Could YouTube Be the Killer-App for Apple's iTV?

mrspin writes "With Macworld Expo just over a week away, many expect Apple CEO Steve Jobs to announce further details (and the availability) of the company's yet to be released set-top-box, codenamed iTV. Powered by something similar to Apple's Front Row media center software, the iTV is designed to get the media content that's housed on a Mac (music, movies, and photos), streamed to the living room television. However, with its built-in wireless networking (suspected to be the faster 802.11n), why not bypass the Mac and have the iTV connect directly to the Internet? The combination of iTunes and DRM-free MP3s provided the 'killer app' for the iPod. YouTube could well do the same for Apple's soon-to-be released set-top box."

Comments

wireless LAN broadband

[ATAMAH]

"Why not bypass the Mac..." - because local area networking (even 802.11) is quite a bit faster than your average broadband line? Therefore the videos on a mac could be in high resolution/high quality ones, as opposed to stuff on youtube and such.

not youtube, but another

[macadamia_harold]

The combination of iTunes and DRM-free MP3s provided the 'killer app' for the iPod. YouTube could well do the same for Apple's soon-to-be released set-top box.

The killer app won't be YouTube, but a youtube-like service that actually hosts full-length episodes. For example, NBC puts up their own shows for viewing on their website, 24hrs after they air. Other networks are starting to do this as well. To aggregate this content into one place for consumption by iTV owners will be the trick. Throw in a dash of quasi-legal bittorrent downloads, and you've got a winner.

Re:not youtube, but another

[Rocketship Underpant]

I agree it won't be YouTube for a number of reasons. The quality and suitability of content are too variable; the social networking aspect that draws people to specific videos is missing without the computer side; YouTube video quality is awful; and YouTube's pipe is too slow (I can never play movies without pausing and caching, and I have 54 mb fibre, more than 10x the standard US broadband connection).

The killer apps will be probably be nice Mac apps (like Xtorrent) that automate movie downloading and streaming, making things easy for the user.

Re:not youtube, but another

[jellomizer]

Well I don't see watching YouTube stuff on TV. iTune TV Shows and the such are designed for TV. You sit down and watch. You Tube requires you to search select watch for a couple of minutes and switch to an other one. TV is not designed to be interactive. That is why they are 50" screens sitting at the other end of your room with speakers all around you (Ideal situation) It is ment for your to sit in your most comfortable chair or couch and just sit and relax for 1/2 hour. YouTube is designed for small screens sitting in a small chair hunched over the screen looking at some clips for a couple of minutes and switch to an other one.

Why buy one?

[Deag]

From my / slashdot reader's perspective, not general consumers: It would have to be kinda cheap wouldn't it? I mean all the new consoles have some sort of ability to do this as far as I know. Some involves a bit of configuration on the pc but it works (programs like tversity are getting better at streaming anything you want to your console, youtube included). So if a wii is 250 and an xbox 360 is 350, this itv thing better be under 100 before it would be viable to this audience.

Re:Why buy one?

[slide-rule]

Except that the one thing we've finally established is that the slashdot demographic, taken as an average, exists completely outside of any commercially oriented target market. No reason Apple (or anyone) should even bother reading our comments for their own research purposes. As for the iTV thing: last we really heard back in the Fall developer conference (?) was that it will be $299. Personally, I think its great: nice concept, nice form factor / styling, and all the usual Apple QA being done. I have already budgeted for it.

PS3

[News for nerds]

Why buy this Apple set-top box when another set-top box called PS3 can happily browse YouTube on its web browser?

Why all the hub-bub over YouTube?

[rindeee]

I don't get it. So you can watch crap quality videos of other people or ripped content. How is this at all appealing for a set-top box? Give me DVD quality full length movies and TV shows on demand. That's something worth having. So far as I'm concerned, a Mac Mini with a fat external hard-drive, Hand Brake installed and the FrontRow remote is the set top box for me. If I want to watch some retarded YouTube content, I'll grab the wireless keyboard, open firefox and watch it.

YouTube just isn't suited for TV viewing

[evilgrug]

I've watched a fair amount of YouTube content via my TV (both with the Wii's internet browser and the Xbox's XBMC) and it really is nothing more than a gimmick. In its current state (low resolution and bitrate, 10 minute length restriction), YouTube is only really suited for PC use, ie "check out this video" links being passed via forums and IMs.

No one is seriously going to sit down in front of their TV and "watch YouTube", and it's hardly going to convince owners to buy a $250 device. Apple's store, on the other hand, if they actually managed to secure content from studios other than Disney, is another story.

Re:DRM-Free?

[oohshiny]

Since when was iTunes legally providing DRM-free music?

The iTunes store isn't, but the iTunes software is: when you rip your CDs. All the music I have is DRM free, and it's all music that I paid for.

Flash video? You're joking right?

[trimbo]

Why would I want to spend $2000 on an HDTV, another $500-$1K or whatever iTV will cost, to watch crappy Flash Video? The novelty will wear off when the new season of "24" starts.

The killer app for any of these set top boxes is well compressed HD programming on demand. Right now on Xbox Live, HD movies run about 6 GB, which takes a long time to download at 1.5 Mbs or even a cable modem's top speed of 8 Mbs.

Comcast, on the other hand, has the bandwidth and set-top boxes to deliver HD on demand right now. I'm not sure how Apple is going to compete against this unless they have some awesome new codec to do it. Comcast has already rendered the Tivo Series 3 POA (Pointless On Arrival). Comcast's HD DVR solution, while crappy, is $10 a month; the HD Tivo is $800 plus another $20 a month for dual CableCards and can't do on demand HD at any point. When I click on an HD movie using Comcast's On Demand, it plays within a second or two. I'm just don't see Apple--or Microsoft, or Tivo or anyone--competing in the face of this bandwidth juggarnaut, even if their equipment is superficially nicer to use.

Re:iTV's been beaten to it...

[natd]

By your argument there was no market for the Airport Express or similar.

The iTV, to me, is worth putting beside my Wii, my Neuston (and quite possible PS3 once they come down in price in AU) simply because it promises to be a seamless consumer experience. Well integrated to both your local library and an online source (in this case we're speculating YouTube), which anyone can use much like they can use the cable and DVD boxes to watch stuff.

I've had a http://www.neuston.com/en/mc500.php Neuston for about 3 years but still use my Airport Express for music to the living room Hi-Fi. I'm even willing to either walk down the hall to my PC or pop open my notebook to turn on or change music in preference to fighting with the Neuston remote http://www.neuston.com/Images/MC500/MC500_in_10.jp g and 'technically good enough' software interface. The cheaper (than projected iTV price) Neuston has been doing the network streaming of video for years too, but it just isn't good enough to be bothered with.

The iTV will do for Video what Airport Express does for music but WITH a decent 'on TV' software interface and remote. Just like the iPod, they aren't the first on the market with the general idea, but they will be the first to do it RIGHT.