5 Comments Add your own

• 1. Willem  |  January 12th, 2007 at 11:27 am

  I would flip #1 and #2. The technical and UI innovations in the iPhone far outweigh the interim online to TV linkage and storage.

  I think the peripheral impact of how content is handled , ie: display, access, and storage will be tremendous and will be a major catalyst in how the UI experience is conceptualized and executed on future Sony, Apple and Slingbox hardware (incl other manufacturers.

  As a footnote to all of this . . .Now that the shock and awe have subsided somewhat, one thing keeps bugging me that no one seems to have addressed anywhere . . .

  What were The Beatles doing on the iPhone?

  Did Steve “bury the lead”? And where would he have gotten their digital music files from? LimeWire?

  Was the first hint the change from Apple Computer to Apple Inc. in the wake of the UK court decision in Apple vs. Apple?

  Is the Count of Cupertino toying with the media and throwing a hint that The Beatles catalogue IS coming to iTunes? Or has it already arrived?

  Anyway anyone can track this one down? Enquiring minds want to know.

• 2. Safran  |  January 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

  I respectfully disagree with Willem. Without question, bringing the web to “the couch” is an enormous change. The knock on web video has always been “people won’t watch TV on their computer.” Now they won’t have to. Anyone can be a true broadcaster. An ethernet connection to a widescreen flat TV is convergence to the Nth degree. It’s just harder to demonstrate or summarize than the iPhone.

• 3. Willem  |  January 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  I respectfully disagree with Steve’s respectful disagreement.

  The web/web video was already available to the TV thanks to Apple via their “S-video” port which I’ve used to bring the web to the couch ever since the option was available.

  And these boxes are essentially dumbed-down laptops/computers/DVRS that hook up to (Apple TV/SlingCatcher) or are integrated into (Sony) a monitor.
  Hardly a disruptive evolution.

  One angle, that you may not be considering in this is that there is also an environmental driver that limits the impact on the TV side: ie, daytime vs nighttime, and most of the couch experience occurs in the evening.

  The iPhone, on the other hand, isn’t impacted by the “e-driver”, because it brings the web/web video anywhere, couch or no couch, any time of day, and travels with the user.

  Granted some similar features exist on other devices, but none with as intuitive and clean an interface as the iPhone. It’s not perfect, by any means - Adding iSIght functionality, and wifi iTunes Store functionality would improve it . And I can see a future where via Airport/Bluetooth, you watch live or recorded TV/video streaming from your iPhone to your widescreen flat TV.

  So as far as present and future impact goes, technically, and especially on the design and user-experience front, I’d still have to pick the iPhone as having the biggest impact.

  With all due respect to Steve, whose insights I always enjoy.

  Willem

  PS You didn’t answer my Beatles question.

• 4. Safran  |  January 12th, 2007 at 3:51 pm

  WIllem:

  A very respectful and respectable debate. That’s the wonderful thing about tech - we all get to postulate and there are no rights or wrongs. At least until they’re proven.

  Click on my name for a link to a Beatles/Apple story. Shorthand? They seem to be teasing Beatles downloads on iTunes, but no firm deal to announce.

• 5. Todd Thorpe  |  January 12th, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  I agree with Willem. What’s more, the iPhone negates the need for special webpages formatted to feed handheld devices. You just surf, double-tap or “pinch” to zoom and then read. You cut out all that other crap and negate a whole sub-set of the web/cellphone industry. And it’s easier. Now all those people trying to find a way to feed video to cell phones will need something else to do…

Leave a Comment

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed