Apple does not care about your living room

Apple does not care about your living room

Summary: Where is the Apple TV? Spoiler: It's not coming.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple, Emerging Tech
17
beovision11_intro_v2 jpg
Apple don't make televisions, but if they did it might look a little like this Bang & Olufsen BeoVision 11...

We're probably about due for another rumour about a "proper" Apple TV. It does the rounds every six months or so.

And yet it's a product that mysteriously fails to appear. What Apple currently sell as the "Apple TV" is the bare minimum product that they could get away with -- i.e. a simple, cheap device that lets you throw your iTunes stuff up on a TV screen.

I think there's a much deeper reason why Apple isn't bothering with the living room...

Stack

To think about how technology has evolved in the living room, we can start with the "wireless radio set". With its popularisation -- suddenly the living room had a piece of technology in it that people were expected to "give up time" in order to consume.

Over the next 80-odd years, that stack of technology gets more sophisticated, but the principle remains the same. As the technology gets more visual, the stack even becomes more of a focal point, demanding how furniture is configured in the room in order for it to be consumed.

But whether you're thinking radio, RF television, cable television, VCR, PVR, on-demand, whatever, the principle is still the same -- hardware is fixed and hard-wired in, and people are expected to come into the space and give up their time in order to consume content that comes out of it and into them.

Investment in that stack presupposes that people actually are going to continue to come together in that space to consume content. Are we as a society going to stick to that model?

The reason why we came together in that way way back in the day was because at a certain point in the evolution of our civilisation we only had one room in which to be in as a family where everything happened.

As we progressed and developed rooms, we continued to have a problem in that rooms were hard to heat and, perhaps more importantly, expensive and difficult to illuminate. This tended to keep people stuck together in the same room. Social mores also encouraged this clustering with the family expected to be around the patriarch.

Now we know that that "coming together" is starting to not happen. It's not unusual to find families where the children no longer spend the evening watching TV with the parents but squirrel themselves off to their rooms to spend time on social media.

This process looks like one of those classic cyclical processes. Before television, families would congregate and relate to each other, talking, playing games, etc. This is a very "relationship-centric" way of being together as a family unit. Television arrives and we spend the years 1960 through 2010-ish "plugged in" to content coming out of that stack of technology.

But how much of that time is spent "in relationship" with one another? We're certainly in the same physical space, but are we actually connected?

Now, post-PC technologies and social media give us a way of gaining access back out to relationships. The teenager in his bedroom not watching a cat documentary with his parents but having a laugh with his friends on Facebook is undoubtedly being more social, even if he's not being directly social with his parents.

Of course, the reason why television might have had such a consuming effect on families might be because it's not unusual to find families where the individual members are totally bored with each other, or even hate each other. Watching TV with a partner you don't like offers the significant advantage of not having to talk to them. This could be why as people start to gain alternatives to watching television they're using to develop extra-family relationships rather than intra-family ones.

OK, so what has all this got to do with Apple?

Winning

Apple's model with iOS has two strands -- apps, and content.

Apps don't belong on a TV at all, other than those that frame delivery of audio/video content. This is because apps are very intimate, very private affairs. Your Facebook stream is your Facebook stream, no one else's.

Tablets are consumed in the same way that people consume a good book. (In fact, tablets only became popular when we learnt how to make them about the same size, weight, and have the same level of simplicity as a book.) Think reclining on a sofa with either a tablet or a book -- both are equally pleasant.

In a living room on their own, no one is going to want to throw Twitter up on the TV screen X metres away when it's more comfortable right in front of your face.

And if you're not on your own, the medium is too private -- and I mean that from two perspectives. One, it may contain the occasional secret you don't want them whole family knowing about. Two, it might just be unbelievably boring to other family members. Would my kids want to read my Twitter stream? I'd like to think they would, but of course it's a dull as dishwater to them.

So apps on a TV screen make no sense in that context. What about pinning a live stream of Tweets to the side of "<InsertTvRightsTerritoryOfYourChoiceHere> Got Talent"? Same thing -- who's going to want to stop everyone watching TV whilst they reply to some particularly impactful tweet?

Content, as we know, works much better than apps, but Apple already do that with what is actually a great (albeit limited) product. And as Apple knows, simplicity is key. Apple TV is obviously not an iOS device, which means that no one expects it to behave like one. The upshot, no one gets confused.

Conclusion

The irony in all this is that Apple, through popularising post-PC and getting relationship-centric, always available, social networking services in the hands of everyone both through their own products and through their competitors, has probably done more to kill off the idea of the living room than everyone else. 

This is of course great for Apple as Microsoft and Sony and some other chancers splash around trying to keep the living room relevant, despite the fact that no one's watching.

And I think this is a fantastic thing. I personally believe that social historians in hundreds of years time will look back at the period of human existence where we spent 40 hours per week, each watching television  as quite a dark period.

It's much more fun to hang out together.

What do you think? Post a comment, or talk to me on Twitter: @mbrit.

Image credit: Bang & Olufsen

Topics: Apple, Emerging Tech

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The fact is that Apple can't match Xbox One.

    Apple can't innovate beyond some dead iOS icons and that's all they got. People don't want the same dead icons on a hugely overpriced aluminum TV.
    OwllllllNet
    • Uh . . .

      Apple is not trying to match XBox One. However, with AppleTV and AirPlay do we need an XBox One, or a Sony Playstation 4 or a Nintendo WII U? Actually No, we don't.
      Gerald Shields
      • We?

        We, like to play games on consoles. Does your apple tv play BF4? COD18? No, so not really going to replace either is it!
        If however the xbox and PS were minority add-ons that fit well into an established ecosystem but nowhere else, well then you might have a point. As it is, you really are stretching with that one. You are not me and you are certainly not we. Lets see which sells more shall we.
        Little Old Man
      • Lately, you do

        I have Apple TV 2, which worked great for about a year, but I think with the revamp of iTunes to make it look like iTunes on the iPad (I use iTunes on a Windows PC), iTunes no longer shows my AirPlay speakers and can't see my Apple TV 2. From my Apple TV 2, I can see my Windows computer, and tell it to play a playlist, but there are massive (we're talking 20 minutes) gaps between songs. So, Apple TV is currently failing me miserably. I don't hold out a lot of hope that Microsoft will provide a better solution (DLNA is a joke), but they are going to get a chance to try if Apple TV doesn't start working better.
        FDanconia
        • You get zune / xbox music on xbox one and 360...

          It gives you access to a library of 18 million plus songs. No need to use your itunes library any more unless you have some obscure collection of stuff that isn't available from an online service. I personally have a library of about 100 GB on a NAS drive composed mostly of hard to find Jazz that my dad converted from Vinyl for me. That works fine as well.
          mrefuman
    • Apple has never opted to challenge XBox

      nor have they competed with SpaceX to produce spaceships.

      Sometimes the good vs. evil battle you wish to be present is simply not there to be witnessed.
      Mac_PC_FenceSitter
  • Wow, you must come from a really messed up family

    In my family, we still very much value together time.
    x I'm tc
  • er

    That's a really long article, when the headline covered it all.........
    Boothy_p
  • Apple can take over the cable guys with one inexpensive purchase...

    ...Scientific Atlanta. After all, the company that owns the last hardware before your TV controls everything upstream.
    Tony Burzio
    • My box says Motorola on it...

      Last I checked, they weren't up for sale.
      mrefuman
  • Unhealthy

    Having the kids go off to their rooms unsupervised with their devices, separating from the family, is not a healthy development. If Apple is counting on that unhealthy development, I think they are making a giant mistake.
    FDanconia
  • Watch movies on 7" screen?

    Why would I want to watch a move on a 7" screen sitting in the park, sitting on a plane or walking down the street when I can watch the same movie on a 40" or 50" or 60" screen at home ?

    Young adults, wanting to look hip and chic might do it, and as all the YouTube videos of people walking into mall fountains show, are idiots while doing it, I much prefer to watch a movie on my big screen.

    Latest and greatest might make one look hip, but eventually the tablet, like all the other gadgets will end up like the electric carving knife. Everyone buys one, but no one uses it, especially know with telecoms charging enormous, humongous, gigantic prices for data usage.
    CG IT
    • 7in is better than 0in

      Not everyone has the same lifestyle as you. If you are sitting on a plane for ten hours or on the bus for ten minutes and want to be entertained then yes, a small screen is better than no screen at all. Obviously you can't watch a 40 inch screen while you are travelling. That is what they call "mobile".
      Benny.J.
  • Irrelevant

    Whether or not Apple is betting on the relevance of the living room seems (to me) to be beside the point. Who wouldn't want the option of throwing what's on their phone onto the big screen? Or streaming what's on their PC to the living room? Or playing the occasional game? Sure there is all kinds of content we wouldn't want displayed on the glorious 60" for the family to see, but there is plenty of content that you would want to share as well.

    Sorry, but this article seems like an excuse rather than a reason for Apple's failure to deliver a competent living room device.
    CasualAdventurer
  • Hmm...

    We have 3 people, 2 iPads, a Surface, 2 iPhones, a droid, a BB, a Lumia, 2 laptops, 4 Tower pcs (with 6 24" monitors, and a 42" LCD in every bedroom with an xbox 360 hooked to it.

    Everyone still watches TV in the living room. The bedroom TVs get turned on about once a month when someone has a hangover and wants to lay in bed all day.
    mrefuman
  • Living Room ain't dead yet

    Forty years ago I would "squirrel myself off" in my room and listen to these things called phonograph records. But we came back and watched TV together in the living room, as most families still do. Living room entertainment isn't going anywhere. It's just being augmented by more stuff.
    Will Cate
  • The virtual mind of the iDoll?

    Technology reflects what we are using our minds for.
    The iDoll or virtual mind sucks into a framework that gives it a sense of being autonomous and free and thus drives the market.
    The self that is an expression of real relationship is plugged in directly to Life and doesn't call forth or get sucked into an interjected framework of control and manipulation.
    But my point is that the thinking that we don't mostly realize we are energising, is determining the patterning of our society.
    binra