or Connect
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 2

post #41 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

Actualy, apple is in a good position with $40bn to sell the box at a loss and still make money off $0.99 TV/movies

I think that apple is undersellong this and will be looking to make money through iAd
post #42 of 196
Let's get this .99 deal under way and get the volume up to prove to the studios that it works. Then the transition to a fixed monthly subscription will be a no brainer, especially with the embedded advertising gambit in play.....

At the same time the server farm will be coming on line in North Carolina with the implied impact of Apple starting its own network to compete with cable and satellite companies... the new dawn is coming and the next six months will shake up the competition to the new realities of such a discount alternative.

Apple being able to go directly to content providers with a viable solution at least one-third to as much as one-half the cost to consumers is a no brainer.... adding another leg to the stool (I'm wondering how many legs will the stool have some day???)
post #43 of 196
I don't own a TV, don't pay for cable and NEVER will. If I had a way to pay for the single show I want, with no BS craptastic advertising, I would. Probably a few times a month, maybe up to $10 or so. That is $120 that the shittard TV execs will never, ever see any other way. So yeah, iTV is aimed right at someone like me. Now I just hope I can pay my $.99 for something worth watching, from say The History Channel. Because the shit on network TV isn't worth 9 cents a show, say anything about 99. Now if I could get streamed shows where the 70% that Apple pays out goes directly to the producers of the show, and totally circumvents the current business model, I would gladly pay even more. But if ANY money is getting back to the networks then a dollar is my limit.

For what it is worth, when I watch "TV" now it is picking up a season long DVD from the library. Executive Idiots likely don't get it, so it will be interesting to see how many teeth Steve can actually get pulled from these morons.

Gordon
post #44 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

SJ has it right. Gotta break down the subsidized set-top box model. Get the studios on board with subscription plans. And do something about local sports. Then, it's bye-bye cable. Unfortunately for people (like me) in cities like Philadelphia, Comcast owns the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers, and the TV networks which air most of their games. That's a tough nut to crack.

Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.

I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
post #45 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoloszynski View Post

I think that apple is undersellong this and will be looking to make money through iAd

Although it us unlikely that you read all of my comments on this thread, I said in response to someone else that by selling iTV at a loss an therefore cheaper more will be sold and there will be more consumers to have money 'made off of' through Apps, Media content and of course iAds- which coincidently would co-inside with the international debut of iAd
post #46 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteric View Post

It failed because they put their full weight behind it and few people were interested.

The only thing to infer from your comment is that if they didnt put their full weight behind it it would have been successful. DOES NOT COMPUTE


Think back to the first time Apple introduced the AppleTV as iTV back in 2006. They did a preview demo, something they dont do. They demoed it with an internal name without having settled on the final name. Something they dont do. They then demoed it again in 2007 before the epoch-making iPhone demo. Something that in retrospect was a foolish move as two new product category announcements arent typically good for business. Then, as I recall, they promised a Feb release which was pushed back to March. This last one is to show how incomplete it was when they first demoed in back in October(?) 2006.

So why such an odd past with this device? My hypothesis has to do with the content owners. They did the preview demo for them, not the consumer. They did it to so they had a secure way to get their content to the living room via the internet. Apple lost this battle as it took way too long to finally ink the deal and word back in the day was Apple had to bend over to get it. This is what hurt the AppleTV, not the device itself.

Its still the best UI for a media extender Ive used. Prior to the AppleTV I bought (and returned) many. They all sucked. Sure, they offered more codec supports but they were a mess to setup and were very poor at streaming any content despite what the white paper specs stated. The AppleTV was the first media axtender appliance that actually worked well. Its too bad that they didnt get the content owners on board.

