

Steve’s Final “One More Thing…” - Bartlet
http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/22/boom/

======
vph
>Revolutionizing textbooks may seem a bit ho-hum by Jobs’ standards, but it’s
pretty clear that Jobs was passionate about the U.S. education system, and
felt this country was falling behind.

Oh please, Steve Job showed very little -- if not zero -- passion about the US
education system. He was an inventor and entrepreneur.

If these guys want to talk about someone who is passionate about the US
education system, talk about Bill Gates. It's time to end the Steve Job's love
fest.

~~~
samstave
Jobs was an amazing capitalist.

He was the epitome of an exploitrepreneur.

We are happy with what he achieved - but lets have no delusions about how he
operated and built his position and fame.

Take 5K for building something he paid Woz $375 for (breakout)...

~~~
grkhetan
He was young that time -- that does not mean he was dishonest for the rest of
his life. And secondly, Woz loves him. Who are you dislike him, based on what
Steve did to Woz, who knows what their relationship was...Since Woz loves him,
I think this resolves the matter. Remember Steve made Woz a multi-millionaire
by creating Apple, by providing his vision, entrepreneurial, marketing,
business skills to his technical skills.

Similarly, people criticize him for bad behavior to his employees, but I see
all apple employees love him (and love him much more than employees in most
other companies love their leader) -- since I am an apple employee myself, I
know. So I am not sure other people should dislike him for that when the
actual employees that he talked to liked him (obviously there would be
exceptions, some people obviously did not like him, but most did)

~~~
samstave
>Since Woz loves him, I think this resolves the matter

No it does not.

That is NOT what I am arguing - you are putting emotion into a technical
claim.

Apple's products are amazing - but to say that Jobs was anything less than
SHREWD is just naive.

EDIT:

I DO NOT DISLIKE Jobs.

I am making the point that he was an amazing shrewd businessman - I am not
calling him dishonest - I AM calling his tactic exploitative.

Good luck saying they are not. Quality and Success are NOT an issue I am
discussing.

------
ecito
I'm probably being short-sighted, but I fail to see what else could you add to
a TV that you couldn't already by attaching some device to it.. it's like
saying Jobs will revolutionize the computer monitor. It's just a display.

~~~
ramanujan
Ok, let's take a crack at this.

1) iPhone as remote: First, they would probably allow iPhones, iPads, and iPod
touches to be used as remotes. That would be the recommended use case, and in
fact they've already got this with the new iOS5 Airplay:

<http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/airplay.html>

2) TVs are lean back: Next, the key question is: what is the difference
between a TV and a computer monitor? They are converging in many ways, but
probably the most important differences are that a TV is lower res, bigger,
with less control over content, and situated at a distance. It's a lean back
experience as opposed to a lean forward one. So whatever you do with TV has to
focus on the lean back/remote control experience. The Airplay link above seems
like a real key to this, to make the iPhone the ultimate remote.

3) Show-specific remote control apps: In fact, given that the iPhone's display
is programmable, you could make it a _responsive_ remote that changes its UI
in response to what's on the screen. So for example, if you are watching the
Office, your iPhone's remote app could show the top rated episodes of all
time, with comments next to them. Tap that episode to watch it.

Going further with this, basically you could integrate the show website with
the remote for a kind of "show specific app remote". You'd want to make this
something that wasn't too much of a distraction while watching, but that you
used to quickly get to the good stuff or learn more about a particular actor
or fact -- or product -- in the show. For season long serial dramas, the
remote might also show which previous episodes you should have watched to
understand what's on the screen.

4) iTunes+iMovie for independent film monetization: TV content is programmable
and you could supply that with iTunes. Hulu, Netflix, and Youtube are also
potential content providers.

It might be more interesting if iTunes opened up "show development" in the
same way that the iPhone opened up "app development". Make iMovie and iTunes
really, really tightly integrated such that it's now incredibly easy for
anyone to develop a TV show, push it out to everyone, and monetize it through
iTunes.

While you're at it, integrate GarageBand and iTunes to do the same for music.
Get all the bands which were internet savvy enough to set up on Myspace and
attract visitors, and do the Amazon disintermediation strategy. Basically,
allow bands and independent filmmakers to monetize without Hollywood and the
record industry.

5) iTV Genius recommendations: one of the most interesting concepts with your
super remote would be a smart clicker that would not just change the channel,
but would be like a Zite for TV. With a deep knowledge of what you liked and
what you didn't like, it'd almost certainly bring up something good.

6) Lean back applications: iTV could also be a deployment point for "lean back
apps" beyond standard TV fare which are meant to be controlled with the
remote. These could be Keynote presentations, educational presentations, or
basically new kinds of apps that are meant to be interacted with at a distance
through a smart remote. Again, iOS5's Airplay integration will be the first
preview of these sorts of apps.

7) A true universal remote: If people get accustomized to this sort of thing,
they'll expect a location-aware remote control interface to a lot of physical
objects. This has a ton of potential. Not just for garage door openers and
automobiles, but for restaurants, ticket vendors, home automation, and the
like. Lockitron sees some of this potential already, I think.

This is just for starters. There's a lot they could do.

~~~
extension
They won't use the iPhone as a remote. It's a personal device that lives in
your pocket. The remote is a household device that lives on the coffee table.
And you can't use a touchscreen while looking at something else.

The interface will be something magical, like a Wiimote. In fact, it may be
exactly like a Wiimote. Whatever it is, it will be great for using an on-
screen interface, and also for games. Yep, I can't see them making a TV that
isn't a gaming platform.

------
Zephyrial
I think, of course, the problem he 'cracked' that will make the interface
easier is that instead of a conventional remote, you use your iPhone/iPod
Touch or something similar that would come with the TV. Touch screen, context-
sensitive menus, voice commands... that would simplify a lot, no?

(I also wonder if he was imagining removing the layer of "channels" and just
have something like the iTunes Store where you search for shows?) Just
pondering...

------
unfed
"There's no money in ebooks cause nobody reads"

Yet getting excited for textbooks on ipad? Strange.

~~~
extension
People don't buy textbooks because they like to read. They buy them because
they are required for their classes. And they can cost _thousands_ of dollars
per year.

Typically there is one specific text approved for a course, so there is a
serious lack of competition. And the publishers will release new editions
every year, with trivial changes, to prevent reuse of old books. It's
definitely a sketchy industry, in many ways, and there is plenty of
opportunity for disruption.

~~~
unfed
So you can make more money by focusing solely on textbooks instead of all the
books in the world?

------
mcantelon
Should be interesting seeing Apple's version of Google TV.

~~~
extension
No, they already have that. The new thing is a complete physical TV, with
likely every component and service from end-to-end reimagined and controlled
by Apple.

~~~
mcantelon
Google and Sony worked together to create integrated "Internet TVs" (which hit
the market a year ago) although I don't think they sold well.

~~~
lparry
well if someone else already tried, I guess there's no point. It's not like
Apple has ever entered into a market segment already entered by rivals who are
doing poorly and shown them how it's done.

Oh wait, they did that with the iPod. And iPhone. And the iPad.

But you're right, there's no way they do make a successful tv if Google and
Sony already tried it and it didnt go well </sarcasm>

~~~
mcantelon
I was responding to indicate that it has been done before, not saying that it
can't ever be done successfully.

------
suking
I wish MG would just stick to the crunchfund - that little guy is the most
annoying writer.

~~~
grkhetan
I know he loves Apple, but that does not mean his articles are junk. In fact,
they are quite the opposite. I love his article writing style, his logical
approach to thinking, his ability to dig information (like his frequent
articles on things going on in the google chrome project, Facebook insider
info, apple insider info, etc), his ability to make articles interesting, etc.
One needs to read his articles with an open mind, enjoy the content/news, but
assuming he will be slightly biased towards Apple and/or more excited about
Apple than a typical geek would be, but that does not mean his articles will
be crap.

~~~
suking
I strongly disagree - Apple could never do wrong in his eyes - he is way too
biased.

------
chugger
Jobs was out-innovating everyone when he was heathy.

Jobs was out-innovating everyone when he was sick.

Jobs is still out-innovating everyone even when he's already dead.

