
The difference between Apple and everyone else - zachwaugh
http://blog.zachwaugh.com/post/1543145592/difference-between-apple-and-everyone-else
======
ary
As these types of epiphanies pop up on the web over time I wish someone would
just come out and say it. Apple, as an organization, approaches problems in a
way that just about every other company is too chickenshit to try. When Jobs
returned and launched the Think Different campaign it wasn't for the masses,
_it was for Apple_.

It's difficult to articulate this properly because most people don't even have
a good understanding of what it means to _dissent_. Being rebellious isn't
thinking differently, it is merely fighting the imposition of someone else's
will upon your own. Thinking differently is looking at something in the most
honest way you possibly can and attempting to refine your vision without
allowing undue external influences to distract from the pursuit.

Rarely can you find a _single_ person, much less an organization, that can
avoid tunnel vision and approach problems without the taint of past success
spoiling new opportunities. It's kind of amazing to watch.

------
nkurz
I have to wonder how many people proclaiming that "Apple just gets it" have
actually used the remote in question rather than looking at its (admittedly
gorgeous) picture. We have one of the previous generation Apple TV's with a
very similar remote. It currently sits unplugged next to the television on top
of an upturned yogurt container.

It's on the yogurt container because its lack of vents causes it to overheat
if sitting on a smooth surface. It's unplugged because there's no clear power
button on its very stylish remote. I happen to know that if you hold down one
of the keys long enough it will turn (mostly) off, but I don't think this
knowledge is shared by others in the house. It needs to be turned off because
of the whine of the harddrive and the aforementioned overheating problem.

Using the remote to enter search terms for Youtube is possible, but is a
dreaded chore. Generally one says "Here, let me show you something" and then
has to call the other party back from another room when done with the
laborious process. This is not attempted as much as when the device was new. A
keyboard as a remote may look silly, but would at least make simple things
like this possible.

Overall, it's very cute and warm little boat anchor. We'll probably eventually
manage to get Boxee installed on it, but the lack of a reasonable means of
entering text will really limit its utility. So while I agree that Apple
"really gets it", at least in this case I'd apply this solely to their
marketing rather than their usability.

~~~
sdizdar
> Using the remote to enter search terms for Youtube is possible, but is a
> dreaded chore.

This is exactly what Apple is trying to tell: searching on TV is not what
consumers want. If you ask me as a consumer, searching on TV just does not
makes sense. I would search on my ipod and just tell my TV to show things I
found.

This reminds me of reviews when first iPhone was released. One the problems
reported was that it does not have all kind of ring levels as Nokia
("meeting", "silence", "vibrate and ring", etc.). And what actually people
like me want is just silence and not.

~~~
nkurz
But how would you tell your TV what to show you? I'm not talking about
spending the evening lounging around searching for interesting things on the
web. I'm talking about the 2 minutes to enter "Vienna Vegetable Orchestra" so
you can find the video that you already know about.

Do you have one of these that you happily use? Are you referring to using the
iPod as a remote to directly control it instead of the included remote? If so,
and if you've got this working, I can agree with you that this is a much
better model for operation.

~~~
daniel02216
I generally use the aluminum remote to control my Apple TV, and the Remote app
on my iPhone to type stuff, because typing is ridiculously tedious with the
remote. But I don't need to type all that often, so it's an OK tradeoff. Most
of the things I want to do on my ATV don't involve typing.

------
gvb
_Engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how
normal people do stuff._

\-- Cory Doctorow
[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow#Eastern_Standard_...](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow#Eastern_Standard_Tribe)

Apple takes the time to figure out how normal people do stuff.

I'm not sure what Microsoft does, but I'm picturing what some a focus group
determines followed by the interpretation by committee (with the necessary
compromises) followed by what some engineer implemented, all constrained by
years of legacy code.

I've been using Win7 at work (I'm linux-only at home) and expected it to be a
smooth experience. After all, everybody says linux isn't ready for the desktop
yet. I am surprised at how often Win7 guesses my intent _wrong_ or does stupid
annoying things like jumping the list under the mouse when I click on an
entry.

~~~
gaius
It would be equally valid to observe that bloggers are all basically self-
absorbed wankers who have no idea how normal engineers do stuff.

------
amastilovic
So if you want to search for something on TV, which GoogleTV is supposed to
enable you to do, how would you do that using Apple's three-button remote? I
have an idea about a prayer and Steve Jobs, but wouldn't elaborate on it.

I think the blog post doesn't have a point at all, since it compares apples to
pears.

~~~
mikeryan
Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want
to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's
Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point
Google really needed to try to figure out whether _search_ was the feature
that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping
hole as more IP Delivered video gets pushed to the main TV screen in your
house. I _don't_ think that text search is how people are going to find it.
But hey when your main tool is a hammer every problem starts looking like
nails right?

Apple's focus is on delivering video. period. They don't need the complexity
of an GoogleTV because they're delivering the main thing that people want on
their TV. They end up with a $100 box which is very usable and probably
delivers the key features that people need.

BTW Vizio has a more elegant solution for a keyboard with a clamshell remote

[http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-
cr...](http://gizmodo.com/5443308/every-3d-vizio-comes-with-this-crazy-
keyboard-remote)

~~~
Pewpewarrows
Except that Search _is_ the answer to what we need on a TV right now. Whenever
I fire mine up right now, I either want to go to a specific channel, find if a
particular program is playing right now, browse a category of programs, or
access my existing digital library. Existing remotes, including Apple's
minimalistic design, are worthless for doing this. It might look sleek and
thin, but it's probably the worst user experience for getting to what I want
right now. I don't want to have to press arrow keys a hundred times over
through menu after menu after menu to get to the show that I want to watch.

GoogleTV's remotes let me do that. A few button presses and I'm instantly
where I want to be. While Apple's product design strategy is elegance over any
and all costs, with Google I can get shit done. And that's all I care about at
the end of the day, not how pretty my remote looks when I'm using it.

~~~
mikeryan
Its funny you say the answer is "Search" but of the 4 things you want to do
when you fire up your tv, none of them are "Do a text based search for
content".

1\. Go to specific channel

2\. Find if a program is playing right now

3\. Browse a category of programs

4\. Access an existing digital library.

Existing remotes actually do many of these pretty well. A keyboard based
search only really helps with 2 and 4 and even then might actually be an
ancillary experience unless you are looking for something specific. Text
search only helps when you are looking for specific content it helps you
_find_ content you know exists. But I really don't think thats the main
problem for people watching TV.

I think most people do what I do when I get home, sit down and try to find
something interesting and new to watch. I think the problem is that most
people have a hard time finding that cool new show or video. Now similar to
the web, when I want to try to find something interesting I don't go to
Google. I go to reddit or HN or fark or digg or some other source of curated
content.

~~~
Pewpewarrows
No, existing remotes do this horribly. Modern Cable subscriptions come with
300+ channels. I don't want to have to hold down an arrow key for minutes
looking for something. I don't want to have to memorize what damn channel is
AMC HD.

GoogleTV lets me type-in three letters: AMC. I get the channel. I get YouTube
videos for snippets from their latest shows. I can type in House and
immediately see if it's playing on any of the two dozen channels it's
syndicated on, grab some episodes from my network, watch videos online of it,
and read the Wikipedia page.

