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."

Nope

[WiseWeasel (92224)]

No, but paid subscriptions to content delivered over the net is a contender... People are not going to sit down on their couch and watch Youtube for an hour or three... For many potential customers, pirated content downloaded from P2P networks is the real killer app for the iTV... just like it was for the iPod...

Re:

[Propaganda13 (312548)]

Youtube - no
Online access/sharing of photo albums - yes
Apple owned video sharing - possibly

wireless LAN broadband

[ATAMAH (578546)]

"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 (947445)]

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:

[macadamia_harold (947445)]

You mean like www.alluc.org ? The question is of course how long it survives until they get sued..

I was more referring to something like DailyMotion [dailymotion.com], but yeah, alluc.org could work too.

Re:not youtube, but another

[Rocketship Underpant (804162)]

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:

[Pink Tinkletini (978889)]

Xtorrent may be a nice Mac app, but it's certainly no more elegant and Maclike than the application to which it owes its engine, Transmission. And unlike Xtorrent, Transmission isn't developed by a fuckwad without a cause [google.com].

Re:

[kjart (941720)]

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.

I agree. I no longer watch TV live, I download the episodes at my leisure (torrents, etc) and watch them on my computer or TV via my Xbox 360. I'd love to have a central TV repos

Re:

[jacksonj04 (800021)]

Would it not be easier to just expand the content available in iTunes (More TV, and please include the UK as well) and make iTV talk to that instead of a whole new system? The infrastructure is there, and having an always on Mac downloading the latest episodes independently of the iTV will make streaming over a network much faster.

My money is on Apple to become the first company to get the hang of housewide media networks. All they need is for the media producers to realise that they have potential access t

Re:

[BMonger (68213)]

Why not preloaded like Steam does with games, only to unlock at the appropriate time in your time zone so you can watch it with people that have cable? That's where this should (and probably is) headed.

Re:

[jellomizer (103300)]

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 sc

Already doing this with my Wii

[forgotten_my_nick (802929)]

The internet browser for the Wii is fantastic. Been watching YT on TV a lot more then I watch TV now.

Re:

[somethinghollow (530478)]

Been watching YT on TV a lot more then I watch TV now.

  As long as you watch TV after YouTube...

Re:

[forgotten_my_nick (802929)]

Depends a lot on what sites you visit. Sure I would prefer tabs, I'd also prefer smaller buttons at the bottom of the screen but for the moment the browser is in Beta.

Why buy one?

[Deag (250823)]

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:

[slide-rule (153968)]

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 alre

iTV?

[evilbessie (873633)]

I don't somehow think it will be called iTV as in the UK this is used by "Independant Television". So another branding using this name for a television service would probably not be allowed or cause confusion with consumers.

Re:

[rucs_hack (784150)]

After the problem with Apple Records, surely they must have looked into this. I

It's an abbreviation of the full title though, so possibly they can get away with it. Having the 'i' in lower case would also place the product in their 'i' line up, distinguishing it from ITV visually.

Sounds a stupid name to use all the same, do they never learn?

Re:

[dotbenjamin (1034650)]

Whether they can legally use the name isn't really the point.

In the UK, ITV is channel 3 in most places. It's one of the most popular free channels, and has been around for over half a century. In our television-obsessed nation, no Apple product is gonna usurp the abbreviation iTV in our collective consiousness.

Calling a set top box iTV is like bringing out a new digital radio receiver box and calling it the bBC.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

It's probably a protected name in the US too - ITV do export home grown shows around the world.. all TV stations do.

It's the same problem apple has with the iPhone. Great name on paper, but somebody got there first.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Actually thinking about it they may not bother marketing it in europe at all anyway.

ipod video has been basically killed here due to the non-availability of video for download, presumably because apple couldn't get the rights. It's marketed as a larger ipod, but of everyone I know that's got an ipod in the last few months they've gone for the cheaper version because video on its own is a bit pointless (not to mention video mobile phones are freely available and much cheaper).

xbox 360 in the US apparently h

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

The bigger problem, from a trademark perspective, is that there is already a device called an eyeTV made by Elgato for streaming video from a Mac to a TV.

The name 'iTV,' however, is only a pre-release name. It is expected to change before it ships.

Re:

[oohshiny (998054)]

As if Apple ever cared about other people's trademarks or designation. "Apple" itself had a predictable conflict. "Dashboard" conflicts with Gnome. Etc.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Apple wasn't a conflict until Apple computers went into music distribution. Dashboard isn't a trademark, only a product name (Techically Gnome could be sued because Apple now have the trademark on that, even though Gnome was first).

Re:

[slide-rule (153968)]

Steve Jobs said, back in the Fall when he teased us with the box, that "itv" was just an in-house product code name. An official for-market name is likely forthcoming -- note that, iLife suite notwithstanding, Apple seems to be slowly moving away from the "i*" naming convention.

PS3

[News for nerds (448130)]

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

Re:

[paniq (833972)]

So can the Wii, just tried it.

Re:

[slide-rule (153968)]

To each their own. If you buy a PS3 and like it, great. But in counterpoint, why spend over $600 on a PS3 when I have a PS2 (and a huge library of games available I haven't played yet), a TV that won't benefit from blu-ray (etc) anyhow, and otherwise have a library of photos, music, and a mildly growing collection of home/kid movies already on my Mac in the various iLife titles -- will the PS3 stream this stuff to my TV? That's basically the reason the ~ $300 iTV box exists ... get your in-Mac media librar

Re:

[somethinghollow (530478)]

I have this thing called a "compute-er" with "aych tee pee see" software called MythTV that can browse YouTube in several different "web browsers." It can also record TV, let me know what will be playing on TV later that day, play tons of old console games (as well as some new games), rip and play DVDs, rip and play CDs, and even tell me the weather (for god's sake, it KNOWs the weather!).

Why would I need a "PS3" "console gaming system"?

Because it is a novelty item. It never claims to be the be-all and

Not innovative

[kjart (941720)]

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.

Why the excitement? Ignoring all HTPC's completely (which can do the above and more), the Xbox 360 can do the above with a Windows box with ease (especially with Vista).

However, with its built-in wireless networking (suspected to be the faster 802.11n)

What is this based on? Apple sitting on a wir

Re:

[kjart (941720)]

I think 802.11n is suspected because a number of Macs have shipped with 802.11n chipsets - currently not enabled.

D'oh! I misread that - I read 'faster than 802.11n'; my mistake. I clearly need some sleep :)

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

If Apple can come up with a box that (a) can control external boxes, (b) has an EPG equivalent in functionality to Tivo, and (c) has HD capture via component it'll clean up (especially in this country where Tivo died in 2002 and we were left with the crappy DVR wannabe Sky+).

The third one is the killer. No MCE box currently available will do that.

Why all the hub-bub over YouTube?

[rindeee (530084)]

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.

DRM-Free?

[halex-ab (1045040)]

The combination of iTunes and DRM-free MP3s provided the 'killer app' for the iPod.

Since when was iTunes legally providing DRM-free music?

Re:

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

'iTunes' and 'DRM-free MP3s' are separate concepts in the sentence. As are 'YouTube' and 'paid for downloads' in the prediction for the iTV.

Re:DRM-Free?

[oohshiny (998054)]

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.

Re:

[slide-rule (153968)]

Article might not be worded the best way, but is not lying. An iPod can play stuff from iTMS : check. An iPod can play non-DRMed MP3 files that I rip from my own CDs : check. OP is entirely correct. My own iPod has a mixture of both. If you insist on think the OP was saying just one thing, you'd first have to observe that iTMS sells AAC files, not MP3 files. Stop feeding the FUD machine.

YouTube also has the high quality somewhere

[Peter Bonte (919202)]

All YouTube clips get downgraded to the familiar size and quality we know now but they keep the original content on servers unused, same for Google's movies and other sites. Streaming them in high quality to the iTV would make the big difference, it all depends how well they can handle the enormous data transfers.

Re:

[kjart (941720)]

All YouTube clips get downgraded to the familiar size and quality we know now but they keep the original content on servers unused, same for Google's movies and other sites. Streaming them in high quality to the iTV would make the big difference, it all depends how well they can handle the enormous data transfers.

Is there some reason why Youtube (for example) would make this higher quality content available via iTV when it's not available through any other method?

*Sigh*

[bky1701 (979071)]

The combination of iTunes and DRM-free MP3s provided the 'killer app' for the iPod.

Ether the submitter is ignoring that there is DRM on Itunes music and thus lying or doesn't know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay [wikipedia.org] for those who may not know.

Re:

[LordVader717 (888547)]

No, the point is that the iPod can play DRM-free music, wheras the Sony alternatives, at least at the time, couldn't. (The software slapped DRM all over your files as soon as you imported them).

Re:

[slide-rule (153968)]

As has already been pointed out to another commenter: the ability to play DRMed iTunes files and the ability to play non-DRMed MP3 files are separate concepts. The article might have worded this better, granted.

XBMC has this

[lthown (737539)]

The last few builds of Xbox Media Center have included a add-on script for Youtube watching (that's where I first saw the "Pachelbel Rant"), not to mention the Launch.com one for music video watching. Incidentally, have you noticed that "pre-owned" Xbox1s are down to $99. So we're talking no DRM, expandability and you can get the hardware for just under $100.

I don't see it

[PhotoBoy (684898)]

As great as YouTube is, I wouldn't want to sit down in the living room and watch it like normal TV. Maybe it works for people with a 5 minute attention span but it doesn't really offer movies or TV shows.

YouTube just isn't suited for TV viewing

[evilgrug (915703)]

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.

iTV's been beaten to it...

[Aphrika (756248)]

...by the Nintentdo Wii. Download the internet channel preview and voila! YouTube in your living room. And I assure you that worldwide, there'll probably be more Wii's sat by TVs than Apple iTV boxes.

Only if quality is not an issue

[tji (74570)]

Youtube video looks bad enough as a 2 inch square on my laptop display. Scale that up to my 50 inch HDTV, and it will be complete garbage. But, maybe now that they are in Google, they have the resources to allow storage and transfer of HD video.

If so, then the second quality issue comes into play, the quality of the content. I personally find the vast majority of internet video to be worthless. But, with the seeming success of YouTube, and all the video links that end up on Digg, I guess many others

Flash video? You're joking right?

[trimbo (127919)]

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.

Been done.

[goldcd (587052)]

I have an old Xbox with Xbox Media Centre - and I can play all the YouTube stuff I want on my TV.
As a person able to do this I can tell you:
a) You don't want to sit on your couch f'in about with millions of crappy little clips.
b) The crappy little clips look REALLY crappy on a big TV.

Proper IPTV is here and will only grow. Multicast handles all the broadcast stuff, what we need is a P2P addon that'll handle the OnDemand stuff (I don't just mean conventional PayPerView, I mean providerless YouTube style stuff) and I want a nice Open front end that'll let me view all this on anything (and if MS will support it in MCE2, then I'll buy MCE2)

Re:

[gnasher719 (869701)]

'' 2. Any show, any time - with commercials. I wouldn't mind commercials on shows if I could pick whatever show I wanted, whenever I wanted - even if I couldn't skip them (or, if they forced a few at the beginning/middle or something like that). Then, if I want to watch "Veronica Mars", I just go right to the episode. No worried about my schedule - I just watch it. ''

Actually, that's an excellent idea. For everyone who doesn't know it yet: You pay for TV by watching the advertisements. That's why TV compani