Apple exec Tim Cook talks Apple TV, A4 processor, more - Page 4

My 500th post!!!
I'm going to make it something memorable.

Wait. D'Ohhh!!!!!

you win !
you win !!
you win!!
YOU WIN !!!!!

A FREE ZUNE !!!

Remembering of course the MS, Nintendo, and Sony make money off every game sold as well, there is nothing wrong with a loss leader if you make money else where. But is your comment about Apple referring to their failure, the AppleTV?

You pirate because you are a thief. Meaning, it's not them, it's you.
Take responsibility for your own actions. The world does not owe you free movies and music.

And you know ATV is a "failure," how exactly?

I discussed the economics of game consoles in previous post. My point then was, net the costs and revenues (including the sale of games), Xbox has probably been little better than a break-even product over its lifetime.

It should also be noted that Xbox is essentially the only product Microsoft markets other than Windows, Office and their server products that actually make money, and it appears, not very much after the sunk costs. And Xbox is supposed to be a flagship product for Microsoft? If the iPod and the iPhone performed only as well for Apple as Xbox has for Microsoft, then nobody but nobody would be calling them a success.

I hope so. I just got one & love it, but the only thing I believe holding it back is actually shortcomings on Apple's part & not that it's time is not quite ready.

First, they need to do is add the feature into iTunes to rip your existing DVDs (likely they would have to provide some sort of DRM with this feature).

Second, either provide a subscription service to iTunes similar to that of netfilx or blockbuster, or partner with one of those 2 companies to get their services into the AppleTV.

Third, lower the cost of their movies by at least 2 or 3 dollars. I find is especially appalling that they will charge more for an HD movie in 720p/24fps than you can get a blue-ray disc from Amazon!

Fourth, They need to take the AppleTV from 720p/24fps to 1080p/30fps (preferably 60fps) Though practically speaking not many people will want to have a huge honkin 1080p vid taking up all their drive space, specs & capabilities make a big difference when enthusiasts go buying. They'd be surprised I think how many people shy away from the ApppleTV simply because it maxes out at 720p, even when they may not even own a TV capable of more.

Fifth, add some features that set it appart! let it run apps from the apps store, give it iChat & sell an add-on camera! These things would also expand the niche to small businesses looking for a video conferencing solution for their work that would be significantly cheaper than the offerings found from companies like cisco.

Apple needs some new vision, I just don't think they are continuing to think big enough. They are incredible innovators, yet they seem to still be casting visions of 5 years past. The iPad was just a re-realization of the newton.

That is how interpreted it, too.



The hacks are easy as pie and will increase the usability for it. Even allowing Flash and Hulu.


Not likely going to happen. You can always use Handbrake. It's free and works very well.


That would be great, but I'd also like to see other services like Hulu or a direct Apple solution since Netflix has older content.


I don't think that will happen. Besides content owners still being weary of protecting digital downloads the beauty of iTS is the convenience and speed. Waiting for a Blu-ray disc to be shipped when I could be watching it before I get to Amazon's checkout page is pretty compelling. Rarely doesn't content quality beat content convenience with consumers.


I think the A4 in the iPad might be able to push high-profile 1080p. Obviously not on the iPad, but if it were plugged it there would be no reason to underclock the processors to save power. Going with the lightweight iPhone OS as the base of the next AppleTV would work out well, too. Even though the current AppleTV would be faster in CPU in certain ways the efficiency of the OS and power of the GPU should make it appear to be much more powerful while being cheaper to make.

What exactly is apple waiting for? Most Blu-Ray players now have Hulu, Netflix, etc. on thier machines already. Some DVR's have these features as well. The market is THERE, Apple is not.

Only the last point that you made is in Apple's control. The rest are up to content owners. Apple has been rumored to be negotiating with networks to offer not only lower prices but also subscriptions. People's memories are very short indeed. Everyone keeps screaming, "What about Hulu?!" Hulu was created after NBC removed ALL of their content from itunes due to Apple not wanting to increase prices. NBC worked with Fox to form Hulu. Rather than try to partner with Apple, they decided to compete with Apple with an unsustainable business model (free content with low priced online ads). I say that it is unsustainable because Hulu has yet to turn a real profit and has been talking about charging for at least a year now. Plus, Hulu has made it VERY clear that they want their content on computers only and NOT on the television. Also, as far as Netflix, what makes anyone think that content owners would even ALLOW Netflix to partner with Apple? When Apple bought LaLa, the licenses LaLa had for their music was NOT allowed to be transferred to Apple.

Don't even get me started on the music companies who allowed Amazon to sell music without DRM and for less for the sole purpose of trying to harm itunes sales right before they re-negotiated their contracts with Apple. I work in advertising and even I know that content owners are the debil.

Like the music industry's DRM, this might not be Apple's fault. The movie studios held out with the video on the AppleTV which made it a dead duck upon arrival in March 2007, despite being demoed in January 2007 and introduced (an odd thing for Apple to do) in October 2006. They would be smart to wait this time until the deals are inked.

The way I see it is you need to be able to offer live programming to replace cable. I want to watch my hockey games as they happen, others want to see new TV shows when they are released not watch them a day later than their friends with cable, and the service has to be as drop dead easy to use as cable. Completely agree with the channel comment.

I'd change your last sentence to Access any show, not just what the channel decided to put on this week from anywhere you have an internet connection on any compatible device. The potential seems rather limitless.

Because are discussing the article where Cook says it is a hobby still after three years as there is no market for it, thus it is a failure of an item, it could not attract a market, the quoted 6 million is very small, it would be nice to get a correct figure, but Apple doesn't like breaking down their actual unit sales.



You listed most of MS's products... The flagship product for MS would be Windows, and maybe office. I own PS3's, but I would say the XBox is a success, they beat Sony at their own game, if the Apple TV had the sales of the Xbox then maybe the Apple TV would be a success as well.

Ummm, the person you were quoting was making the point that had Apple released a product that lost money for YEARS and finally became profitable, that Apple product would be labeled a failure. The Appletv hasn't lost money for Apple at all as far as anyone knows (loss leaders are not a part of Apple's business model). And since when is 6 million units low when the kindle has sold 3 million and considered a success? 6 million units with zero television or print advertising is pretty darn good to this marketers eyes.

Why compare a ebook reader to a set top box, they are not in the same category, you may as well compare sales of McDonalds hamburgers to Adidas t-shirts.

Considering the technology in an AppleTV is quite old, and based on the price it would be hard not to make a profit on the device. The reason it is a failure is due to the fact they haven't taken the product anywhere, Cook said there isn't a market for it. Maybe if they had advertised it there might have been a market. I have looked at buying one a few times, I just couldn't justify the price they asking for the limited feature set it provided.

That is very true and good point. I probably see if I can find unit sales for other streaming units like Popcorn Hour and Vudu. Thanks!

I still think that 6 million is still a pretty good sales number. I moved back to my BFE hometown in Tennessee from North Carolina and I have run into 3 other AppleTV owners here. They all liked it. Color me shocked!

Where's all that hostility toward Apple TV coming from? Have Trotters Independent Traders sold you two dozens of them in one go..? Has one of them head-shot your best mate gangsta style?

I do agree that "hobby" remark from Apple doesn't look like anything else but their reluctance to admit it didn't succeed as they planned. And I'm sure they planned.

Has ATV exploded the way iPhone did, I just can't envision SJ coming out and saying "Hey, hold your horses people - this is just a hobby, take it easy!". But since it hasn't, meh. It's just a hobby.

To me, it is just as valid as if MS would say "Yeah, well, Zune and Zune HD were just a hobby for us, anyway. We never really planned them to be successful. Windows Mobile 6, too!"

End of the day, I don't really care even if it is unsuccessful product turned hobby or product designed to be a hobby. As long as it gives some joy to its owners, it is OK.

You are kidding right? I have 1.5 Mbps DSL and it is a couple of clicks to buy and check out, 10 seconds if I take my time. I have never bought anything through iTunes but when I click on a HD trailer on my Appletv, it takes 5 minutes before it starts to play. We no longer do HD trailers in our house. For me nothing beats Netflix or Amazon for convenience. Click on a button, wait for disc, plop it in the player, enjoy the show.

Maybe they learnt their lesson from that iPod Hi-Fi thing

We can deduce that what the planned never came to fruition despite their actions.

1) They introduced the product in October 2006, but couldn't do a proper demo it because it wasn't ready. Only got a "sneak peak".
2) It used and internal name, iTV, which he stated and said the final product name was unknown.
3) He said it was "unusual" for Apple.
4) It didn't get demoed until January 2007, getting overshadowed by the iPhone.
5) It was supposed to go on sale in February 2007, but that got pushed to March.
6) They updated the OS and stated that no one has done the living room right.

Why would Apple break its cardinal rule of never introducing a product before it's ready to be seen? They didn't have a bloody name for it! Note that the only thing they did demo was the way to get movies from the iTS. It seems to me that this was to curry favour with the movie studios to show them there was secure and effective way to get digital content into consumers homes, but the studios played hardball and they won.

The "killer app" for the AppleTV would have been the easiest way to rent movies from your TV but with only Disney on board it became a lame duck for the most obvious feature that set it apart from every other media extender appliance on the market. Note that back then the TiVo and game consoles had no consumer friendly media extender capabilities or digital download stores in place.

Video of iTV Sneak Peak

Exactly my point. An obvious double standard is at work here. Apple has to hit a home run with every product or be judged to have failed. Microsoft bunts and everybody cheers. I don't care what "category" a product occupies. If it takes years just to break even, then it probably should not be judged a success, at least in business terms, where success is measured in profits.

Of course it's not designed for people with shitty networks, but you are full of it you think that a 1.5Mbps digital download will take longer than going to Netflix or Amazon to rent or buy a video and then wait for it to get processed and delivered. Apparently you missed the words "shipped" and "convenience".

No one is going to cheer on Michael Phelps competing in the... [edited as it could be offensive]

A bit of a confused combination, it may be essentially true, but it's not at all helpful to the point he was making.

Someone doesn't steal something "because they're a thief". They are classified a thief if they steal something. It's pedantic, but this kind of connection classes someone outside of a real customer base, unnecessarily. It doesn't give any voice to the underlying issue, and it's a mistake I think distributors fall into.

He pirates because he wants to watch something, and there is NO OTHER WAY he can get that content. He does not expect free movies and music - he asks for paid rental content.

Or put another way - he wants to watch something, he looks for a way he can watch it, there is only one option (pirating), so he chooses the only option he can find. This is a pattern the distributors could very easily change.

Personally, with movies I'm happy enough with my options. I can usually find something at the video store, iTunes, or at the movies (though this is hard with a newborn). It's TV shows that I feel we really have no options for, AND I think iTunes overcharges for me watching a show once.

Not if they lower the prices of movies and tv shows for the ipad. imo this will boost appletv sales to the roof.

Also, international content sucks, I am in canada, where the hell are the french Tv shows and french audio on movies please... US store should also provide spanish audio if its not there already. This kind of scares me for the Ipad, will I get french books on the bookstore and french newspaper and mags?!?

They should also put a BR on that thing at price this only a bit more than BR players and rely on itune sales for profit.

So many movies aren't even available on iTunes when available on Netflix or Amazon if available at all. So who really has to wait longer? Is that the "convenience" you are referring to?

If a slower bit rate makes the network shitty, does a slower bit rate (compared with Blu-ray) make the max iTunes video shitty too?

If you have to have it same night, yeah, it falls short. However, selection and features seem to fall very short with the internet movie options. Netflix online has only a few TV shows for rent. Some series have very odd omissions, the first episode of Vicar of Dibley isn't available on Netflix online, seems to defeat the point of offering the rest of the season. Apple doesn't rent any TV shows at all that I've seen, buy only, so a night's marathon would cost a bit of change.

Also, I really don't think it's really that big of a deal to plan ahead and have something waiting when I'm done working, not compared to a dearth of titles for the internet renting options.

I have problems with any of that, they each have their pros and cons. I do have a problem with blanket statements that the AppleTV sucks and the iTS sucks when they clearly have plenty of benefits for many people.


How do you plan ahead for a TV show if you were out the night before and the DVR didn't record it for whatever reason or you don't have a DVR? How do you plan for every eventuality that may occur with your video watching needs? Do you get their Netflix forwarded to your hotels when you're working abroad? There are just too many potential scenarios to say that digital downloads have no viable benefits to anyone.

He just said that a HD preview took 5 minutes to start. That's about right on a 1.5Mbps connection, since the trailer is at just under 5Mbps. Thus it'd take about 7 minutes to download a 2minute trailer... or 5 minutes before it could start playing.

Likewise a 2hr HD film takes 4-5 hours to start on a 1.5Mbps connection. Of course a 2hr SD film only takes about 30mins to start on 1.5Mbps.

Anyway - you're right that that's still quicker than postal.

So three years ago they started making a small profit on the hardware, but there was a big hole to fill.

And what about all the broken consoles replaced during the last threee years?

Wow. Apparently, Tim never leaves alone explaining Cupertino-based hobbies: