Production of Apple television expected to begin in May/June for late 2012 launch

124»

Comments

  • sierrajeffsierrajeff Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


    That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.



    [...] Album tracks get to the heart and soul of who a band really are and what their music is all about.



    There is a whole generation of kids growing up listening to shitty compressed music, cherry picking their songs from the "hits" and listening to it all on crappy headphones or crappy iPod speakers. It's all wrong IMHO.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    One could make the argument that recording artists have to be more focused on producing more hits instead of sliding 10 filler songs into a 12 song album because of the Ã* la carte model. You want to sell more music... then make more good music.



    I think there are good arguments on both sides. Works such as Pink Floyd's "The Wall", The Who's "Tommy", or the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper" are either meant to be listened to as an entire album, or are (almost unarguably) better when listened to in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked.



    But that said, recording libraries are full of albums where track after track were added just to fill space on the flip-side of the disc.



    So I think that the iTunes music model helps small bands, new artists and one-hit wonders. And it probably helps expose people to particularly good tracks of genres that'd otherwise go unnoticed. (For instance, I'd never have bought an "Arabic trance" album or CD in the old days, but I have discovered a few individual tracks that I've liked and purchased via iTunes.) However, the iTunes model greatly *decreases* the likelihood of a Pink Floyd or The Who coming out with a ground-breaking concept album.
  • sierrajeffsierrajeff Posts: 366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post


    Which will only work if/when the content carriers decide to put their content inside the walled garden. And I'm not just talking about Fox/CBS/NBC/ABC. I'm talking about CNN, TBS, Food Network and the holy grail of cable TV, ESPN.



    Agreed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post


    Rest assured, in order to get this content, Apple will have to pay. And not just a flat rate. NBC and CBS and Fox will do what they have done for years to the cable cos--they will tell Apple that if they want ESPN, they will need to pay for ABC Family. If you want USA, the most watched cable channel, you'll need to buy SciFy. And so on.



    As long as I can cherry-pick what I buy (the idea of network-specific "apps" that I could purchase and then watch programs from), I don't care how many also-ran cable networks they shove on Apple. In fact, the more the merrier.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post


    Also just an afterthought--but how many people have good enough home network that they can get HD quality streaming TV, 24 hours a day?



    We've been using nothing but our AppleTV2 for 8 months now, and the only issues have been Netflix's server or Comcast's service - not the concept of streaming overall.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post


    Oh, and where do people that kind of high bandwidth from? Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon FiOS, AT&T Uvers?the same companies that also offer TV service.



    Which is why the cable companies *and* the wireless companies are both going to become bandwidth companies, not content providers. You'll watch programs on your ATVn, iPad, iPhone, PC, whatever, and the content will come through wireless, wifi, and/or a cable/fibre running to your house.
  • elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    No.



    But AppleTV in 2013? Virtually certain.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woodlink View Post


    Virtually uncertain.



    Literally uncertain.
  • ljocampoljocampo Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    This makes no sense at all given the recent AppleTV update unless they are going to make the current AppleTV hot-pluggable into the new TV (unlikely at best).



    The only sensible way to read this year's AppleTV update is as a sort of stop-gap product until the new TV is ready for production. It's the most "not really necessary" product update in a long while and really only appeals to new buyers.



    That's assuming everyone can or want to buy an Apple HDTV. It's more likely the Apple TV will sell nicely along with an Apple HDTV. I doubt ATV3 is a stop-gap product at all for reasons I just said. And it definitely IMO will not be needed to plug into an Apple HDTV. That's not Apple's style. All the ATV3 functionality will be onboard any Apple television.
  • prof. peabodyprof. peabody Posts: 2,860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    That's assuming everyone can or want to buy an Apple HDTV. It's more likely the Apple TV will sell nicely along with an Apple HDTV. I doubt ATV3 is a stop-gap product at all for reasons I just said. And it definitely IMO will not be needed to plug into an Apple HDTV. That's not Apple's style. All the ATV3 functionality will be onboard any Apple television.