Try using a computer without being able to type actual words. You're only
allowed to use the on-screen keyboard provided by your OS and the arrow keys
to move around and confirm keys to press. I'll check back in when you're
pulling your hair out trying to do anything in 5 minutes. The common computer
experiences are merging with your TV. Apple's remote doesn't do anything to
solve it. It's simple for the sake of being simple, and it's worthless as a
modern computing remote because of it.

~~~
mikeryan
I've already conceded that if you know what you're looking for (A&E, House) a
keyboard helps. I just don't think that's the primary issue which people have
with their TV. 99% of the time I don't need Google on TV - I want reddit and I
never use my keyboard on Reddit.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
But you use a mouse on Reddit to select which story from a list to read,
comment to expand, upvote etc which the Google remote has, and the Apple
remote doesn't.

------
ja27
The Sony remote looks like a label maker. I'm surprised they didn't style it a
bit better.

------
blueben
What's really amazing is that people seem to believe that Google designed
products that were actually manufactured and designed by Sony and Logitech.

~~~
zachwaugh
Well, I never said that Google was responsible for the design of the remotes
or hardware in the post, that's clearly on Sony and Logitech. But Google did
design the interface that requires a keyboard and mouse to operate, so they
have some of the blame. You can bet that in the unlikely event Apple had a
product where other companies designed the hardware for their software, they'd
have some pretty detailed specs to make sure stuff like those remotes didn't
happen.

~~~
Nemisis7654
I haven't used a Google TV either, but I believe a keyboard is required for a
lot of the use. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If a user needs to type
something in, how are they to do that without a keyboard?

"I haven’t used a Google TV, but based on these remotes, I would bet the rest
of the interface is just as clunky." - From the blog

I think that's an irrational assumption. Again, I haven't used one either so I
cannot dispute the claim, but I think one should hold off their opinion until
they try it.

------
jherdman
I had a really good conversation yesterday at the Dev Lunch in Toronto about
so-called Smart TVs. Here's a quick summary:

* TVs are about media consumption, not about interaction in the PC-sense of the word.

* When one wants extra content or information regarding the media they are consuming, they tend to use a secondary device (e.g. iPad, notebook)

* Most devs in the room merely wanted a device that would allow them to better manage and consume the media they wanted

* It's not clear what sort of apps (besides the aforementioned management tool) would be beneficial to write for a Smart TV platform. This is likely a function of not groking what a future with a Smart TV might be like.

* Over and over again, it was noted that the TV is a social device. You watch it with friends, be it in a bar, or a home. It's not clear that interacting with a Smart TV _could_ be a social activity.

I'm interested to see what happens in this sphere, but I frankly can't shake
the feeling that it's a dead end. Mostly dumb boxes that enable consumption,
and management of media are probably the most likely thing to succeed, a la
TiVo.

~~~
mikeryan
So I think you're going to see a few trends happening here which may change
your mind.

One of the big gaps here is that most TV App platforms are independent of the
video you are watching (they are not content aware). Take the Yahoo! platform
which is (very well) designed to be used while watching TV, yet the apps don't
know what is being watched. This adds some serious difficulty to app
developers who want to enhance existing TV content which is kind of the
current holy grail for TV apps (Actually most TV apps right now provide
alternatives for delivering video content - and that _is_ the killer app on TV
right now. I'm going to try to focus this screed on TV apps whose main purpose
is _not_ to deliver video). This disconnect between app and video is currently
being addressed. Early next year these apps will be able to be content aware
and you will be able to have apps which are sync'd to the broadcast and this
will add a lot of value to the chain. Unfortunately enhanced ads will likely
be the first area where you'll see this functionality but someone needs to pay
the bills.

The second trend is that a lot of TV interactivity will likely move from the
TV to your tablet PC. We've already seen a first implementation of this with
ABC's "My Generation" TV Show app (show's already canceled unfortunately).
This app sync'd to broadcast using audio fingerprinting. I think that at some
point these "second screen" apps will be the main type of TV Apps you see.
Likely using the TV app platforms for some simple updates. Think a leaderboard
or something while playing - or a twitter feed.

