AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit - Page 4

post #121 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:16pm
i have an apple tv and it's a decent movie rental box; however we've got into the bad habit of buying tv shows we miss. it's stupid, most shows are rerun on cable a few days later or eventually and buying tv shows is a waste of money. i bought a few tv season dvd boxsets - true blood season 1 and 2 , john adams, and band of brothers. i watched them once; good, but i will most likely never watch them again. this is true for most movies too. renting is the way to go but even renting shows at 99 cents will rack up fast. i just don't see apple tv being able to replace cable / satellite programming. the cable companies own the pipe into most homes. of course if they bought direct tv, i guess then i'd have to eat my words.

more crucially for the time being, apple tv will struggle to get market share in the movie rental business with netflix, amazon, sony and more! in fact i'm thinking of trying out netflix. i wanted to rent wolverine and it is suddenly not available to rent on itunes anymore as it was a month ago? this is happened many times... itunes / apple just hasn't solidified all the programming/ movie deals that amazon and netflix have - this is a bigger deal than the actual specs of the next apple tv box. i hear a lot of people on here and around the tech blogs gripe about lack of 1080p - i say how many films (or any tv) warrant watching in 1080p anyway?! avatar, the matrix, yeah but what about dodge ball or date night? does anyone need to watch a romantic comedy in 1080p?!

i'm going to say it again, just combine apple tv and time capsule into 1 box and work on getting the best deals with all the major and minor film companies. in the meantime, i'll still rent movies from apple tv but i'm going to try out netflix, maybe amazon if i can hack it in to my apple tv...
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:18pm
I would be interested in buying a product like this and subscribing to TV content... but if there really is no support for 1080p, I will not buy it.
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinoza2 View Post

If you look at this report carefully, you'll notice that S Jobs hasn't been quoted as saying anything about Apple TV, aside from what he said last June. Bloomberg--and AppleInsider--are simply using "creative" journalism to put words into Jobs mouth.

Good observation, that seems to be the case. There is no indication as to whether or not Apple has reached a new agreement with the networks over pricing nor if they view the market differently now.

The very fact they are redesigning it and changing the price shows they have a new strategy. I would agree with what's implied that it's unlikely to be a huge revolutionary hit but I still think it's a great step in the right direction and will at the very least make for a great TV accessory.

With web access, it has the potential to be the ultimate video on demand service and $99 is pretty inexpensive. Combine it with Apple's UI and being able to stream a variety of formats from a PC, it should make some sort of dent on the WDTV style market.

Having web access is what can give it a leg up against TV content. I think if it complies with the rumours, this little box will be at least a lot more popular than its predecessor.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:21pm
Why not just sell the iTV to the cable company? Comcast, Verizon, or whoever already give out junky set-top boxes that they bought from manufacturers; why not give out a quality one from Apple?

"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #125 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post

Why not just sell the iTV to the cable company? Comcast, Verizon, or whoever already give out junky set-top boxes that they bought from manufacturers; why not give out a quality one from Apple?

"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."

Google is probably already in meetings promising to copy whatever iTV is only months after iTV's release and sell them cheaper. Their's will be open source and able to be infected but will gather all the viewing data and send it to Google so they can target specific ads to each household.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #126 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

The more iOS devices there are "out there" the more money apple and developers can make off of apps, content, and iAds

Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.

Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.
Imaginariums - Immersive Environments Design & Production
Reply
Imaginariums - Immersive Environments Design & Production
Reply
post #127 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku View Post

Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.

Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.

iAds, I thought, were interactive, so I am unsure if they would be useful in a TV environment. Unless of course iTV makes TV viewing an interactive experience!
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #128 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Well, if SJ would add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV/iTV as some of us have been waiting years and years for, perhaps he'd sell a lot more of them. As it is, I'm recording my shows on a Windows 7 Media Center that needs rebooting every few days because it's so unstable. I'd punt it out the door in a heartbeat if Apple offered an off-the-shelf DVR solution. But Steve is being stubborn Steve and still won't provide what the customers want.

Who is being more stubborn here? Elgato has been offering EyeTV for many years which is a high quality, flexible DVR solution for the Mac. If Apple doesn't sell it, you won't buy it?
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:44pm
Admittedly I am not on the trailing edge of technophilia - perhaps not on the bleeding edge either - but I do have an iPhone 4 and a Mac Mini connected to my big screen already - so if I could stream content via the Mac Mini and iTunes - perhaps I would- I also have Netflix.

Cutting the cable - as it were - in my case would involve losing not only cable TV - but also PVR/DVR - as well as VoIP home phone and internet service - DSL sucks monkey balls in my area - and FIOS is not here yet - so I still need high speed internet connection - and I might be able to get by without home phone if AT&T reception was more solidly reliable where I live - and the way the cable co works - if I cut one of the three services I have then the others get more expensive as it is no longer a "bundle" - if I could cut down to just internet - then maybe it would save $ - but I might have to increase my cell phone plan and then pay for TV content - so would I really come out ahead?
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Well, there is an app for that, although, not really the same as watching the actual race. I usually watch it on Speed, too (Except when they inconveniently move it to Fox in the middle of the season for several races. Much better when it broadcasts early in the morning or the middle of the night when I don't have other things to do. Who needs sleep?), but I'd guess you can find a streaming video source you could access.

The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross! ) as well.

I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.

BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!

As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I agree, losing money isn't in SJ's DNA. By leveraging a product they already make in a new way with an OS they own and running a chip they make, Apple do have certain cost advantages over most. I suspect he is downplaying this after the wild claims on certain blogs. This is one product Apple can let grow over time.

Probably should go without saying, but it's difficult to take this hearsay report as Steve lowering expectation about an unannounced and entirely rumored product.

I agree with you on Apple's technology leveraging ability, though. Apple is in a remarkable position to build on their hardware and software expertise. But they still have to choose their targets carefully. Taking a lesson from Napoleon, they have to avoid the temptation of invading Russia.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #132 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

I'm wondering why they don't look to partner with one of the content providers and effectively make the set-top box for them. Dish Network would seem to be a useful company to work with, since they have relatively low market share, I would have thought that given the right deal, partnering with Apple to provide the system would draw users to their service. I would certainly consider switching away from Comcast to a service that has a well done Apple interface.

Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbmcavoy View Post

The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross! ) as well.

I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.

BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!

As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...

I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!

What they need is a solution whereby you can watch all the video on your iPad whenever you want, and have it sync with the other stuff they have. The MLB at Bat app is a good example of where I think they should be aiming.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 200
8/25/10 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.

I understand that, but it makes me wonder why exactly they need direct access to the content provider? As long as they can get the content onto their device, I would have thought that a big benefit to them, since it would make the device more attractive so they sell more of them, and it would allow them to make money off the supplementary stuff they sell, such as movies etc.

It all becomes irrelevant if they can strike a deal with all the content providers directly, so all the content is available on the device through Apple themselves, but I just find it hard to see how they can pull that off, at least in the near term.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The question of 720 vs 1080 is a minimal issue when the images are already being compressed to the point where artifacts are showing up in the images. Based on what I've seen, I'd rather have uncompressed 720p than compressed 1080p.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.

There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.

There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.

I know what you mean. To be honest, if the content is good enough, I don't find I even need 720. A truly great film draws you in with the story, such that the quality of the picture is less important. I feel the same way about the current determination to make movies 3D. TO me it feels like a gimmick to mask deficiencies in the plot.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!

Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)

But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Assuming any of this crap is true, why would Steve Jobs replace a hobby device with yet another device he deems won't be a big hit? How in the world does that add up to anything other than a bored Bloomberg writer short-selling his Apple stock owned by distant family member?

This guy needs to change the bearings on his Magic 8-Ball, and return to his ongoing Magic the Gathering game with his roommates.

This has very little, if anything to do with TV - its primarily a move to stop people moving to Android. Having an iOS device for your TV means that people can feel comfortable buying iPhone apps and iPad apps and getting their TV versions too. If people start buying Android apps for their TV and there is no iOS alternative, then that is going to pull people towards Android phones as well.

The biggest barrier to switching between Android and iOS (in either direction) is a person's investment in apps for that platform.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)

But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.

I don't know about the local SIM card thing - I'll have to check it out.

You are so right about the Speed TV coverage ending up delayed making it even worse. The ridiculous thing is listening to Steve Matchett and Bob Varsha (who I normally really like) bang on about how amazing the app was when it came out, without realising that their channel make it shite!
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:16pm
A lot of postings have stated that if the device is not 1080p, then they would not purchase the new device. My question is, what would the difference in bandwidth be between 720p and 1080p? I bet most internet providers' speeds would not be able to handle to 1080p bandwidth very well. If a lot of people all of a sudden started gobbling 16gb or more per movie, I get the feeling that internet providers would start implementing the caps that they were threatening us with recently. I believe the 720p movie would be a perfect compromise, but something tells me that internet rates, especially from cable companies will start to climb as cable services start to pull back. I have already canceled 2 of the premium services, keeping only HBO, as True Blood is something I watch weekly.

If True Blood were available soon after the broadcast date on iTunes, then I would cancel HBO altogether and buy/rent it a la carte.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

While observing Apple for 32 years, I have never seen them offer any product at a loss... just not in their DNA.

.

One word: Newton.
They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.

As another person has pointed out, they wouldn't need access to the content provider if they are aligned with Dish or whoever. What they could do is use the ATV to notice when you've missed a recording and if it's available in iTunes, provide you the link to rent or buy it. That would be pretty cool.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #143 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

One word: Newton.
They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.

Yeah but they weren't trying to sell each unit at under manufacturing cost. It lost money because they failed to recoup the development and setup costs. And it failed to do that because it was shit.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

One word: Newton.
They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.

They should bring back the newton.
Same case as that MessagePad [OMG iPhone has MessagePad in it's dictionary as a correction from messagepad] not the clamshell eMate but the candybar style but with new internals and capacitive screen-with color newton OS- and imagine the guts you could fit inside one of those monsters now!

/I doubt it would sell but tbh i wound get one.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post

A lot of postings have stated that if the device is not 1080p, then they would not purchase the new device. My question is, what would the difference in bandwidth be between 720p and 1080p?

You can broadcast 1080p at the same bitrate as 720p but you are more likely to get compression artifacts in high motion scenes. I generally find 4Mbps to be an acceptable minimum for 720p and 8Mbps for 1080p. 1080p has just over 2x the pixels of 720p so those bitrates should suffice.

iTunes uses 4Mbps currently and that falls within the FCC definition of what a broadband connection is.

The Zune network (XBox Live video) broadcasts 1080p at 3Mbps.

The choice on bitrate depends on your quality bar. Microsoft's as we all know is pretty low and I think Apple make the right choice to go with 720p for a 4Mbps stream.

The Playstation store uses 8Mbps 1080p, which is great but businesses have to think about scalability. It's best to start out smaller to determine the market and load and ramp up if they can sustain it than to start with 1080p and find they can't, then have to downgrade the service and have people return the device as it wasn't what was advertised.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

The Apple TV failed because it was too locked down. With iOS I think it'll be a huge hit with the apps. But that doesn't mean it will "change" TV.

There may be a few great apps that give people a reason to get an iTV, but I don't think it will be "huge" numbers. I still think Apple needs to follow the iPod business model:

1. Make a simple device that allows you to listen to the music you already own.
2. Sell lots of them to build up a critical mass.
3. Tell the music execs, "look we have all these devices in consuer's hands, how about we sell them some content?"

But since Apple is now the 800 lb gorilla, they really need to build up a huge number of devices (#2) to make #3 an attractive enough proposition to get the tv/movie execs to get over their fears of working with Apple. The problem is that Apple is trying to skip #1, go straight to #3, and hope that #2 follows on it's own.

Apple needs to give people a reason to buy that is familiar...watching the content they already own. Assuming we'll never see a blu-ray player in an Apple device, we are talking about being able to play the DVDs we already own. Ideally, this would be by ripping; but it's unlikely the movie industry would ever formally endorse that. So we are really talking about including a DVD player. Sure, some of you will consider that "dead" technology. But it's the carrot that would allow the iTV to be a Trojan Horse. It would help immensely in justifying the purchase, and once it's in the homes, people can try out the other features including buying content from Apple.

But first they have to get the box in your living room. Even if that means for the near-term putting up with people watching movies they already own (gasp!).
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.

There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.

The premium for 1080p sets is negligible now, but the point is taken. Lots of people are perfectly happy watching distorted or clipped SD content on their HDTV sets, thinking I guess that if the picture is bigger that it must be better. Not that the broadcasters and the content producers aren't equally to blame. They are still pumping out clipped, distorted, letter-boxed and pillar-boxed content. Pixel count is the least of the problems with so-called HDTV -- the entire "standard" is a disaster. If Apple ventures into this swamp, they'd better be wearing stainless steel hip-waders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

Yeah but they weren't trying to sell each unit at under manufacturing cost. It lost money because they failed to recoup the development and setup costs. And it failed to do that because it was shit.

