Apple TV, so the stock won't go crazy. You'll have time to buy.
 
It cuts both ways, and the suit was actually dismissed by the Judge and a separate agreement was reached with the FTC (based mostly on allegations). Motorola, under the deal you're referencing, was entitled (under ETSI's IP Rights policies) to condition its license offer to Apple on receiving a reciprocal license for Apple SEPs. They didn't or simply ignored the fact that Motorola was giving other FRAND licensees less than 2.25% with reciprocal conditions. Apple didn't want to share ANYTHING and didn't want to be charged more than $1 per device (regardless of what the court decided). In other words, they wanted their cake and eat it too. I don't call that being extorted, and kind of does paint the picture that they were very much an "unwilling licensee". But this has nothing to do with the Maps deal either, which is what I was replying to.
The judge in the Motorola/MS case just made a decision. Motorola will pay a fraction (about 1/1,000th) of what they were asking. If you compare what they wanted from MS compared to what they got I'd say "extortion" is a fair word. Motorola was also asking for that magical 2.25% from MS as well.

http://allthingsd.com/20130425/court-denies-motorola-the-billions-it-wanted-from-microsoft-for-standard-essential-patents/

MS will be paying about $0.055 to $0.195 per device, much lower than what Apple was "demanding" with their $1 offer. I think Motorola should have accepted Apple's offer, as now that a court has ruled against Motorola it's going to be even harder for them to ask for more from other companies.
 
The judge in the Motorola/MS case just made a decision. Motorola will pay a fraction (about 1/1,000th) of what they were asking. If you compare what they wanted from MS compared to what they got I'd say "extortion" is a fair word. Motorola was also asking for that magical 2.25% from MS as well.

http://allthingsd.com/20130425/court-denies-motorola-the-billions-it-wanted-from-microsoft-for-standard-essential-patents/

MS will be paying about $0.055 to $0.195 per device, much lower than what Apple was "demanding" with their $1 offer. I think Motorola should have accepted Apple's offer, as now that a court has ruled against Motorola it's going to be even harder for them to ask for more from other companies.

A decision that probably won't stick. This case is most likely going to a jury trial. They also do cross-licensing, which is a pretty important point in the Moto v Apple dispute, something Apple is refusing to do

Interestingly enough, the Judge seems to have sided with Motorola as to the actual approach in determining RAND royalties, and not Microsoft's. That is, a bilateral negotiation between the two, not on the basis of a multilateral negotiation at the time of the standard's adoption. As I see it, this ruling means very little atm.
 
Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices
By Neil Hughes

Apple's plans for a full-fledged television set have been placed "on hold" as the company plans to potentially launch new, wearable electronics, such as a the anticipated "iWatch," according to a new report.
13.02.21-Wearable.jpg


AppleInsider was first to discover an Apple patent filing describing a watch design with flexible display.
Citing sources in the television industry supply chain, NPD DisplaySearch reported on Monday that its sources say Apple is no longer pushing to launch a television set in the next year. Paul Gagnon, director of North American TV Research for DisplaySearch, said Apple's initial plans were "far from concrete," but that the company originally planned to launch a television lineup in the second half of 2014.

[source]
 
A decision that probably won't stick. This case is most likely going to a jury trial. They also do cross-licensing, which is a pretty important point in the Moto v Apple dispute, something Apple is refusing to do

Interestingly enough, the Judge seems to have sided with Motorola as to the actual approach in determining RAND royalties, and not Microsoft's. That is, a bilateral negotiation between the two, not on the basis of a multilateral negotiation at the time of the standard's adoption. As I see it, this ruling means very little atm.

Seems to have "stuck" as it should have. Motorola was abusing their patents and they got nailed for it. Plain and simple. As to cross-licensing, yes companies can make deals to cross license. But you can't "force" a company to cross license by making it a condition for getting access to your SEP's. This is something both Motorola and Samsung have tried to do. And both have failed.
 
Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices
By Neil Hughes

Apple's plans for a full-fledged television set have been placed "on hold" as the company plans to potentially launch new, wearable electronics, such as a the anticipated "iWatch," according to a new report.
13.02.21-Wearable.jpg


AppleInsider was first to discover an Apple patent filing describing a watch design with flexible display.
Citing sources in the television industry supply chain, NPD DisplaySearch reported on Monday that its sources say Apple is no longer pushing to launch a television set in the next year. Paul Gagnon, director of North American TV Research for DisplaySearch, said Apple's initial plans were "far from concrete," but that the company originally planned to launch a television lineup in the second half of 2014.

[source]

I like how all the "analysts" predict something Apple is going to do and then switch from one "rumored" product to another. I guess after predicting an Apple TV for a couple years and not seeing it happen they need an excuse as to why Apple is not doing it (instead of just admitting they were wrong just claim Apple is shifting focus).
 
The "Apple TV" (iTV) is coming rumors have legs because:
(1) a book about Steve Jobs detailed he "figured out" the best interface (UI) for a TV set.
(2) iTV could be huge, if Apple could leverage iTunes to monetize TV (and internet video).
(3) other companies are dabbling in trying to "digitize" the TV. Xbox 1 is the latest.
 
Seems to have "stuck" as it should have. Motorola was abusing their patents and they got nailed for it. Plain and simple. As to cross-licensing, yes companies can make deals to cross license. But you can't "force" a company to cross license by making it a condition for getting access to your SEP's. This is something both Motorola and Samsung have tried to do. And both have failed.

Talk about resurrected topics. That case has done a 360, no pun intended, and is currently being appealed. Nothing has really "stuck".

As for the Apple v. Moto case regarding SEPs, it was dismissed here in the states. I haven't really been following Apple's complaint in the EU. All of these companies are playing dirty when it comes to patents.
 
More Apple TV (iTV) rumours.

upload_2014-4-7_12-29-20.webp


http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/04/apple-is-testing-65-inch-tv/

Report regarding Apple’s rumored iTV
The Korea Herald published a report on Sunday which quoted IBK Securities analyst Lee Seung-woo, who said, “The company is making 65-inch organic light-emitting diode sample panels for Apple’s iTV in collaboration with Apple. However, it is not certain whether Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) will use it for the mass production of its long-rumored iTV as it is still running tests.”

The article further states Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) had plans to launch the iTV for a long time now, however a delay in the market forced to Cupertino-based tech giant to choose an OLED screen rather than a LCD screen. The benefits of OLED displays include better image quality, resolution, color balance, and depth. The problem is that OLED is more expensive and difficult to mass produce than LCD.
 
Top Bottom