TV manufacturers are currently delivering 1080P sets in volume and at low prices. Nobody can really get out of a commodity play, and the future of bigger HDTVs is kind of pointless.
Apple is delivering up 1080P content already, and the iPad 3 delivers better in our hands. (3D is a red herring.)
So what's next? Higher resolution TV screens. IMAX in the home. iPad functionality on the walls.
We are, in my opinion, going to continue to see a steady rise in the resolution of our TV screens (and change in what they do), and the content resolution will need to increase to match. That content will increasingly be delivered over IP.
Apple is rumoured to be entering the TV market, and we know it won't be with a me-too commodity product. So why wouldn't they launch with a higher resolution screen, just as they did with the iPhone and iPad 3? They can control the delivery of media through the Apple TV, and with the iPad already in the lounge gaming on the higher resolution TV is essentially ready to go.
So for me the NextGen gaming devices better launch alongside new TVs (Sony can do this), and with stunningly detailed graphics, or we will rightly yawn at their arrival and stick with our computers, iPads and iPhones.
Heck - if Sony, Nintendo & Microsoft continue with their very slow release cycles for the gaming machines, then the next generation may well be the last - and we'll be driving big screen games using iPads and other tablets.
The future of the living room is absolutely rooted in some form of forthcoming disruption. However, no one has meaningfully disrupted TV since the 80s when cable, video tapes and game consoles all hit mass market appeal at the same time.
If the rumors here are to be believed, innovation among console makers is waning, so you're right in assuming the inevitable TV disruption is coming from elsewhere.
It could come from Apple, but my money is on a startup.
TVs, ultimately, are just monitors. They process a signal that comes from an external source. The first product that meaningfully augments the signal, regardless of source (antenna, cable, satellite, streaming, game console) is the true disruptor.
Tayloring your TV watching experience to your web browsing, social, taste, and purchase histories is where TV will ultimately be disrupted. When you walk into the living room to watch Mad Men, the TV should know it and adjust the in-screen Twitter feed accordingly. It should hear you laughing at Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and provide suggestions to other shows people laughed at who laughed at the same joke. No man should ever watch a commercial for feminine hygiene again. No woman should watch a beer commercial that objectifies women again. And when I see Don Draper wearing a slick hat, I should be able to pause the show so I can buy it.
As far as I can tell, the only thing stopping this gazillion dollar disruption is that we can't get signal providers to play well with device makers. Apple has made this work with cell phones, so there's every reason to believe they could do it to TV, but I think a startup that figures out how to augment the signal without the provider detecting and blocking it has a chance to become the next Apple.
When you walk into the living room to watch Mad Men, the TV should know it and adjust the in-screen Twitter feed accordingly. It should hear you laughing at Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and provide suggestions to other shows people laughed at who laughed at the same joke.
That sounds awful. The issue at hand when compared to video games is that television and film are not interactive- people have tried time and time again to make them so, but I honestly think that is a mistake. I don't want to read instant Twitter reactions to Don Draper's latest verbal beat-down of Peggy, I want to watch it. There is nothing wrong with television and film being a one-way experience.
It could come from Apple, but my money is on a startup.
I doubt it, simply because television is an extremely expensive medium. The existing players make it more expensive than it should be, but creating TV shows will always cost a lot. That's why the moves by the likes of Netflix into original programming are particularly fascinating.
You're absolutely right that the passive TV peg shouldn't be forced into the active entertainment hole.
However, when I'm watching a sporting event, I find myself looking down at my phone or tablet and looking for reactions from my favorite sports writers - and then I miss a play and I get frustrated. I can't be the only one having this experience.
Also, GetGlue is proving that people want to make their entertainment social - they want to scream what they're watching to all of their friends.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be passive, but it should be doing a lot more than what it is. When something on the screen illicits a reaction from me - be it a need to hear someone's opinion on it, or a laugh or a desire to make a purchase - the TV should be immediately providing an outlet to that reaction without getting in the way of the experience.
I know the startup working to disrupt television delivery. I interviewed with them. Very, very cool folks.
>Tayloring your TV watching experience to your web browsing, social, taste, and purchase histories is where TV will ultimately be disrupted. When you walk into the living room to watch Mad Men, the TV should know it and adjust the in-screen Twitter feed accordingly. It should hear you laughing at Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia and provide suggestions to other shows people laughed at who laughed at the same joke.
Actually, this just sounds creepy. I want my machines to do what I demand of them, not try to plant ideas in my head.
What matters is the behavior of the system in reality, in the present and in the future, not the intent of the original designer at some point in time.
What I find scary is that so many people seem to feel dissatisfied with TV at 1080p. I can't make out any pixels at that resolution unless the source material has high-contrast pixel edges (i.e. not camera captured images) and the screen is taking up most of my visual field.
It is scary because all the talk is about how 1080p is the minimum requirement for a new console (see the article). Heck it is claimed to be the minimum requirement for the new consoles.
What the Wii/Netflix usage shows is that many people don't care about 1080p or even 720p, they don't even connect video via digital. Even the audio is analog! (In my opinion audio fidelity is more important than picture fidelity.)
> Apple is rumoured to be entering the TV market, and we know it won't be with a me-too commodity product.
I have a feeling they'll stick with the Apple TV. They might pioneer some connective technology to make it easier to plug into a TV, but television refresh cycles are much longer than what I think Apple is comfortable with.
TV manufacturers are currently delivering 1080P sets in volume and at low prices. Nobody can really get out of a commodity play, and the future of bigger HDTVs is kind of pointless.
Apple is delivering up 1080P content already, and the iPad 3 delivers better in our hands. (3D is a red herring.)
So what's next? Higher resolution TV screens. IMAX in the home. iPad functionality on the walls.
We are, in my opinion, going to continue to see a steady rise in the resolution of our TV screens (and change in what they do), and the content resolution will need to increase to match. That content will increasingly be delivered over IP.
Apple is rumoured to be entering the TV market, and we know it won't be with a me-too commodity product. So why wouldn't they launch with a higher resolution screen, just as they did with the iPhone and iPad 3? They can control the delivery of media through the Apple TV, and with the iPad already in the lounge gaming on the higher resolution TV is essentially ready to go.
So for me the NextGen gaming devices better launch alongside new TVs (Sony can do this), and with stunningly detailed graphics, or we will rightly yawn at their arrival and stick with our computers, iPads and iPhones.
Heck - if Sony, Nintendo & Microsoft continue with their very slow release cycles for the gaming machines, then the next generation may well be the last - and we'll be driving big screen games using iPads and other tablets.