Apple CEO Tim Cook: TV is TERRIBLE and stuck in the 1970s Some may fondly remember the era that bought us The Clangers, Fawlty Towers and The Sweeney. But not Apple boss Tim Cook, who reckons the goggle box is stuck in a time warp so intense that watching it is like being sucked back back into the 1970s. In an interview with American talk show host Charlie Rose, Cook dropped a …
My Satellite TV PVR's interface is almost beyond reproach. Whoever designed it is actually fussier and has better attention to detail than me. I'm pretty intolerant of bad design, but when I use my PVR it it scary-good. The only TV-itself GUI operation is Power On/Off. Period.
TV is now a PVR. That's modern.
It's HD. That's modern.
It has a 30s Skip button so that commercials of no interest simply fly past.
Annoying ads floating over the content are still relatively rare.
Unskippable ads do not exist. No 5s minimum ad view.
Don't have to manually adjust back to HD all the time.
I pay $100+ a month for TV service, and it's still hanging in there as worthwhile. Just. Plenty of unique content that is not reliably and simply available on the 'net.
Internet is way better. But it's takes some manual adjustments to get the ads under control.
$100 a month, that is huge. In the UK you would have to pay for a serious amount of sport and movie channels for that.
I feel reckless paying £6 (<$10) for Netflix and I use it all the time (no ads, no skipping required).
Freeview (obviously free) has a large choice provided you don't need to see the latest US show at transmission time. And the BBC still doesn't have ads.
Even paying for a cable package at the lower end would see change from $20 (if you are buying broadband too anyway).
Still, it seems that it is the same for mobile phone packages etc. in the US. We here in the UK are not fleeced for everything it seems.
"$100 a month, that is huge. In the UK you would have to pay for a serious amount of sport and movie channels for that."
You're right - yet I pay $127 for internet and 2nd-option level cable TV service, without ANY sport or movie channels. $127/month for basic-rate 10/mbps cable and basic TV plus 1 extra package for a few "bonus" channels such as SciFy (now junk), etc.
Isn't that generous of them?
Here in Germany it is freeview satellite for me. There is the TV licence, but that is about the same as the UK. I also have Amazon Prime, which I got for Kindle library and free next day delivery, but it now includes video, I think I've watched about 4 films so far.
I wouldn't pay 10€ a month for TV, let alone 100€... The TV licence doesn't count, you have yo pay that, whether you have a TV or an internet connected device capable of streaming video.
As to $127 for cable and Internet, I pay around $40 for Internet and telephone 35mbps down12 up and unlimited phone calls. I could pay an extra $10 a month for 50mbps, but I don't usually use the full bandwidth of the 35mbps, so I don't bother., oh, and I just remembered my Internet provider has a streaming TV service included in the package, but I used it once out of curiosity.
"Are you trying to convince us that paperback is the ideal reading size..."
No, but I am pointing out that the most common size for modern reading material is much closer to 16:9 than 4:3, so I don't buy the whole "4:3 is so much better for reading" argument anymore than the "you'd have to sand down your fingers to use a 7 inch tablet" pitch or any of the other justifications that come out of Cupertino.
Besides, I don't know if you've noticed, but iPhones have been 16:9 for a while now...
good luck.... that interface with the panels and lower case letters, upper case letters, what a PITA if you're searching for something more than 3 letters... space button at the bottom, delete and clear also way at the bottom? But with a 3 button remote, I guess the options are limited...
Why this fascination on the panel? Selling panels is a mugs game, people tend not to regularly upgrade their panel, people tend not to make impulse panel buys.
If Apple do make a play, it will be if they can get media exclusives/cheap content/pay TV for Apple TV and make a concerted UI, interface and apps push.
Yep, still looking quite unlikely that the TV/film media will willingly throw themselves on the fire.
20 years ago the interactive TV we were developing had mark-up which could be embedded by the content provider or the series producers to increase revenue.
Our demo had a button you could press to reveal web links to items in the TV show you were watchin. The clothes that the characters were wearing in the episodes, the cars they were driving, watches etc. Links to fan websites.
It was the ultimate goal for product placement advertising.
All the content providers said they couldn't be bothered creating the markup for each episode and would rather just make their revenue using traditional advertising.
Go figure.
"20 years ago the interactive TV we were developing had mark-up which could be embedded by the content provider or the series producers to increase revenue.
Our demo had a button you could press to reveal web links to items in the TV show you were watchin. The clothes that the characters were wearing in the episodes, the cars they were driving, watches etc. Links to fan websites.
It was the ultimate goal for product placement advertising..."
With all respect, that sounds like many folks' idea of Hell.
In which case you have to wonder why he thinks that huge flat screens, remote controls, PVRs, on screen programme guides, loads of channels, gaming and internet connectivity (of sorts), HD quality, surround sound, DVD and VoD interfaces, screen mirroring off other devices etc are all so 1971?
I was there, and telly was pants in the 1970s. In technical terms, including the interface, television is unbelievably better than those dark days. I say Tim Cook is a berk, and the one thing that is the same as 1971 is the paucity of good content, and that's not going to be solved by his company's (prospective) over-priced but shiney tat.
Its OK Mr Cook. Its just a standard point and click interface.... :)
Since "TV" is now much of the time Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, AppleTV and others, then combined with all the different "cable boxes" for those who still have cable, or TV tuner itself for those with an antenna, and what you have is a metric crapton of completely different interfaces. I myself undergo a little UI shock/adjustment all the time switching back and forth between different providers, with the "cable boxes" being the WORST for actually finding something to watch (and one of the reasons I dropped cable). Inconsistency reigns currently...
I don't think it's just the providers.
My TV has a network interface and will connect to Netflix, so does my streaming box, my games console and my cable box and each one of them has a different interface for the same service.
If one provider can't even manage to standardize, there's no chance when you're working across multiples.
"....and each one of them has a different interface for the same service."
Yeah, I was trying not to expand my rant more than necessary. I've got the same problem with all sorts of different streaming devices. The whole experience is annoying, but with that said, I'm still more OK with getting a little jarred going back and forth from Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon on different streaming boxes than I am trying to navigate the craziness that is the US cable boxes which seem completely random/chaotic after getting used to being able to just simply find/play exactly what I want to watch and completely on my schedule without DVR's, without commercials, or any of the normal annoyances (except for Hulu, but their commercials are reasonable at 30 seconds to a minute instead of 6 minutes like commercial TV).
Speaking as one who recently had US family to stay in London, who had never experienced Sky+ (or the freeview equivalent) and the plethora of OnDemand TV via the box in the corner and Tablet/Phone on-demand apps complete with Chromecast, they were blown away at what we could do in the UK compared with what they had available via Cable in the US.
TV in the US does not equal TV across the rest of the globe...
Spot on.
TV or Cable is being held back by the likes of Comcast. There is no competition for delivery of signals to the punter in most areas. For my friends, it is a choice between Comcast or a Satellite dish in the back yard. Sadly they almost all have t ogo with Comcast as they are the only supplier of Broadband in their area. The words 'over a barrel and being raped' come to mind. If you think Virgin or Sky is expensive then in many areas of the US they are paying close to $200 a month.
As for free to air channels? forget it. In many areas broadcast TV is on its last legs (and here if Ofcom has its way) and all the Satellite services charge. At least (for the time being) we have FreeView and FreeSat.
Then there are the UI's in the current crop of smart TV's/ They are in the main total and utter crap.
Perhaps the market could do with apple shaking it up good and proper. god knows they can afford it. Comcast (grrrrrrrr) need a good kicking is you ask me.
Remember it is the likes of Comcast that want to charge Netflicks, Amazon etc more money to not slow down the downloads you have paid for.
Streaming Netflix, Youtube and select Iplayer content and I do not know why I would need cable.
The only way I know what is going on in the cable worlds is when I travel, since conference hotels always have 10^2 channels of nothing much on.
Tablet of choice (Dessert/Fruity) and HDMI cable (yes, nice hotels often have media hookup in the USA!)
P.
Perhaps Cable migh be the only way to get an internet connection? (discounting Cellular for the time being as it is being charged at rated that are just stupidly high). What is comcast runs the phone network or at least the only one that would give you more than what amounts to dialup speeds?
"Speaking as one who recently had US family to stay in London, who had never experienced Sky+ (or the freeview equivalent) and the plethora of OnDemand TV via the box in the corner and Tablet/Phone on-demand apps complete with Chromecast, they were blown away at what we could do in the UK compared with what they had available via Cable in the US."
Don't know where your friends from the US were/are from, but my cable operator here in the US has dozens of On Demand channels offered free, and hundreds of other channels...including a plethora of Pay-per-View channels...both included with your monthly fee, and many more for additional fees. Well over 600 channels to choose from.
Also, anyone who chooses to pay for the Google dongle can use it here. It's not an exclusive thing to the UK.
Besides, connecting any Internet connected device to an HDMI capable tele is not exactly rocket science these days.
So I'm afraid that the UK isn't alone in its available content. There is plenty to choose from on this side of The Pond as well.
Choice is one aspect, free is another but my experience when visiting the USA was being overwhelmed by adverts. The problem has a subtle effect on UK originated programming too. Even those BBC programs which have an aim of selling to US appear to make provision for the insertion of ads and ad-breaks with padding at start and end (often used here to trail other BBC progs) and strange continuity artefacts which I assume to be potential advert break insertion points.
There are multiple aspects to the current state of TV. Yes the interface has got complicated, I have 3 remotes (TV, Cable and DVD - plus tablet/phone to operate Chromecast) but as I'm the only one in the household who knows which ones to use and how that does have the advantage that I get to choose what we watch!
More of a concern to me is the quality of the content. When we only had 4 channels, the fight for airtime was such that garbage programs rarely made it through. A science program would get 30 minutes, often not enough to really do the subject justice. Now the same program would be allowed an hour but on the same or smaller budget so the same (or less) content is padded out to an hour, no "added value" is derived from the extra time available. And that's just the quality programming. The price pressure means there's an awful lot of low budget, low aspiration, garbage programming like reality shows, chat shows which are primarily just a self-promotion opportunity for those with a book, a movie, or a music performance to advertise.
D126: "push one button on remote control"
That's essentially a 'problem' (Really?) that can be sorted by the use of an advanced programmable Remote Control. Put another way, you might be asking a bit much (or giving up too much in other areas) to expect all your ever-changing gadgets and all your TVs to be fully integrated. It's your choice, but it's really suboptimal except via the programmable RC approach.
PS: One box? Content boxes are cheap enough that you'll end up needing an 8-input HDMI Switch for your 3-input TV. WD TV Live, Apple TV, Android on an HDMI Stick, Google Chromecast, Laptop, Apple Mac, etc. etc. etc.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