With respect to social. I think where the most interesting social aspects for
TV aren't "Friend Feeds" via Twitter or Facebook. But using social networks
for content discovery. I think we're going to be so inundated with video
content that our primary method for content discovery won't be a guide (or
search) but some sort of social recommendation system. Maybe a reddit for TV?

~~~
jherdman
You're probably right with respect to using a secondary device as the medium
with which interactivity and TV content are brought together.

Your last point is a pale shadow of a greater problem that PVRs are trying to
solve. People are ipso facto inundated with too much content from all angles,
period. I sometimes find myself wondering if we as a society are addicted to
this constant influx of content and stimuli.

------
jkriss
It seems obvious, but the number of people (and companies) who don't get this
at all is astonishing.

~~~
hvs
It's not really that astonishing. I've been sitting in product design meetings
for over a decade for applications, and anything designed through that process
almost inevitably ends up looking like that Sony remote.

When you have five product managers that have a stake in something and they
care more about their little product rather than the larger picture, this is
what you end up with.

Apple has the singular vision of Steve Jobs/Jony Ive to drive their products.
You really need a (well-qualified and competent) dictator when it comes to
product design.

The better question is "what will happen to Apple after Jobs and Ive are
gone?"

------
A1kmm
The article misses the point - Apple is aiming for a particular niche market,
and it achieves that very successfully. Its niche market will pay through the
roof for devices which look nice and make it easy to do the most common things
but very hard or difficult to do something outside a particular square.

However, this is only a small (albeit high paying) niche, and to suggest that
other companies are making poor business decisions because they aren't
targeting the same niche that Apple does is simply wrong. I'm sure entering a
URL, for example, on the Sony-Google remote would be far easier and more
obvious than on the Apple one - and so I'm sure the majority of consumers
would prefer that one over the Apple one.

In summary, all the designs on the page are appropriate for a market segment
the brands they are being marketed under target.

------
dashdsrdash
I have already implemented The Right Solution for my MythTV.

Two remotes.

One is a TiVo remote control. Fits nicely in my hand, has the important
buttons laid out nicely. Good for watching and selecting and OK for most other
tasks.

The other is a remote keyboard with built-in mouse, similar to the Logitech
board. I pull it out when I want to search for something or manipulate the
system in a more complex way (like firing up Firefox to play a Flash game).
The rest of the time, it's propped next to the sofa.

There's no reason not to ship a simple remote and a complex one, and let
people decide what they need when they need it.

------
moeffju
As a nitpick, the Apple Remote has seven buttons: Four direction buttons,
center button, Menu button, and play/pause.

This does not really detract from the central point of the argument, but then
I believe the argument is flawed since the remotes are made for almost
entirely different things. You cannot run searches using the Apple Remote, for
example. Whether the solution picked by Sony and Logitech is the best solution
remains to be seen (although I find it doubtful at best), but the article,
IMO, makes a bad point.

------
xenophanes
Did they really need to put CAPS LOCK on a remote?

~~~
brudgers
Handy if you're going to email, message, chat, or enter a password.

~~~
xenophanes
Are you joking? Do you know what shift is? Why would you write all caps emails
or anything else?

~~~
brudgers
IMO, leaving a caps lock off makes a device more cumbersome to use -
particularly for NFL, MLB, and NASCAR fans.

AFIK, most phones offer capslock to improve communications efficiency, but
YMMV.

~~~
xenophanes
Again, are you joking? Who the hell uses caps lock for just a few letters like
that? Maybe you don't know how to type? Are you trying to say that people who
can't touch type find caps lock useful while they hunt and peck or something?
If you're looking at the keyboard anyway it seems easy to hold shift while you
peck with the other hand. Do you realize it's pretty standard for people here
to disable their caps lock key and replace it with something else?