Since its debut a lot has changed on this front from HW to services. Many consoles we already own are doing things the AppleTV was doing back in 2007. Now Apple has the movie studios on board. Now they need a different reason for you to buy the device. I think apps are that reason, complemented by the best UI for an home theater appliance.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

Actualy, apple is in a good position with $40bn to sell the box at a loss and still make money off $0.99 TV/movies

Apple needs to take no such risk since you personally guaranteed its success.
post #48 of 196
I would be willing to cut the cord, but no way on the kiddos, not paying 99 cents for a cartoon. They tend to be way more random on the cable use than the adults here.
post #49 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.

I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.

It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.

I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.

The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.

However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.

If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.
post #50 of 196
I'm very please to see that Steve Jobs does indeed "get it". My previous post at the announcement, I made the statement that he didn't get it. Seems like the writer of the article (not AppleInsider) didn't get it. Mr. Jobs' statement that it was more of a hobby is in-line with what he's said about it before and what it actually is (and will be). I still wish that Apple would produce a product to be in direct competition with Windows Media Center. I like my Media Center, but Apple could do it so much better - if they would. But I suppose Steve knows what he's doing by not getting into that arena. He always has been a forward thinker, producing for the future and not for today.
post #51 of 196
I know that most people that own Apple TV have it hooked up to the living room entertainment system, but I would love to have the new "iTV" in my bedroom. I have an older 32" Sony Bravia LCD in there without any HD media attached to it. It is connected to basic cable and it is displayed in SD format because the TV does not have an HD tuner built in for cable use. I would love to have a very small device like an iTV for the bedroom. Especially, if it could stream other media that is located on my mac mini in the living room. It may not do it natively, but if Plex made an app that allowed it to stream on the iTV, that would be incredible. Eye TV already lets me do it to my iPhone.

I have burned a lot of my DVD library onto the Mac Mini and It would be so convenient to just watch it in the bedroom without having to get out of bed and go get the disc to play in the bedroom dvd player.

I also would hope that Apple would have a way to use a current iDevice to act as a remote control for the iTV. Since multi touch is not possible on a tv, the iDevice would be able to handle the touch aspect. Maybe even allow for motion sensing for game use. How cool would that be for people to have? What about Facetime? You could use your iPhone4 or next generation iPod camera and watch the other party on the TV screen.

Heck, now I want 2 of them so I can have it in the living room as well. Shoot, I guess my title is wrong after all.
post #52 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.

I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.

'live feed' is the biggest obstacle. Although most content can time shift, the perfect world is to see a 'tweet[push notification]' at the bottom of your current iTV/pad/pod/phone saying 'breaking developments in afghanistan from your favorite news source,' and you then 'tap' to watch.

Eventually Fox/CNN/NPR will be craving to 'push notification to watch me NOW,' as we become more and more mobile, and the little pipes become bigger and bigger. To integrate that into the 'big pipe' in the living room, makes for a compelling 'content hub model' with iAd for the content monetization stream (people who stare at their TV all day aren't great purchasers... but people who have an iPad and iTV are in a consumer demographic)


But I agree, Cable's lock on sports controls the minds of most of the people who spend $$ on 1080p wall units. SO ESPN would be a good place to start as well....


I do think that the camel's nose under the tent is the ability to get 'oprah' at 5:15pm on your iPad for the commute home, walk in, and iRemote your iTV to pick it up where you left off at the bus station. All for $.99 an episode. The fact that iTV drives your life to a 'content' hub (streaming ITMS) that feeds your need, will cause the critical mass to make 40 .99 shows a month (2 a day), to a $40/month revenue stream, and cause upsell for desktop Macs, iPad 2,3,4,5, and iPod Touches for those with little pockets. The hub sells the HW.

Couple this with games, Facetime (iTV with HDinput), it becomes a compelling 'content interaction model'
post #53 of 196
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.

The DVR business is not really profitable as Steve Jobs said - The cost of getting it from your cable provider is too cheap. Look at Tivo and see how they are doing in this business - not very well. The cost of the hardware compared from a cable company lease (which Apple is unlikely to get) is drastic. And the cable cos are not very open to competing on a level playing field with anybody else.
post #54 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post

I know that most people that own Apple TV have it hooked up to the living room entertainment system, but I would love to have the new "iTV" in my bedroom. I have an older 32" Sony Bravia LCD in there without any HD media attached to it. It is connected to basic cable and it is displayed in SD format because the TV does not have an HD tuner built in for cable use. I would love to have a very small device like an iTV for the bedroom. Especially, if it could stream other media that is located on my mac mini in the living room. It may not do it natively, but if Plex made an app that allowed it to stream on the iTV, that would be incredible. Eye TV already lets me do it to my iPhone.

methinks SJ believes the iPad is the perfect bedroom content viewer.
post #55 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.

I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.

The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.

However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.

If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.


I think the MLB deal was what got me thinking about the NFL stuff I wrote about. The MLB pricing is reasonable. That said, I was pretty irritated that the Phillies Nationals game was blacked out in Charlotte NC as a local market - with DC almost 400 miles away !!
post #56 of 196
I was thinking about this today - what if Apple partnered with Hulu like they did one the iphone/ipad for Hulu+ through an APP. Unlimited viewing of entire seasons of hit shows for only $9.99 a month. If you only watch a season of one show it pays for itself, plus you can watch on the go. This would get me to buy in a heartbeat.
post #57 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by walshbj View Post

Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.

I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.

I agree. There is nothing that had given FOX more legitimacy than when they got NFC football in the 90s. It also killed NBC to lose the AFC and those ramifications are still felt today.

I'm beginning to believe that the only way for Apple to get what they want is to make deals such as this and to buy up at least one of the big networks. They have more than enough money.
post #58 of 196
If they cant come up with channels they could still package shows per season like they are doing right now and come up with an even lower price than 99c per episodes. Imagine they sell you a currently running 20 episodes season for 14.99. Not too bad afterall.
post #59 of 196
Posted twice. Check below
post #60 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

I'm beginning to believe that the only way for Apple to get what they want is to make deals such as this and to buy up at least one of the big networks. They have more than enough money.

They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.
post #61 of 196
Great shot off the bow of Google, he diminishes the value of all of their set top boxes in 1 swipe..
post #62 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter02l View Post

Apple needs to take no such risk since you personally guaranteed its success.

Is that sarcasm? Of not, I did not think I needed to mention the would need cable companies backing them with local sport/news etc
post #63 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post

I was thinking about this today - what if Apple partnered with Hulu like they did one the iphone/ipad for Hulu+ through an APP. Unlimited viewing of entire seasons of hit shows for only $9.99 a month. If you only watch a season of one show it pays for itself, plus you can watch on the go. This would get me to buy in a heartbeat.

They didn't partr with Hulu. They just accepted the hulu app into the App Store. Hulu is owned by the big networks. You can't deal with Hulu without dealing with them because Hulu is merely a middleman.

As of now the networks have rejected any subscription services. A few years ago NBC wanted to offer packages, but from I understand, they wanted to offer a couple of hit shows along with crap.
post #64 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

...There is nothing that had given FOX more legitimacy than when they got NFC football in the 90s. It also killed NBC to lose the AFC and those ramifications are still felt today....

Couldn't agree more.
post #65 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.

Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.
post #66 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by pegarm View Post

I think the biggest drawback to the streaming set top model is the delay between the live broadcast and the availability online. Right now, the world is switching from watching "what's on" to "what's available." Typicially the availability of a program is 12-24 hours after its air date. Imagine if you could rent a TV show at the same time it airs for broadcast.

Now THAT would make people give up their cable!

Not necessarily. It depends upon whether one "watches TV" or watches particular shows. For those who watch very little TV and choose what they want to watch, a pay on demand model could work. For those who watch a lot of TV, they might feel more comfortable with the fixed monthly price they get from cable, even though it currently doesn't lend itself to being able to download the programs to remote devices.

Also, most shows are available for free 24 hours after broadcast. I've usually watched shows like Lost and Lie To Me online, a day after broadcast and for free, although with (limited) commercials. I believe there are stats that show that the average American consumer watches five hours of TV a day. That number has always sounded high to me, but assuming it's accurate (and let's just count weekdays), that's about 110 hours a month. Let's assume that half the shows are half-hour shows and half are hour shows and they all cost $1 each. That would cost $165 a month, which is far higher than most people's cable bills.

So if Jobs can't convince the program owners to participate in a subscription plan and he can't get control of cable set-top boxes, this is never going to be able to be a major success, IMO. In addition, you're never going to have simultaneous availablity with broadcast unless the downloadable versions include commercials that you can't skip, and the trade unions archaic stand on how they want to be paid for online commercials is preventing most shows from adding spots to digital downloads (at least ones with live actors). Because of that, networks and program owners can't replace their broadcast revenue streams with downloads at 99 cents and as such, they are not going to give up their exclusivity, even if it is only 24 hours these days.
post #67 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masteric View Post

The first one flopped and it became a "hobby" item for Apple. Now that the refresh is coming out, Apple continues to say this is a "hobby" item. That way they explain the lackluster sales. They call it a hobby because that allows them to say that they didn't put their full weight behind it and that is why it failed.

It failed because they put their full weight behind it and few people were interested.

Apple hasn't said anything. They don't even acknowledge that the product exists.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #68 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

The DVR business is not really profitable as Steve Jobs said - The cost of getting it from your cable provider is too cheap. Look at Tivo and see how they are doing in this business - not very well. The cost of the hardware compared from a cable company lease (which Apple is unlikely to get) is drastic. And the cable cos are not very open to competing on a level playing field with anybody else.

DVR will die and streaming (vid on demand) will be the big winner. The question will be is Cable+VoD to one point, vs Itunes and content to you wherever you are (start on an iPhone/Pad, move to an ITV when you walk in the house), is the big deal you really can't 'easily' get your cable company to help you build. Again, to make this valuable to Apple, the model has to be 'just works' for a person who doesn't know 'root' from 'boot' from 'galoot.' (the point click drool crowd).

Look for NFL/NBA/MLB.com to monetize game feeds this way, as it fits into Apple's distribution model. If apple gets 30% of a $2.99 cost to play the game, they'd be happy... Let the sports franchisee pipe the feed to Apple's NC facility, which streams and stores it realtime, manages the sale of the product on their storefront.... all will be quite happy. Add in iAd revenue and 'push notifications' to get say, free updates from other games (click on the pop-up, view the highlight, and click return to watch the game in question.

Heck for baseball, just the fact I can lose all the commercials... I'd love to watch a game starting 40 minutes after game start, and be done at the same time the game finishes, compressing out the commercials, being replaced by iAds at the bottom, or click throughs.

home DVR will be done not at the iTV, but at the mac desktop in the Apple Model (like burning CDs). That way the 'Express written consent of the NFL' is out of Apple's hands and on the individuals.
post #69 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

They could start buying speciality channels like Disney, HBO or ESPN and show the way indeed.

From what I understand Disney already owns ABC and ESPN which was the network I was thinking of. I even heard that ABC was on the selling block a few months ago. But those are just whispers. They own a lot of cable channels which is also interesting.

I would love for them to get HBO but it's owned by Time Warner which is a cable company. This is the reason why I think Apple should purchase a network. The cable companies have been playing hardball by buying networks and sports properties.
post #70 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post

Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.

Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?
post #71 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

They didn't partr with Hulu. They just accepted the hulu app into the App Store. Hulu is owned by the big networks. You can't deal with Hulu without dealing with them because Hulu is merely a middleman.

As of now the networks have rejected any subscription services. A few years ago NBC wanted to offer packages, but from I understand, they wanted to offer a couple of hit shows along with crap.

While it wasn't technically a partnership, it was promoted by apple. All they need to do is convince Hulu to write another app for the iTV, and promote it heavily during the unveiling. All the major shows are already on there. Instant problem solver.
post #72 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Its easy to have a successful product when you sell it at a loss.

So you say.... and you know this information how. Blowing it out your rear.
post #73 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?

The majority shareholder which makes even more sense for Apple to buy.
post #74 of 196
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. The commenters here are a good example of the viral nature of the Internet in general: they took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

And besides, they're having Jobs talk about a supposed Apple product that hasn't even been announced--it too is total conjecture! Bloomsberg is only guessing that this will happen, they too have no idea of Apple's plans.

So you have a bunch of people here assuming that all of this is fact, when none of it is, it's a complete house of cards!
post #75 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by roontoon View Post

So you say.... and you know this information how. Blowing it out your rear.

I know this because Ive used my brain. If Apple starts selling every Mac for 99ยข do you think they would be selling more or less then they are now? Do you think they would make more or less money from Mac sales?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #76 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?

HE only owns something like 7% and that's all due to Pixar. First Disney would never sell its own network, so that's off the table. ESPN and ABC are cash cows and cornerstones of their entire business strategy. It'd be like asking Jobs to sell his software branch. The movies are shown on TV, sports and ESPN are integrated into the parks. At this point its about a total experience.
post #77 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post

Disney owns ABC and ESPN (and a ton of other channels too) They'd never sell. Fox is too tied into NewsCorp. Didn't GE just sell NBC? Maybe CBS - the only holdout in all these rumors.

CBS is now owned by the CBS Corporation, a successor to Viacom and a conglomerate in their own right that partly owns Paramount Pictures.

Anyway it doesn't matter. The stations themselves are just middlemen in many respects. NBC for example airs both "30 Rock" and "Chuck". 30 Rock is completely produced in-house; NBC developed and produces the show. They sign a deal with the producers of the show (Tina Fey) to work under contract for NBC, and NBC owns the distribution rights. But Chuck for example is developed & produced by a production company (College Hill Pictures & Warner Brothers TV). NBC signed a contract with WB to produce the TV show and give NBC the exclusive first-broadcast rights. However WB/College Hill own the distribution rights, and therefore can control if the show ends up on iTunes or not. Even ESPN is a middleman of sorts; the NCAA, NFL, etc. own the distribution rights to their content.

This is how some Fox shows like House are on iTunes (because it's produced by NBC, not Fox) and others do not.

Apple would have to buy production companies and studios, not just the broadcast TV outlets.
post #78 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post

While it wasn't technically a partnership, it was promoted by apple. All they need to do is convince Hulu to write another app for the iTV, and promote it heavily during the unveiling. All the major shows are already on there. Instant problem solver.

I would like to see it but there are issues. Hulu already has blocked Boxee. Some believe it because of the Apple TV and some believe it had to do with ad revenue and site hits. Since 3/4 networks are insetting in Hulu, one has to wonder if they'll allow this to happen if it could possibly mean a loss of TV ad revenue. Not to mention the fees they're collecting from cable companies.
post #79 of 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?

Because whilst he's a significant shareholder, he doesn't have a controlling stake. I think he has about 6-7%, which is less than the two biggest institutional holders combined, so basically if the big fund holders (who own pretty much everything!) didn't want to sell, there's not a lot one man could do about it.
post #80 of 196
ABC already makes an iPad app and doesn't that already allow you to watch some programs? Not to mention up to date news stories. So that is already one network that seems to be willing to cooperate. In fact, they did it despite HULU's objection because ABC is providing some shows for free that you need to pay for on the Hulu subscription.

I wonder if there will be a 3rd App section in iTunes. One just for apps designed for the proposed iTV. Or would it be able to share iPad apps. Hmmm, the possibilities if you could also use a bluetooth keyboard. Shoot, you could do some minor work on it if you could use some iWork apps for the iTV. I already have a bluetooth keyboard so that could be pretty neat.

Or, maybe the mousepad could be another input device. That would really be a great way to do gestures on the iTV. Better yet, make it with an accelerometer/gyro and things really get interesting for games.
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