    What do you call it though? And why would anyone buy an Apple TV that had a screen for thousands of dollars when you could buy the box and attach it to your TV for less than a hundred?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,859member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post


    That's not an improvement as far as I'm concerned. It just leads to more cherry picking, fewer quality albums and ultimately worse music.



    Yes, because shows on television are better because you're forced to pay for them just to get the shows you want to see…
  • larryalarrya Posts: 349member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    I agree that people saying the next iPhone will necessarily be called simply "iPhone" or "the new iPhone" don't really have any evidence to base that belief on.



    On the other hand, while Apple has been using numbers for most iPhone releases so far, the numbers rarely if ever correspond to the version of the phone, so even if they continue with numbers no one can really say what the next number or letter combination will be.



    Out of all the possibilities however, iPhone 5 is probably the most unlikely choice of all and no one with any real knowledge of the industry would use it, so the original criticism is still apt.



    Really? This again? Apple doesn't target "people in the industry". It's a name, not a processor version, not an OS version, and not a generation. It will either be nothing at all, or 5.
  • shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    One could make the argument that recording artists have to be more focused on producing more hits instead of sliding 10 filler songs into a 12 song album because of the Ã* la carte model. You want to sell more music... then make more good music.



    I know what you're saying but doesn't that just lead to a "more of the same" type mentality where the record companies demand that their artists produce similar songs over and over again. There's no incentive to be creative or original. Bands in the past would have maybe 3 hits on one album and the rest would be a more diverse collection of their work. I often prefer the songs that were not hits and you usually find a few real gems in there.



    I do agree that many modern artists, especially of the teen pop variety, simply pad out their hits with rubbish basically to fill up an album. But again if I listen to an artistÂ?s album and hear that 90% of what they do is crap I'm simply not going to follow that artist anymore. I might still listen to their hits on the radio but those artists always run out of steam eventually once the hits start drying up. I still continue to buy albums from bands that haven't had a hit in many years but continue to produce albums, many of which are better than their earlier hit albums.



    For me cherry picking is about reducing music to a basic common denominator - is it catchy, is it popular, is it instant. If those artists are reduced to selling a few tracks many times over there really is little or no incentive for them to grow as artists, to experiment, to try new things on their albums, see what works and what doesn't. It deeply saddens me to see how for many people now music is little more than background noise rather than a lasting pleasure.
  • shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Yes, because shows on television are better because you're forced to pay for them just to get the shows you want to see?



    Can't say that I've ever been forced to pay for anything on TV. I don't subscribe to cable TV and I'm sure that means I miss out on a few good shows I would otherwise watch. Does it materally affect my life? No not really. If there is nothing I want to watch I just switch the TV off and do something else.
  • ljocampoljocampo Posts: 657member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    What do you call it though? And why would anyone buy an Apple TV that had a screen for thousands of dollars when you could buy the box and attach it to your TV for less than a hundred?



    I'd call it... Apple Television. and... Wow I needed a TV set so I bought an Apple television and it came with all this stuff built-in. Gee I didn't even need to buy any cables.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,338member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post


    I'd call it... Apple Television. and... Wow I needed a TV set so I bought an Apple television and it came with all this stuff built-in. Gee I didn't even need to buy any cables.



    So you would happily pay more for a tv just to save $4 on a cable?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,859member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    So you would happily pay more for a tv just to save $4 on a cable?



    Four dollars? You're being ripped off.



    This, among many other points, is an example of why I don't think they'll be making a TV either.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,338member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Four dollars? You're being ripped off.



    This, among many other points, is an example of why I don't think they'll be making a TV either.



    Monoprice wanted a photocopy of my Visa and something else before they would ship internationally, meanwhile they charged my Visa while waiting on it, meaning it cost me money in currency fees when I cancelled the order. They are not a company I would want to deal with.



    But yes, you Americans are lucky with places selling things at that price.
Sign In or Register to comment.