It failed because it was ahead of its time. The product was actually very good.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #148 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by djg View Post

This has very little, if anything to do with TV - its primarily a move to stop people moving to Android. Having an iOS device for your TV means that people can feel comfortable buying iPhone apps and iPad apps and getting their TV versions too. If people start buying Android apps for their TV and there is no iOS alternative, then that is going to pull people towards Android phones as well.

The biggest barrier to switching between Android and iOS (in either direction) is a person's investment in apps for that platform.

I am not sure the barrier is the cost of apps for most people. The average price of an iPhone app is about $2 IIRC. How many apps do most people buy?
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Probably should go without saying, but it's difficult to take this hearsay report as Steve lowering expectation about an unannounced and entirely rumored product.

I agree with you on Apple's technology leveraging ability, though. Apple is in a remarkable position to build on their hardware and software expertise. But they still have to choose their targets carefully. Taking a lesson from Napoleon, they have to avoid the temptation of invading Russia.

You probably just started one hell of a rumor ...
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #150 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:59pm
You know one of the nicer matches production company wise is the Discovery Channel. Of course they are $10B.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 200
8/25/10 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stompy View Post

Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.

There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.

This is why research shows many glossy brochures are taken after a purchase ... people like to have material to convince themselves they did the right thing.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #152 of 200
8/25/10 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

You probably just started one hell of a rumor ...

Just remember where you heard it first.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #153 of 200
8/25/10 at 2:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

One word: Newton.
They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.

Can we scratch Apple history when SJ wasn't there? A certain someone should have stayed selling sugar water!
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #154 of 200
8/25/10 at 2:38pm
This is probably the future of television but it wont happen overnight nor over a few years. This is one industry in which Apple has to go for market share in order to succeed. They will never get agreements with studios, networks, and sports organizations without a ready audience in the 10s of millions. Another problem is most households have multiple TVs. Do we need a box for every set? If I'm watching a live event and my son wants to play a game then what? This is so much different than an ipod and itunes. Music is a more personal activity whereas watching TV can be a family event. Its going to be hard to compete with Netflix. Even if they already have an app, so many people are already watching movies thru their PS3s, XBOXs and the Wii. The TV business model had been around for a VERY long time and has made a lot of people very rich. This is one case where even Apple doesn't have enough money and/or fans to change an industry.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #155 of 200
8/25/10 at 2:45pm
Quote:
"Even with the refresh, Jobs isn't convinced the new version will be a mainstream hit, says the person familiar with Apple's plans," Burrows wrote. "Most consumers aren't ready to cut the cord on their cable company, or put up with the tech-nastics required to stream content from the iTunes collection on their PC to their living room big-screen TV.

"In other words, it's a product that at best will delight some of the 'hobbyists' that have always been interested in the product."

He added: "My sense is that Apple doesn't want to overplay its hand, by making too much of this mobile TV opportunity. This isn't another 'revolution' in the making. Even if Apple wanted to try that, studios have all but nullified the possibility by refusing to let Apple sell subscriptions to your favorite shows, to be watched whenever and as many times as you like."


In fewer words: The iTV is a product without a market or content.

And I agree with previous remarks:

Quote:
No 1080p = no buy
I would be interested in buying a product like this and subscribing to TV content... but if there really is no support for 1080p, I will not buy it.


With a cable company, you get a 1080i TV signal which the cable company set top box upgrades to 1080p images. If the Apple iTV set top box cannot do the same, it doesn't stand a chance in the market place. Consumers bought expensive LCD TVs for the quality and depth of 1080p images. They won't go back to mediocre quality, cheap, smaller 720p images just to please Apple.


Reply
Reply
post #156 of 200
8/25/10 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post


Consumers bought expensive LCD TVs for the quality and depth of 1080p images. They won't go back to mediocre quality, cheap, smaller 720p images just to please Apple.

You're painting all consumers with a broad brush.

I, for one, did not buy an expensive LCD TV just for the reasons you mentioned. My main reason was to be able to see it from my couch, which by necessity is 15+ feet away from my TV. Sure, I like the clarity of the HD channels now and then, but I'm perfectly OK with a lower resolution image on my favorite weekly TV shows.

I'll pay the measly $99 so that I can toss an extra 99 cents when push comes to shove.


Thompson
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 200
8/25/10 at 3:52pm
Steve Jobs is right, this new Apple TV will not be mainstream yet.

It will only be one of the building blocks in the right direction, by changing the platform to iOS/ARM/iApps, and lowering the entry price to $99. TV show rentals is a good thing, but not a game changer.

It will only go mainstream when Apple TV can really embrace 3 big industries:

1. Cable TV;
2. Gaming;
3. Telecommunications.

To challenge Cable TV, iTunes needs to offer On Demand Ad supported TV, TV subscriptions and Live Sports Streaming.

To challenge Game consoles, Apple TV needs more power from the ARM/GPU chips than currently available, and also needs to support games that play on Apple TV's big screen, but use as inputs the iPhones/iPad and iPod touches accelerometers, gyroscopes and touchscreens. Game center and support for multiplayer gaming are an integral part of these building blocks.

To take some market from the Telecommunications industry, Apple TV needs to offer Facetime conferencing, with multiple simultaneous users.

As we are observing, Steve is putting in place the required building blocks for Apple TV, and competition is just trying to stop pieces of it, instead of building an equivalent ecosystem. When they realize what Apple has done, they will be too far behind, just as Apple did with the iPod (MP3 player), iPhone (smartphone) and the iPad (tablet), markets that existed before Apple, but no one had a really successful product before.

Steve has already conceived the whole ecosystem, he is just putting it in place piece by piece.

Until then, Apple TV will look just like a Hobby, but someday it will become lethal to competitors.

There are certainly other new products in Apple's radar, like an iOS device for the car and an iOS based interactive table/surface (Apple's version of MS Surface).

But the market for these two products is still immature, because the ecosystem is not ready for them yet, needing some other building blocks before Apple's intentions become clear.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 200
8/25/10 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iStevo View Post

Steve Jobs is right, this new Apple TV will not be mainstream yet.

It will only be one of the building blocks in the right direction, by changing the platform to iOS/ARM/iApps, and lowering the entry price to $99. TV show rentals is a good thing, but not a game changer.

It will only go mainstream when Apple TV can really embrace 3 big industries:

1. Cable TV;
2. Gaming;
3. Telecommunications.

To challenge Cable TV, iTunes needs to offer On Demand Ad supported TV, TV subscriptions and Live Sports Streaming.

To challenge Game consoles, Apple TV needs more power from the ARM/GPU chips than currently available, and also needs to support games that play on Apple TV's big screen, but use as inputs the iPhones/iPad and iPod touches accelerometers, gyroscopes and touchscreens. Game center and support for multiplayer gaming are an integral part of these building blocks.

To take some market from the Telecommunications industry, Apple TV needs to offer Facetime conferencing, with multiple simultaneous users.

As we are observing, Steve is putting in place the required building blocks for Apple TV, and competition is just trying to stop pieces of it, instead of building an equivalent ecosystem. When they realize what Apple has done, they will be too far behind, just as Apple did with the iPod (MP3 player), iPhone (smartphone) and the iPad (tablet), markets that existed before Apple, but no one had a really successful product before.

Steve has already conceived the whole ecosystem, he is just putting it in place piece by piece.

Until then, Apple TV will look just like a Hobby, but someday it will become lethal to competitors.

There are certainly other new products in Apple's radar, like an iOS device for the car and an iOS based interactive table/surface (Apple's version of MS Surface).

But the market for these two products is still immature, because the ecosystem is not ready for them yet, needing some other building blocks before Apple's intentions become clear.

We shall see if MS can pull it off and they may be late, but they are doing the same. Windows Phone 7, has complete office integration, Exchange/Enterprise, Zune Marketplace for buying music, movies, and TV, and the major hook they are selling is direct integration with XBox Live for gaming. Then they have media center. So it should be an interesting couple of years.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 200
8/25/10 at 5:44pm
dupe post
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #160 of 200
8/25/10 at 5:48pm
Okay here's my (latest) spin on this whole concept....

1080p I WANT IT TOO!!!

That being said... I've got a question to all those who are screaming the same song.

Q: Who streams 1080p movies over the internet?

- iTunes (nope)
- Netflix (nope)
- Hulu (lol.. nope)
- Hulu+ (still lol nope)
- Amazon (nope)

Anyone I'm forgetting?

SO what content are YOU going to have that IS 1080p?

- Bitorrent ... 'rentals'
- Ripped Blu-ray movies? (still very much illegal in the US ... luckily for me I've formed my own 2/3 acre country that refuses to recognize the DMCA)

Anything else I'm forgetting?

So yea... I really DO want 1080p (likely for the same reasons as you) but given the points I've made above do you see any justification for offering it from Apples point of view?
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit