Home
Experts and pundits have been jabbering quite a bit on the topic of why Apple's stock price has been falling like a rock. Some say it has to do with declining margins. Others say Apple's pipeline of products isn't as exciting as it could be. But no one ever mentions the real reason: Scott Adams bought shares in Apple.

When I buy a stock it marks the beginning of the company's nosedive to oblivion. My investment strategy is called "Buy at the wrong time and hold until all of your money is gone." So far my strategy has not produced superior returns. But investing requires patience. I just need to stick with it.

Just to be on the safe side, today I will give Apple some ideas for their next huge product. I think the world is ready for an Apple TV remote control.

What? Not exciting enough? Oh, you just wait. This is no ordinary remote control.

I'm imagining a device that is larger than a phone but smaller than the smallest iPad. I imagine it with lots of flash storage, WiFi, BlueTooth, and maybe infrared and other local radio frequencies for maximum flexibility.

Now imagine that your DVR and cable box both disappear. Those functions will be absorbed by a cloud-based service that works with the new remote control and connects to your TV through a wireless device that plugs into your big screen's HDMI jack.

The idea of "recording" a show will be retired. This is similar to the "on demand" services that cable and satellite TV companies offer, but without all the parts that suck. In other words, it will be designed right and include every TV show. That's very different from today's world of eighties-era interfaces and limited shows on demand.

Your first reaction is that the producers of television content would never allow Apple to store all of their shows in the cloud and redistribute them. Or perhaps network and studio deals with existing cable and satellite providers would make the arrangement I'm describing impossible from a business model standpoint. But keep in mind that the same was said of the music industry before iTunes blew that model up. I think Apple is the one company on earth that could get the TV industry to change how it does business. So for now let's talk about what is possible from a technology standpoint. I'll leave it to Apple to make the business and legal aspects work. That part is boring.

You might be thinking that new TV remote control hardware is unnecessary because that function can be moved to a simple app on your smartphone or tablet computer. But I think you'd find that an all-purpose device such as a phone or tablet will always be suboptimal for operating your television. For starters, you don't want your screen saver kicking in every half minute. You don't want to use up your phone's battery for watching TV, and you don't want to hunt for your app icon. I could list several other problems with an app-based approach, but I think you agree that your phone or tablet can never be better than mediocre as a TV remote. The best TV remote would be designed from scratch for that purpose.

The Apple TV remote could fix a number of problems and add lots of new features.

1. You'd never miss a show because you forgot to record it.
 
2. The "search for a show" function would be more like a Google search with onscreen keyboard. 

3. You could use the screen on the remote to watch one show while the big screen has another. Good for sports fans in particular. 

3. Divide your big screen into as many as nine channels playing at once, like picture-in-picture on steroids. 

4. When you leave the room, take your remote with you and the show continues playing on the remote so you miss nothing.

5. Text with others about the show. See behind-the-scenes commentary about the show while it is on. 

6. Send TV commercials to the remote control and let users "test out" of them by clicking on some ultra-simple questions, such as "Does the new Buick Regal have leather seats and photon torpedoes?" Get a question right and the commercial is skipped. 

7. Interleave two shows, so that as soon as a commercial comes on for one, the remote flips to the other until the commercials end. 

8. A front camera on the remote allows you to Skype/Facetime with friends while you watch TV and play games too.

9. Watch your shows on your phone or your iPad, via cloud, when you are away from home. 

10. Split the screen on your TV between a broadcast show and a web page connection you control from the remote. 

11. Imagine being able to freeze a TV image and zoom in the same way you do on your iPad, using your fingers to expend and contract the image. Do your own slow-motion replays for sports events. 

12. Imagine the remote doing facial recognition on actors and offering you links to their IMDB page so you can see more of their work. 

13. The remote would also do facial recognition of the person using the device and automatically hide channels you would have no interest in while suggesting shows you might like. Even the commercials would be customized to the viewer. 

14. Nielsen ratings would be handled through the remote. 

15. Reality shows could have viewer interaction and voting.  Just build their own app.

16. The remote would also function as a full Internet browser. 

17. Carry your TV remote and an extra HDMI wireless connector with you when you travel and turn any hotel TV into your personal TV. 

