Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit - Page 3

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe it's not going to be an instant hit, but I tell you I would buy one of these things and buy shows a-la-carte in a heartbeat if there is a reasonable selection of shows.

I hate the cable company. I hate spending top dollar to get 500 channels when I only want 5 or so, but they're spread across five different "packages" each of which costs $10 or more on top of a $40+ "basic" fee.

The day it looks like I can ditch the cable company and still get the things I really want I will be gone. Moreover, I'm likely to invest in something like Apple TV on top of cable to help fund the shift. I haven't done it yet because the value was too low for the investment, but it has always been *close*.

I fear that if this model works it's the death of Tivo, and I really like my Tivos, but I won't cry about anything that lets me dump the cable TV bill.

Not necessarily. The big 4 networks essentially control what gets put on the air and own most of the production companies. A company like ABC already owns production companies. Apple could also buy independent production companies.

The thing is, I doubt iTV is gonna be able to do NFL or MLB. I also doubt that it would have CNN or Bloomberg. That said you can of course get the apps, but that I feel is still not as good of an experience as the TV channels themselves.

Getting movies to stream does not replace the whole TV. I mean I can already watch many shows on Hulu, but if I need to see the bears play it's back to Comcast.

If apple could work out a deal and push their box out with comcast being able to supply some content, while apple could supply the "On Demand movies, music, games etc. I think it would be a deal breaker.

In fact if you look at Google TV's approach: They teamed up with Direct TV I believe to become their cable (satellite?) box. In affect you can watch and search regular live TV, but also branch out of that to other sources on the internet (youtube and even hulu I believe) to get content that way. IF such a box is rented just like a regular box I think Google might have an upper hand.

All this said I am still very excited to see people trying to rework the current TV arrangement, as it has been stale and monopolized by Comcast (cable) for way too long.

Same here. Just a wall plug with ethernet, usb and an HDMI port. Its just for streaming. But I also I think the current AppleTV will get revamped too.

I think you may have confused him with the use of the word "successful." Buying market share has to result in an endgame in which money is made, otherwise the strategy hasn't been successful by any meaningful definition. In any case, I don't know that Apple has ever engaged in a loss-leader strategy, and I wouldn't expect them to start now.

Yeah, the problem is that the studios just don't need to do anything avant-garde. The old model works just fine for them.

But there are already TVs that are internet-connected through wi-fi n and that run apps. Even Vizio has one, with a row of icons on the bottom edge of the screen that you can scroll back and forth between and click on to launch the app. (Facebook, browsing, etc.)

And, in terms of quantity and quality of apps and ease-of-purchase, Apple's App Store is by far the leader. That's why the next Apple TV needs to run iOS - to gain access to the App Store. And not just for games.

Less. Mad Men is offered a few hours after it airs.

Actually, I think most people can tell the difference, given a large screen (>40 inches). 480 or 720 just seems a bit blurry, compared to 1080, unless you have a small screen. I agree that to have AppleTV limited to less than 1080 would be a non-starter for me. Does providing 1080p really run the price of the hardware up that much? Is Apple limiting this for some reason other than cost?

Exactly! The owner of the "pipe" is always in a position to win.

AppleTV faces two other huge hurdles:

- they can't offer live events like sports, breaking news, etc.
- cable costs about $1/day while iTunes wants that much for a half hour show.

1)Apple TV be renamed iTV-- NO
2) iOS apps -- Yes
3) 99$ -- Yes
4) 99 cent shows -- Yes
5) Instant hit -- NO

With Google's "Google TV" coming at years end. I don't think anyone will be canceling their cable provider anytime soon. Given the amazing features that Google TV will be bringing to the living room TV watching experience. Having full access to the web on top of our regular cable provider will allow us to search our cable providers TV guide and the web at the same time. Oh and Flash is a big deal as well. Job's needs to get with the times and consider that people don't want to pay for free content just because he sells a device that's locked down that limits what you can do with it.

For those with kids like me, cable is the better deal. At 99 cents per show we'd be paying through the nose for the iTunes service. I'll hang-out with Comcast till I can buy the channels I want and not all the fluff on a subscription basis (a.k.a: a la carte).

Apple has the cash and the ability to make some strategically important acquisitions, but they apparently don't see the value in perpetuating the current cable model.

The future is in delivering content straight from the producer to the consumer, with apps acting as the channels.

I wouldn't be surprised if we got something akin to an Airport Express with an HDMI output

I will laugh my arse off when it either does not come out, or comes out for $149 and has major limitations like lack of 1080p, and only some content providers support 99 cent rentals. All this hype is funny.

Channel surfing and watching new things without thinking about paying for it is relaxing. TV watching is supposed to chill you out. I don't want to think about making a purchase everytime I want to maybe watch a show. Maybe the new iTV has a solution for that, or will offer one in the form of apps. Maybe all these companies forced to make boxes to deliver iptv will just head toward the iTV and make life easier for themselves and focus on the content which is most improtant.

iTV needs to attract all different kinds of media execs to it. It'll probably start with content owners, then move on to distributors. I don't know how iOS is going to work off of a touch screen device, but it's a hot commodity and if it can show them a better way, and apps will be a big part of that, then it's got a lot of slow burn potential, and might eventually be a big success.

Yes, amazing! They'll be able to track your TV habits just like they track your online and mobile habits, while, at the same time, bombard you with annoying ads. It'll be almost like having your very own telescreen in your home! I can't wait!

I can only assume there are numerous patents that prevent them from doing this without paying an exorbitant licensing fee.

Formula 1 and service pricing are the sticking points for me personally. I'm not a big fan of traditional ball-and-stick sports, but I agree they are a bigger issue overall.

I'm currently a Dish Network subscriber, and am quite happy with the quality of service and their DVR, but pay about twice what it's worth. Unfortunately, the alternatives (Comcast and FIOS) cost about the same, and don't have any clear advantages for me.

Everything else we watch (and care about) is currently available via Netflix (which we are already paying for) or iTunes, for a lot less money. F1 is the main thing keeping me from switching now. Unfortunately, money is an issue these days, and I figure that I spend about $11 per hour to watch F1 - more than seeing a movie in a theater! I've already agreed to drop the dish at the end of the F1 season, get an OTA antenna (no DVR), and use Netflix/iTunes for a few months. If we find that we are getting along just fine, I may simply have to do without F1 in the spring...

I am hopeful (but not holding my breath) that the AppleTV can fill in the gap. My thoughts:

• Support streaming but also the current download-then-watch method. internet bandwith isn't always adequate for a high-quality picture. If I plan to watch something, I'd rather have it downlaoded at full quality ahead of time than hope I've got bandwidth. It's OK my me it it needs to run via a computer for storage to do this.
• Support IR remote controls, with directional-key based UI. I would prefer it to have full media control function with just my Harmony remote.
• Also support an Airport express remote speaker mode. I'd like to listen to music without the TV on, using my iPhone as a remote.

The rumor is that it will only do 720p and most people won't care. I wouldn't be surprised if not all shows were available for $0.99 either. Those factors and a $149 price tag would do little to dampen the hype about this device. The major factor is really the potential that iOS would bring to Apple TV.

That makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of that since most of us think "set top box" means a box that sits near the TV set. The main detractor from going this route would be that Apple likely wouldn't be able to do any interesting things with an audience facing camera built into the box - as some would like. It certainly would be neat for FaceTime and other video conferencing solutions. But other Natal-esque applications of using an audience facing camera are probably too much for the hardware Apple will deliver anytime soon in this type of device.

-Blurp

I agree with much of what you said. The networks are not going to ink a deal with Apple right now if they are going to lose money, and they will because the installed base would be small compared to cable.

However, I do not think the paradigm shift, as you call it, is inevitable. In the other thread, you raised issues of local content, which are critical.

More importantly though is what happens with the "unconnected" the "computerless" and people with poor service. For better or worse, most Americans consider TV a necessity, not a luxury, and if TV switches to streamed service, a VERY large proportion of the population will be disenfranchised. Then there are the technical issues that inevitably arise - is Granny really going to call Apple service and is a Genius Bar person going to go out to Granny's house to fix the issue.

If nothing else, the bandwidth demands have to be much greater. One of the dirty little secrets of the cable industry is image compression. They are already conserving limited bandwidth by compressing some broadcasts more than others.

For me the problem is simple: closed ecosystem. For this to work it needs to be like the iOS: extensible with third party apps and channels. Until I can choose between options such as iTunes store, Netflix, Blockbuster and pure web based streams, then solutions like XBMC and Plex will still be more appealing, despite the need for better hardware.

See, I'm the same way about baseball, but fortunately the MLB At Bat app is a very worthwhile purchase as it has many added features that the regular TV doesn't have. I think there is a huge market for highly functional dedicated sports league apps like MLB. So far they appear to be the only one. We need good apps for all the major sports. That would overcome one of the most noted shortcomings of Internet based TV - Live broadcasts.

And yet there's series that have whole season-spanning arcs that don't become apparent until midway through, which make much better sense when watched as the whole story they are. "Episodic" TV is giving way to longer stories. There's shows I thought were just ok when watched weekly but once I sat down and watched the boxed set of DVDs I thought they were fantastic.

I also agree with this one. This is something I've talked about numerous times but I had not thought about making it exclusive. That might be a good idea with Dish. Then again, I have Dish so I really like the idea But imagine the program guide in an Apple interface. Imagine watching TV and seeing a little email notification pop-up (if you have enabled in your settings) and then being able to quickly go to your email app and view and reply to emails like you can on your iPad. Then imagine being able to browse the App Store on your big screen. Done with the TV, go to your iTunes and listen to music or watch movies you've purchased. The thing would be sweet! :

I don't know what you do with your Apple TV, but mine almost never needs rebooting. I do have the server scheduled to start up and shutdown periodically, but the Apple Tv itself doesn't have a power button for a reason.

Yes, once you see uncompressed OTA HD you really notice the difference on cable. Plus I get a lot of frozen frames and giant green blocks of digital garbage whenever I watch high demand programming like local major league sports. I actually asked for and received a refund for the NBA play offs when the program became completely unwatchable on cable last season due to massive pixelation.

officially, cablevision no longer owns the msg et al. that doesn't mean that they have severed all their ties (family).

I think some of this is due to compression but the freezing and blocking you describe is probably more due to signal dropouts. What I've noticed in baseball games in particular is pixelation, particularly in large black areas, as such as night sky. 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.

you can talk about 16gb this, and bluetooth that. none of that matters. it's the content. if the content isn't there it really doesn't matter what the technical specs of the box are or how cheap the rentals are.

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 problem with that is it would need to have non-line-of-sight (NLOS) remote, as opposed to the current setup utilizing line-of-sight (LOS) infrared (IR). Do we have Bluetooth protocols and chips that are adequate for this use?

Of course it can handle the bandwidth but we have we made it to a point that short-range omnidirectional radio waves can go from being in-use to not0in-use as quickly and with such a lower power draw? My Jawbone 2 takes a few seconds to pair even when after it comes in range.

Then there is interference issues. What kind of distances can we get compared to line-of-sight remotes? How would the electromagnetic waves from all the other equipment and power cables affect the TV in a wall plug, that is likely hidden behind some other objects.

If Apple can pull it off, great, but I have doubts at this point.

PS: Personally, Id really likely to rid of the separate TV remote and all these different device sensors altogether. Meaning, id like to utilize the data streams on all these digital cables and have the TVs IR sensor tie into with whatever digitally connected device is current being used. This would mean the TV could be the only physical media center device that I see and everything else would be controlled through it. But we need open protocols for this and financially sound reasons for vendors to support this so this means itll remain in the land of make-believe for now.



Thats the rub. When does the scale tip? Weve seen this be huge issue with something much less drastic; the switch from analog to digital and that didnt involve the networks in any way. I dont see them letting go of the cable companies for a long time. There is just too much money on that end and even Apple cant negotiate that well.




In his defense I should have qualified my use of the word success to refer specifically with marketshare success, even though that should have been evident in the scope of my reply to the OP.

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.

Although I can't say this often ... I find myself agreeing with you almost 100% on this post.

The one area I would see as something to watch with interest is iOS apps. Personally, I see this as almost the equivalent of "a Trojan horse".

By having the ability to run all iOS apps on the living room TV, I would think this would bring the device closer yet to "a dedicated game box". Obviously, game quality won't be equal... yet, but given the amount of game apps being developed by indies ... and now will be available to TV sets everywhere, as well as iPads and iPhones .... it's an even more attractive OS to develop for. I can see more and more "pro" developers (for want of a better word) setting their sights on iOS. Obviously, scalability will have to be addressed.

If that happens, and I think it will, AppleTV or whatever it winds up being called, will have an increased value to the consumer and maybe, just maybe, will take it from the hobby stage to something more important to Apple.

Lastly, increasing the "installed base" for iOS gives Apple more leverage in dealing with the content providers .... and that has to be "a good thing" and is vital in bringing the "big boys" to the table in a meaningful way.