Do you realize that adding hardware buttons that duplicate features b/c it's
slightly convenient for some small group of people is bad design?

~~~
brudgers
FWIW, when you're in the keyboard business like Logitech, a standard layout
simplifies logistics, software development, and potentially reduces SKU's.

And who can predict all the ways people will use their HDTV's, DVR's, DVD's
and PC's in the future.

BTW, capslock facilitates one handed typing while eating a BLT.

------
rodh
I'm really disappointed in the next generation of remotes. What I really want
to know is why, when we have touchscreen phones and devices like the iPad, our
remotes are still hunks of plastic with dozens of tiny rubber buttons?

Forget remotes, I want the whole UI for my TV to be on a dedicated touchscreen
device. I want to read about what's on next, preview what's on other channels
and schedule recordings without disrupting what's on the display screen.

The rest of the time, show me two big volume buttons.

~~~
tortilla
I still like physical buttons I can feel and click when I'm a couch potato.

------
jordan0day
Does anyone else think the recent release (and positive reviews) of Kinect
might indicate that the Sony and Logitech solutions will quite soon be
anachronisms? People seem to say the Kinect's voice recognition is still a bit
dodgy, but for the solutions the monstrous remotes are meant to solve, I don't
see why voice input wouldn't generally work? If I want to find the next
showing of It's Always Sunny in Philadelpha, it's a heck of a lot easier to
just _say_ it than type it out, and since it's search-based, the voice
recognition doesn't have to be perfect anyway.

------
siglesias
The best remote for the TV products are touch screen phone apps with shifting
UIs: a four-d pad when it needs to be, a keyboard when it needs to be. (A
quick reference IMDB device when it needs to be).

~~~
bbatsell
I'm really not sure I agree. Remotes do their jobs best when one fully learns
their layout and can operate every function while keeping their eyes on the
content they're wanting to see, not looking down at a small screen to figure
out where your tap target is at any given moment.

~~~
siglesias
Apple's implementation solves this by allowing you to perform directional
swipe gestures within a large area of the screen, with a tap proxying for the
select button. It's quite nice.

------
83457
Boxee hits a sweet spot on the remote IMO

~~~
blehn
Agree, however the box itself is another story. Aside from the needlessly
wacky shape, isn't it obvious that it should fit in the ~2" high gap between
the top of the table/stand and the bottom of the display? Apple has it right
with the AppleTV, and it seems like they figured it out with the new Mac Mini,
which is much thinner than the old one.

------
Orca
It's the balance between engineering and design. Apple naturally knows how to
find that center, most others seem to skew too far in either direction.

------
YeeHaw
I think Netflix solves this problem nicely. You use a computer to add things
to a queue and then a remote to browse through the queue.

------
brudgers
> _"I can see the Apple designers starting from scratch, sitting down on their
> couches in their living rooms and imagining what they would want to use"_

The result of imagining rather than testing is a tiny remote that easily falls
between the cushions of said couch or gets buried under a magazine on the end
table.

------
beej71
Google TV is more like a computer. Apple TV is more like on-demand TV/video
programming.

I'm not saying one is better than the other (ok, well, the computer is better
;) ) but it should be apparent why the inputs are so different.

------
johngalt
Apple is just a good IT department for everyone else.

Every good IT department attempts to distill computer usage into a few core
functions that are reliable and easy to use.

------
lwhi
Okay, but how do you _write_ with the Apple remote?

The article doesn't compare like-for-like. It's not a fair comparison.

------
rbranson
Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to sales figures
though, does it?

------
recoiledsnake
Apple TV is meant to be a media browsing and consumption device, whereas
Google TV includes Chrome(with Flash).

You can use an Android phone to control Google TV anyway.

I would love to see Apple solving the problem with typing using a
remote(especially things like URLs) without using resorting to an iPhone or
iPod Touch.

~~~
YooLi
"I would love to see Apple solving the problem with typing using a
remote(especially things like URLs)..."

They already solved it; you aren't supposed to be typing URLs while laying on
your couch watching TV.

~~~
jwhitlark
Yes. "You aren't supposes to..." seems to be the subtext with apple. You get a
great experience when you buy everything from them and color within the lines.
That doesn't make it THE way to run a superior company, but it is A way to do
so.

------
hyperbovine
BUT APPLE TV WON"T PLAY OGG VORBIS

:-P