If you've ever used a universal remote control that works with multiple devices, you know what a pain in the ass they are. If you ever figure out how to program them, which isn't easy, they have a tendency to regularly lose their programming for no particular reason. And every time you add a new device, such as a DVD player, you have to reprogram it.

With the Apple remote you wouldn't need to control multiple devices. All content would live in the cloud and require the same set of commands to access.

One obstacle to this vision is Internet speed. Until the Internet gets faster, the architecture might require pre-downloading movies and content to the remote ahead of time based on user patterns. For example, my remote would always pre-download Modern Family as soon as it became available. Then I would only need to stream content from my remote to the TV.

Third parties could make apps that work on the remote control, such as an app to control window shades or temperature.

A big part of Apple's magic involves transforming something boring and ordinary into a product you can't live without. I think that on the first day that an Apple remote control comes on the market your old TV remote will look like a butter churn. You'll simply have to own the Apple remote.

There's a lot of talk about Apple inventing a TV. I think they will stay away from making the screen. That's too generic. Margins for screens will never be good. I think Apple will make a run at the remote control and move all of the important TV and DVR functions into the remote and the cloud. The TV screen will just have a connector that talks to the remote control.

That's my vision of the future of TV. The biggest obstacles will be the structure of the TV industry and existing contracts. I think the technology is all doable.

What else do you want Apple to design into the new remote?

 
Rank Up Rank Down Votes:  +52
  • Print
  • Share
  • Share:

Comments

Sort By:
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Feb 1, 2013
i don't own a tv. i surf youtube on my laptop for old carol burnett skits and 1960s batman episodes, and i put up with hulu's annoying commercials when i want to watch doc martin. but, if i could avoid commercials, your idea could almost make me want tv again if it came with such a remote.
 
 
Feb 1, 2013
Then you can buy proprietary cord attachments to control the iDrip for intravenous feeding and the iCatheter. Then you'll never have to leave the couch!

TV is for morons that can't think on their own... Oh my life is a waste and I'm bored but don't want to do anything productive or even entertain myself with a thought... oh well this stupid box will do it all for me, no need to strain my brain... I'm fine with being mentally and physically dull. =P
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 31, 2013
You're absolutely right, I just thought I'd point out that "most" doesn't include one of the most important uses for a television for many people.
 
 
Jan 31, 2013
[Except for watching TV in groups.]

When I said 'most', I meant 'not all'. That's one of the bits that isn't part of 'most'.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 30, 2013
[Netflix on a tablet provides most of the functionality at a small fraction of the cost. ]

Except for watching TV in groups.
 
 
+1 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 30, 2013
[ If it isn't a dedicated remote (with extra features) it simply won't stay in the room with the TV. -- Scott]

That is a good point, but... even that would only work if you can't add apps to it. If you can add apps, somebody will put a web browser on it, and an email reader, and twitter, and facebook, and Angry Birds, and then it's an iPod touch. If you can't add apps, then you'll always be jealous of your neighbor who bought version 2 that has better apps. Overall I don't see the dedicated tablet remote as viable, though most of the rest is good. But seriously, ditch the commercials.
 
 
Jan 30, 2013
Netflix on a tablet provides most of the functionality at a small fraction of the cost. Cable/satellite and a big TV are already way past the point of diminishing returns, and the fancy remote doesn’t seem to add anything useful.

Unless you happen to have a nine-lobed brain that can watch nine channels at once.
 
 
Jan 30, 2013
["Wandering off to watch the same thing people in the family room are watching without missing any of it falls into that area (though I still believe that is a niche feature that wouldn't work as easily in practice as the way you imagine)."]

Niche feature? Not for me - pretty much every day I would love some of that!

Scenario: Family is watching TV show - time for me to start dinner. Depending on what I will be making, I could need to make 2 or 3 trips to the kitchen to put the next thing in the oven, or quickly check the pan, or whatever. At the moment, the choice is for me to miss 3 or 4 1-minute chunks of the show, or for the family to sit in front of a paused screen for the same time. So I'd love to be able to carry a show with me: truth told, I'd mostly be listening to the audio in that situation, but its still continuity.
 
 
Jan 30, 2013
I heard a report on the radio this morning about teh trend of people moving from cable to online content. They even had a name for these people. They called them "cord-cutters" (or "never-cords" for people who never had cable). Then the question came up: "Why doesn't some big company like Apple just step in and completely revolutionize the industry?" The answer: Legal issues like licensing (all that boring stuff).
 
 
Jan 30, 2013
[There is so much wrong with your analysis I don't know where to start. Your argument is essentially that a horse and a car are pretty much the same thing so long as you don't consider the details. For starters, you'd be running down your phone's battery, your couch partner would be asking to use your phone to control the TV while you want to keep their hands off it, and I still want to watch the show while I go to the kitchen and the family is still watching on the big screen. And I want infrared to control the screen sound and power and input, etc. And in real life, if those functions were on my iPad, the iPad would roam off to some kid's bedroom on day one for a game of Angry Birds. Then I'd be the angry one when I want to watch TV. If it isn't a dedicated remote (with extra features) it simply won't stay in the room with the TV. -- Scott]

I think your response misses most of what I was saying and I don't agree that I'm saying that a horse and car are essentially the same. I'm saying that you're acting like cars don't exist and then go on to describe a device that will get you around on roads that does everything existing cars already do but throw in that you want a built in espresso machine, for it to run on leaded as well as unleaded and that shouldn't be your car because it would use up all your gas in your car.

You don't want use your phone? Fine. Buy an iPod Touch to be your dedicated "remote". It won't be any more expensive than what you are describing as a "remote" if your remote has a touch screen and a battery and can handle HD video, web browsing, etc. Even if it wandered off you can use any iOS device with the Remote app to control the AppleTV so if your dedicated iPod Touch controller wandered off with your kid you could use the one on your iPhone or iPad in a pinch.

Battery life will still be limited by the screen and the size of the battery no matter what the device is called.

As for IR, lots of AV equipment now allow you to control the volume and other features using an app on iOS (take a look at Panasonic receivers for one). It's fair to say that TVs currently don't commonly offer that but most people with a big TV are using an AV receiver to route picture and sound to speakers and TV. Beyond volume and power, channel, input, etc. don't make sense if you are proposing Apple make a remote to replace television as we know it. There would no longer be channels and supposedly this thing would mitigate the need for any other video sources so why would you need to change the input.

Still, I never claimed that what is available now is exactly as you describe. Wandering off to watch the same thing people in the family room are watching without missing any of it falls into that area (though I still believe that is a niche feature that wouldn't work as easily in practice as the way you imagine).

I had several points. The first, which you seem to have dismissed outright as completely wrong without checking, is that most of what you are describing already exists in almost exactly the fashion you are describing or close enough as to be esoteric. The second is that if you are looking to Apple to do this remote you are describing you are going to be disappointed because, as I showed, they have already presented their answer to the technical side of the TV viewing experience. It will improve and change. They will likely add apps to AppleTV many of the missing feature you want may appear then but they aren't going to make an all new TV device short of offering what they already have out there built into a screen maybe). And that, third, you completely glossed over as not an issue the real problem Apple is desperately trying to deal with: content licensing.

I'm sorry if I seem like I'm poo pooing the idea (it's not out of malice, I generally love your ideas) but it just isn't coming from a position of knowledge, either about the current state of Apple devices or the state of the TV industry as a barrier to what you want.
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 30, 2013
I don't have a TV, I just watch shows online, and I had kind of assumed that anybody that still did watch TV did so because they were just casual/legacy viewers who didn't want to learn a new interface.

Couldn't most of your remote ideas just be implemented now, on a large computer monitor? Where is the market for a computerish-TV?
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 29, 2013
@leololezone - well, you don't need the device, that's obvious. you have enough time on your hands to regulate tv manually :)
 
 
+2 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 29, 2013
Peace, Love Understanding, Sympathy, Empathy.

And a button for Invisibility.
 
 
Jan 29, 2013
Why bother with a pad, or even a TV for that matter? Just make it wrap-around goggles and people could walk around in their own private world and not worry about reality creeping in.
 
 
Jan 29, 2013
Unfortunately, as much as I like your usual novel ideas, this isn't novel or even very well informed about the current state of things. Here's how your remote stacks up against current available reality:

>>I'm imagining a device that is larger than a phone but smaller than the smallest iPad. I imagine it with lots of flash storage, WiFi, BlueTooth, and maybe infrared and other local radio frequencies for maximum flexibility.

The iPod Touch or iPad Mini fit this in all but the infrared but based on current needs and your own description of this mitigating other devices there's no need for the outdated, line of sight infrared technology. WiFi and Bluetooth fulfill that much better now. The iPod touch isn't larger than an iPhone but there isn't a lot of size room between the iPod Touch and the iPad Mini. Looking for an in-between size is splitting hairs.

>>Now imagine that your DVR and cable box both disappear. Those functions will be absorbed by a cloud-based service that works with the new remote control and connects to your TV through a wireless device that plugs into your big screen's HDMI jack.

Done. Buy and AppleTV or a Roku or a Playstation 3 or an XBox. Sticking with Apple since you're looking at them. AppleTV does this handily with their iTunes store. Rent or buy TV shows and movies on demand, cloud based so you don't have to store them to watch them again and again. There is also Netflix streaming, Hulu Plus and even Youtube and Vimeo currently. I suspect once a deal is worked out with the networks there will be a flood of other content. The thing is the size of 2 decks of cards, is Wifi and has HDMI out. You can control it with the free Remote App for iOS and use that on any iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad.

>>The idea of "recording" a show will be retired. This is similar to the "on demand" services that cable and satellite TV companies offer, but without all the parts that suck. In other words, it will be designed right and include every TV show. That's very different from today's world of eighties-era interfaces and limited shows on demand.

>>Your first reaction is that the producers of television content would never allow Apple to store all of their shows in the cloud and redistribute them. Or perhaps network and studio deals with existing cable and satellite providers would make the arrangement I'm describing impossible from a business model standpoint. But keep in mind that the same was said of the music industry before iTunes blew that model up. I think Apple is the one company on earth that could get the TV industry to change how it does business. So for now let's talk about what is possible from a technology standpoint. I'll leave it to Apple to make the business and legal aspects work. That part is boring.

You dismissed the networks and studios but they are the only barrier to all shows being there right now. They are not in the same precarious position that the music industry was under the attack of Napster. They are holding out and while there are rumblings of possible deals, there have been for years. As you will see the technology part you are suggesting is already there. It is ONLY the networks that are holding this up.

>>You might be thinking that new TV remote control hardware is unnecessary because that function can be moved to a simple app on your smartphone or tablet computer. But I think you'd find that an all-purpose device such as a phone or tablet will always be suboptimal for operating your television. For starters, you don't want your screen saver kicking in every half minute. You don't want to use up your phone's battery for watching TV, and you don't want to hunt for your app icon. I could list several other problems with an app-based approach, but I think you agree that your phone or tablet can never be better than mediocre as a TV remote. The best TV remote would be designed from scratch for that purpose.

You dismiss the iPhone with an app but then most of your suggestions are for apps on your remote or describe functionality already available on any iOS device. You think an all purpose device i would be sub-optimal but that is exactly what you are proposing. There are no screen savers on iOS devices and whether you call it a remote, and iPhone, and iPod Touch or and iPad, if it has a screen that stays on all the time to do what you want it will not have any better battery life then current devices. You can't magically say it's not an iPone but is begged than an iPhone and does everything an iPhone does but with better battery life. I think you're way off base here in dismissing existing iOS devices to solve this problem. In fact, many other companions have produced remotes like you describe that were way worse than an apple device with a custom app which is why all those AV companies (like Crestron) now provide an app for use on an iOS device that does all the things their touch screen remotes did in the past (including controlling lights and curtains and AC, etc.) for a fraction of the cost.


>>The Apple TV remote could fix a number of problems and add lots of new features.

(note: for the following, when I say iOS I'm referring to any iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch model)

>>1. You'd never miss a show because you forgot to record it.
 
Done. AppleTV provides shows on demand from the major networks the day after they air for a few dollars each. Watch them any time.

>>2. The "search for a show" function would be more like a Google search with onscreen keyboard. 

Done. Enter a search field in the TV screen using the Remote app for iOS and an on-screen keyboard appears.

>>3. You could use the screen on the remote to watch one show while the big screen has another. Good for sports fans in particular. 

Technically possible now since the AppleTV and an iOS device are not exclusive to each other, you can watch anything you want on your iOS device in iTunes or Video App or even third party video apps like BBC or HBO GO. There are also sports "channels". If they are all on the same network you will only be limited by the bandwidth of your net connection.

>>3. Divide your big screen into as many as nine channels playing at once, like picture-in-picture on steroids. 

I can't imagine anyone other then Sherlock Holmes in the show Elementry who would want or even be able to use this. I also suspect that once Apple opens up the AppleTV to any third party app (something likely coming soon) then if there is an audience for that someone will make an app to do it.

>>4. When you leave the room, take your remote with you and the show continues playing on the remote so you miss nothing.

Again, niche functionality but you can technically do it now since your place in the show is saved as you watch it. Pause on the AppleTV and pick up from where you left off on the iPhone. It doesn't do it automatically as you leave the room but can you imagine watching TV with your family and you get up to pee and suddenly only you are watching it play on your remote as you walk out of the room? Doesn't make a lot of sense in the real world.

>>5. Text with others about the show. See behind-the-scenes commentary about the show while it is on. 

You can text while watching with any iOS device. Or even post to Facebook or Tweet. Amazon has X-ray that provides extra info on what your watching on the secondary device. There's no barrier to Apple doing something similar, Amazon releasing an app for iOS or a third party providing something.

>>6. Send TV commercials to the remote control and let users "test out" of them by clicking on some ultra-simple questions, such as "Does the new Buick Regal have leather seats and photon torpedoes?" Get a question right and the commercial is skipped. 

This sounds horrible. Please, no adds that force me to pay attention to them.

>>7. Interleave two shows, so that as soon as a commercial comes on for one, the remote flips to the other until the commercials end. 

This contradicts idea #6. You can't both skip ads and force us to watch them. AppleTV uses the pay per episode model so there are no ads at all. Netflix streaming is a subscription service with no ads at all. Modern streaming on demand makes the concept of switching between shows while ads are playing moot.

>>8. A front camera on the remote allows you to Skype/Facetime with friends while you watch TV and play games too.

Done. Any iOS device does this.

>>9. Watch your shows on your phone or your iPad, via cloud, when you are away from home. 

Done. Any iOS device already does this. They even remember your place in the movie or TV show.

>>10. Split the screen on your TV between a broadcast show and a web page connection you control from the remote. 

No need. Do the web on your iOS device while watching without compromising the picture and annoying other people trying to watch with you.

>>11. Imagine being able to freeze a TV image and zoom in the same way you do on your iPad, using your fingers to expend and contract the image. Do your own slow-motion replays for sports events. 

Again, not available but not a very handy feature when you really think about it but there are no barriers to using an iOS device to do this. Sports apps could provide this in the future if there is an audience. No need for this to be special from Apple.

>>12. Imagine the remote doing facial recognition on actors and offering you links to their IMDB page so you can see more of their work. 

Again, Amazon's X-ray does something like this. Facial recognition could be interesting and easily added later by Apple or a third party.

>>13. The remote would also do facial recognition of the person using the device and automatically hide channels you would have no interest in while suggesting shows you might like. Even the commercials would be customized to the viewer. 

A little creepy. I don't think people will want their TV watching them now any more then when people were creeped out by it in "1984". Also, no commercials please, targeted or not.

>>14. Nielsen ratings would be handled through the remote. 

Actually the remote wouldn't have anything to do with it. It would be an audit of the user's account; what did they buy, what did they actually watch, did they finish watching it, did they watch other episodes, did they watch an episode more than once, etc. No remote needed for any of that, they can do that now and probably already do.

>>15. Reality shows could have viewer interaction and voting.  Just build their own app.

No barrier to doing that now. A special Apple remote doesn't give us this.

>>16. The remote would also function as a full Internet browser. 

All iOS devices do this now.

>>17. Carry your TV remote and an extra HDMI wireless connector with you when you travel and turn any hotel TV into your personal TV. 

You carry your iPhone or iPad already. You can buy an HDMI adaptor of do this or you can just carry around an AppleTV with you too (it's really small). In the future, if hotels adopt Apple's open source Airplay standard and have an AIrplay compatible device in the hotel room you can just select it and stream from your iOs device to the TV. You can already do this now with any AppleTV as an alternative to playing directly from the AppleTV.

>>If you've ever used a universal remote control that works with multiple devices, you know what a pain in the ass they are. If you ever figure out how to program them, which isn't easy, they have a tendency to regularly lose their programming for no particular reason. And every time you add a new device, such as a DVD player, you have to reprogram it.

>>With the Apple remote you wouldn't need to control multiple devices. All content would live in the cloud and require the same set of commands to access.

Thus the lack of need of infrared.

>>One obstacle to this vision is Internet speed. Until the Internet gets faster, the architecture might require pre-downloading movies and content to the remote ahead of time based on user patterns. For example, my remote would always pre-download Modern Family as soon as it became available. Then I would only need to stream content from my remote to the TV.

Internet speed in major urban areas is already fast enough for full resolution HDTV and many devices including the AppleTV take advantage of it providing on demand 1920X1080 HDTV with 5.1 surround sound. Streaming from the remote specifically is a pointless distinction.

>>Third parties could make apps that work on the remote control, such as an app to control window shades or temperature.

Ignoring the fact that at the beginning you poo-pooed apps, this is already available from pretty much every home automation company on iOS.

>>A big part of Apple's magic involves transforming something boring and ordinary into a product you can't live without. I think that on the first day that an Apple remote control comes on the market your old TV remote will look like a butter churn. You'll simply have to own the Apple remote.

All of this already exists. The problem is the one thing you blithely dismissed as the easy part; getting the networks and studios to allow this content to be displayed on it. Look at HBO which has provided an HBO GO app for the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch where you can stream any HBO show you want BUT (and it's a big BUT) you have to already have a cable subscription to HBO to use it AND you you are blocked from streaming this to you AppleTV even though you can stream any other video content and there's even HBO GO for the Roku or XBox that allows viewing streaming HBO content through HBO GO on your TV. This is purely a legal issue that Apple is having a very hard time working out with the content owners. Get the content deals in place and the rest of it is already there.

>>There's a lot of talk about Apple inventing a TV. I think they will stay away from making the screen. That's too generic. Margins for screens will never be good. I think Apple will make a run at the remote control and move all of the important TV and DVR functions into the remote and the cloud. The TV screen will just have a connector that talks to the remote control.

Again, the distinction between the "remote" and the "connector" to the TV is irrelevant. They may make a screen so that they can have "first input" access, ie. be the default thing you see when you turn on your TV rather than it being one of several secondary sources of media piped in that you select from. Tech savy people don't care about this but the average persone would rather just buy it, turn it on and it's there. If Apple can provide a better screen and a better experience by selling the screen, they will. They will likely also continue to sell the hockey puck sized AppleTV box that you plug in on your own for people with projectors and other less common sized TVs.

If you really want this future you imagine and want it now you really should go try out an AppleTV paired with an iPod Touch or iPad Mini.

[There is so much wrong with your analysis I don't know where to start. Your argument is essentially that a horse and a car are pretty much the same thing so long as you don't consider the details. For starters, you'd be running down your phone's battery, your couch partner would be asking to use your phone to control the TV while you want to keep their hands off it, and I still want to watch the show while I go to the kitchen and the family is still watching on the big screen. And I want infrared to control the screen sound and power and input, etc. And in real life, if those functions were on my iPad, the iPad would roam off to some kid's bedroom on day one for a game of Angry Birds. Then I'd be the angry one when I want to watch TV. If it isn't a dedicated remote (with extra features) it simply won't stay in the room with the TV. -- Scott]
 
 
Jan 29, 2013
Photon torpedoes like in the Buick. That way I can annihilate the person who keeps turning the channel over to football.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 29, 2013
Anfauglir I think they've tried to make them illegal and failed. With Dish Hopper they're trying again IIRC.
 
 
+11 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 29, 2013
Have you ever tried sitting down in front of a television, and just watching it?
 
 
Jan 29, 2013
@Nasch - at the moment, I can happily say I haven't watched a commercial for years. Since I got my Sky , EVERYTHING we watch is Sky 'd before we see it. Even when we want to watch something "live", we set to record, and estimate total commercial time. Then we watch something else beforehand, with the result that when the live programme ends, we have caught up with the rest of the world without having to see a commercial.

I'm amazed, frankly, that the people spending a fortue on commercials haven't insisted that Sky , TIVO, et al don't make fast-forwarding of commercials impossible.
 
 
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 29, 2013
Am I missing something here? Hasn't Apple TV already been around for 5 years? Agreed, it doesn't have all the functionality Scott is suggesting here, but Scott's talking like this would be brand new product line, whereas it's really just a (large) step improvement in an existing product.
 
 
 
Get the new Dilbert app!
Old Dilbert Blog