or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple television announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple television announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months

post #1 of 85
Thread Starter 
Apple is likely to provide developers with a head-start to create software for its new television before it becomes available for consumers to purchase, according to a new analysis.

Brian White with Topeka Capital Markets noted on Tuesday that the first iPhone was announced in January of 2007 but didn't launch until June of that year. Similarly, the first iPad was unveiled in January of 2010, but didn't hit the market until April.

Since the initial versions of both the iPhone and iPad, new hardware launches one to two weeks after it is unveiled. But with the first version, Apple gave itself months of time between the announcement of the product and its arrival on the market.

In his note to investors, White said he expects the Apple television announcement to precede the launch of the final product by as few as two months, and as much as six months. He told investors to "keep in mind" that Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference is only two weeks away, but did not provide any indication that he thinks an Apple television will be announced at WWDC 2012.

White's note was issued in response to a report from out of the Far East on Monday that claimed production of the first Apple television prototypes has begun. The Chinese news website Sina reported that an Apple television is in the "trial production stage" at Foxconn, Apple's overseas manufacturing partner.

HDTV


The report added that the full-fledged television set features an aluminum casing, iOS, Siri voice controls, and a forward-facing camera for FaceTime video chat. That report offered no date on a potential launch, only stating that it was rumored to debut later this year, but could arrive as late as 2014.

White said if Apple could capture 2 percent of the LCD TV market, it would represent $10 billion in sales for the company. He sees that adding between $1.50 and $2.00 in earnings per share for Apple.

White also noted that China is the largest LCD TV market in the world, with over 20 percent global market share. Apple does not currently sell its Apple TV set-top box in China, which means Apple could be preparing to enter a new market.

Topeka Capital Markets has a 12- month price target of $1,111.00 for AAPL stock. The firm has maintained its "buy" rating for investors.
post #2 of 85

Won't it be hilarious when this thing comes with the current Apple TV's interface?

And then Apple's left to wonder just why it's not selling and why the few people who do buy it hate it so much.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #3 of 85

Is this news? Some analyst says some vague BS about nothing?

post #4 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Won't it be hilarious when this thing comes with the current Apple TV's interface?

And then Apple's left to wonder just why it's not selling and why the few people who do buy it hate it so much.

 

Are you just being a jerk? Why exactly would that be funny?

 

 

The Apple TV has an interface specifically designed for iTunes content, with a few other content apps on the side. Given Apple's history of being better than any other company at designing interfaces functionally appropriate for the devices they're intended to run on, I'd have to wager they will design a new interface for a TV set.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #5 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Won't it be hilarious when this thing comes with the current Apple TV's interface?

And then Apple's left to wonder just why it's not selling and why the few people who do buy it hate it so much.

 

Yeah, hilarious In a "pigs might fly" kinda way. I.e. never gonna happen.

post #6 of 85

Someone still needs to answer me what content I will get on this Apple HDTV that will not be provided to me on my current 3rd generation Apple TV. And the true videophiles care more about picture quality than whatever brand sells the TV. No new content deals, specifically subscriptions = flop.

post #7 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post
Wrong, I own two Apple TVs and they are awesome.

 

Yes! What you can do with them is pretty dang awesome. How you do it isn't. The last UI was better than the current one, and it was terrible.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post
Are you just being a jerk? Why exactly would that be funny?

 

Because the idea of selling a television is a terrible idea. If you're going to fail, at least fail catastrophically.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattBookAir View Post

Yeah, hilarious In a "pigs might fly" kinda way. I.e. never gonna happen.

 

What isn't, the port of the Apple TV interface or the HDTV entirely? :placeholder_for_broken_wink_emoticon:

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #8 of 85

I love my Apple TV, I have 2 of them. But I never use the user interface, I find it too clunky. 

 

What I use it for is AirPlay - Mirroring from iPads is wonderful, my wife uses it all the time, and playing YouTube from the app is the simplest navigation ever. 

post #9 of 85

Dagamer34 NAILED it! Content is king.

I already have a nice 55" Samsung that's only 3 years old. As big an Apple whore as I am, a sexy new case won't seal the deal for me.

I really like my new AppleTV, but am frustrated at the general lack of content right now. That would all change if I woke up one day to find a new AMC icon on the home screen, along with the ability to subscribe to this upcoming last season of Breaking Bad...

post #10 of 85
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
post #11 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.

 

Apple had record consecutive quarters through the entire recession.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 5/29/12 at 11:19am

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #12 of 85

The assumption behind the article is that the primary unique-selling-point of the iTV is 3rd party apps.

 

This assumption is, I think, completely wrong.

 

I strongly suspect that the iTV will be a platform for selling (channel-based) TV content. Not iOS applications.

 

Like any new platform, there will be hard work needed to get this off the ground. But in this case that hard work won't be about getting developers on board.  The hard work will be agreeing deals with content vendors.

 

C.

post #13 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Won't it be hilarious when this thing comes with the current Apple TV's interface?
 

 

Agreed. I was seriously disappointed with the UI when I bought my first AppleTV a few weeks back.  Specifically:

- Getting content from the iMac is segregated and basically doesn't seem to show up without fiddling each time.

- I can't customize the interface to only show content I'm interested in. - For example, I've no idea what MLB is but I don't care.

- Finding YouTube videos takes forever due to lame typing method - BT Keyboard?, iOS interface app or the Remote should have had a scroll wheel (as per iPods). 

 

Clearly it got the same UI guy that thought the puck was a clever idea.  

post #14 of 85

I have to quickly scroll past all the articles about TVs because I cannot stand to look at that Hugh Laurie image any longer. Besides that is certainly not what the hardware will look like anyway. In some ways I actually liked the old style forum better before Kasper's automated slave bothered to post the images.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #15 of 85

1) Apple doesn't need to prepare developers for the release of a TV.  They need to open the API and that is all.  We already have a device that can run iOS apps on our TVs.

 

2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV.  Regardless of whether they are for the current AppleTV or some new hardware.  Unleash the power of the developer just like they have on the iPhone and iPad (and iPod)

 

3) The apps are going to be AMAZING.  So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.

 

4) Apple will shape the market in a way that FORCES the unholy marriage between studios/content/distribution to adapt.  You're not going to win the battle today by holding off on releasing a TV until you can pry content away from the current distribution model.  It will never happen unless there is a "disruptive" change in the market.  Apple needs to create that change.

 

This is similar to the correct decision Apple made in not supporting flash.  The world is now a better place for it (even though we still have a long way to go).

 

 

Back to the original point though… Apple can do this today once the API is ready.  They don't need to prepare developers for the release of an actual TV.  Just the presence of the API is going to get the flying into action.

post #16 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post

Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.

Just because Europe cannot get it's self in order when it comes to spending and debt; does not mean the rest of the world should not enjoy new products.

post #17 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The assumption behind the article is that the primary unique-selling-point of the iTV is 3rd party apps.

 

This assumption is, I think, completely wrong.

 

Some Apps which exist for iOS that would make the AppleTV useful:

 

- BBC iPlayer

- 4OD

- itvPlayer

- Catchup TV

- Crackle

- LoveFilm

et cetra...

 

All third party apps that could (I assume) easily be ported to iOS for TV.  

post #18 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I have to quickly scroll past all the articles about TVs because I cannot stand to look at that Hugh Laurie image any longer. 

 

hugh1.png

post #19 of 85
We asked around our office if any would consider buying a TV with a camera in it.
Almost all hated the idea and some were frightened of the idea citing privacy concerns.

A TV capable of monitoring your movement and turning on - and being remotely accessable is reason for concern. Regardless of if they advertise it as potential home security - i dont think consumers want a product cabable of watching them.

I will be surprised if it comes with a camera. Even more so if it incorporates the camera capable of viewing through the screen (we saw a patent for that a few uears ago).
post #20 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobringer View Post

2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV.

 

It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.

 

Which brings me to my next point:

 

3) The apps are going to be AMAZING.  So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.

 

100% agreed. 

 

"… but you just said no apps…" 

 

That's right. There will be Channels. But before that, there will be the mini-widgets that come on the device. Access to YouTube, Vimeo, et. al. Access to Netflix and the like. 

 

And then we get to the content. Channels.

 

It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.

 

Apple TV development will be for "applications" created by the content owners. Meaning the show owners. Each show gets its own icon, group them in folders, go about it how you will.

 

So we'll have a nice Weather (name on the Springboard) Channel (name of 'app') put out by The Weather Channel that cuts out the middle man of time. See what you want WHEN you want. You're not forced to wait for the radar screen to cycle back around as elevator music plays; you can go right to it immediately.

Same with sports channels, et. al. 

 

But the agreements to which Apple will come is the important part. For the first time, consumers will have control over the content they see, not providers. Finally the content we see will be dictated by more than the inaccurate whims of 25,000 households.

 

There is NO point to the device otherwise. Any Apple TV that does not completely reinvent the way television content is pushed to people is a "hobby" device and will remain as such until that time.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #21 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

hugh1.png

 

Hugh Laurie is English (born Oxford, UK in 1959), not Australian. 

post #22 of 85

but in defense the picture with the pathetic caption was posted by someone who claimed they had to fast forward articles because they were so sick of a picture of Hugh... never mind

post #23 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post

Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.

 

Europe...  Stable?!!!...

 

Now's as good of time as any for a Europe launch.

/

/

/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #24 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobringer View Post

1) Apple doesn't need to prepare developers for the release of a TV.  They need to open the API and that is all.  We already have a device that can run iOS apps on our TVs.

2) Developers are going to be all over this once they can write iOS apps for the TV.  Regardless of whether they are for the current AppleTV or some new hardware.  Unleash the power of the developer just like they have on the iPhone and iPad (and iPod)

3) The apps are going to be AMAZING.  So compelling that content creators won't be able to ignore this new distribution method they have been handed.

4) Apple will shape the market in a way that FORCES the unholy marriage between studios/content/distribution to adapt.  You're not going to win the battle today by holding off on releasing a TV until you can pry content away from the current distribution model.  It will never happen unless there is a "disruptive" change in the market.  Apple needs to create that change.

This is similar to the correct decision Apple made in not supporting flash.  The world is now a better place for it (even though we still have a long way to go).


Back to the original point though… Apple can do this today once the API is ready.  They don't need to prepare developers for the release of an actual TV.  Just the presence of the API is going to get the flying into action.

There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #25 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

The assumption behind the article is that the primary unique-selling-point of the iTV is 3rd party apps.

 

I don't read it to say that.  I read the analyst to say that with iPhone and iPad, Apple gave some announced warning to allow developers to scale and test their apps for the new device and that Apple will likely do the same with an iTV.

 

That's a lot different than saying Apple will pre-announce the iTV because Apple is going to position apps as the killer feature.

post #26 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Are you just being a jerk? Why exactly would that be funny?


The Apple TV has an interface specifically designed for iTunes content, with a few other content apps on the side. Given Apple's history of being better than any other company at designing interfaces functionally appropriate for the devices they're intended to run on, I'd have to wager they will design a new interface for a TV set.

How about the UI of my cable box that I use 99.9% of the time? How's a Apple TV set going to address that?
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #27 of 85

Well there goes my "clever" contribution for the day.   :(

 

;)

post #28 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post

Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.

Fail.

 

The iPad was introduced when the most of the world was still in a recession. The iPhone was introduced one year before global financial markets imploded.

post #29 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtotes View Post

 

Some Apps which exist for iOS that would make the AppleTV useful:

 

- BBC iPlayer

- 4OD

- itvPlayer

- Catchup TV

- Crackle

- LoveFilm

et cetra...

 

All third party apps that could (I assume) easily be ported to iOS for TV.  

Imagine a TV where each channel had its own take on a user interface.

 

It's a nightmare scenario.  Utterly confusing for the end user - the digital equivalent of having a coffee table with ten different remote controls. 

Yuck!

 

Now imagine a single elegant browsable hierarchy - user configured, easy to navigate - with each channel playing live content in thumbnails. 

And when we click on a channel it is playing instantly. Not firing up some iOS application that then has to negotiate with a remote server.

 

That's what I want. Not a mess of apps.  

 

If content providers want to augment the channel content with additional interactive apps, that's fine, but as a primary content delivery interface, the apps model would be a big step backwards.


Edited by Carniphage - 5/29/12 at 12:59pm
post #30 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

It's a TV. There won't be apps. There's no need for apps. There's no point to apps. No one better give me crap about how "I would have said this in 2007", because this is an entirely different use case and I know what I'm talking about. There's also no point to a TV. My entire argument comes at this from the box angle.

 

It's insane to think that Apple would make the Apple TV a platform for development for anyone who can pay $99. That's complete nonsense. That's what the iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch are for. AirPlay content to the Apple TV from them.

 

The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV.  That would drive prices up tho'

 

As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV. 

 

Bluetooth controllers would be a welcome addition to the iOS API...once provided that makes the aTV a credible console, even the current single core A5 one.  At much reduced cost than requiring all participants have an iPad, iPhone or iPot Touch.

post #31 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
The point to apps on an aTV is games...although I'd use a A5X instead of the single core A5 in the current gen aTV.  That would drive prices up tho'

 

As cool as airplay is you're pretty much wasting the power of the A5 in the aTV.

 

AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.

 

The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #32 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is likely to provide developers with a head-start to create software for its new television before it becomes available for consumers to purchase, according to a new analysis.

 

TV announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months?

 

Then it will be 2-6 months before never.

post #33 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Fail.

The iPad was introduced when the most of the world was still in a recession. The iPhone was introduced one year before global financial markets imploded.

But regardless of the economy any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad. EPIC FAIL on you.
Edited by dasanman69 - 5/29/12 at 1:41pm
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #34 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

 




Wrong, I own two Apple TVs and they are awesome.

Same here, couldn't agree more.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
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
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
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 #35 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.

The TV business is quite broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. The fact that TV shows aren't widely torrented surprises me. (By widely torrented, I mean I could find the two shows I want to see that way without much hassle.) It will come for a number of simple reasons: The 2/3 content to commercial ratio of modern TV results in too much wasted time; 1000 channels of crap is still just a lot of crap; the "channel" mindset has been broken for nearly a decade with the DVR.

Basically, the trend will be to eliminate middlemen. If the university conferences bypass the NCAA for TV rights, what is to keep them from ultimately bypassing the TV stations for direct access to the viewers? Eliminating the artificial scarcity of the broadcasters necessitates fundamental change in approach.

Skil's comment about channels is about as far off as I can imagine. That is effectively what they have today with the AppleTV, and it is a mess. Shows are grossly over priced on iTunes, and it just takes a little to break the existing cartel arrangement. Once a 1-hour (ok, 40 minute) TV show without ads goes for $0.99 and everything is available, market forces will take over.
post #36 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad.

You say that... but....

 

The idea would be to create a publishing platform which works for the content owners. 

 

These owners have always had options about how to best monetize their content.

The iTV would be just another option.  They could easily elect to publish nationally or internationally.  

 

What will influence their decision will simply be which of their many options gives them the best return.  

With the iTV platform all they need to do is press a button and then sit back to collect the subscription revenue. My guess is that a lot of content owners will be attracted by a business model which allows them to keep the lion's share of the subscription and advertising revenue - rather than sharing it with an inefficient network. They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..

 

If the model works  -  they will line-up to put content into the platform, just like developers lined up for the iPhone.  

 

There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.

post #37 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post

Someone still needs to answer me what content I will get on this Apple HDTV that will not be provided to me on my current 3rd generation Apple TV. And the true videophiles care more about picture quality than whatever brand sells the TV. No new content deals, specifically subscriptions = flop.

 

I forwarded this post to Apple and they have scrapped their Apple TV plans entirely. They said, "Dagamer34, thanks for the keen insight. That is the direction we were going, but have now reconsidered based on this prophetic post. Big ups to you." 

post #38 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

The TV business is quite broken, and it will get worse before it gets better. The fact that TV shows aren't widely torrented surprises me. (By widely torrented, I mean I could find the two shows I want to see that way without much hassle.) It will come for a number of simple reasons: The 2/3 content to commercial ratio of modern TV results in too much wasted time; 1000 channels of crap is still just a lot of crap; the "channel" mindset has been broken for nearly a decade with the DVR.
Basically, the trend will be to eliminate middlemen. If the university conferences bypass the NCAA for TV rights, what is to keep them from ultimately bypassing the TV stations for direct access to the viewers? Eliminating the artificial scarcity of the broadcasters necessitates fundamental change in approach.
Skil's comment about channels is about as far off as I can imagine. That is effectively what they have today with the AppleTV, and it is a mess. Shows are grossly over priced on iTunes, and it just takes a little to break the existing cartel arrangement. Once a 1-hour (ok, 40 minute) TV show without ads goes for $0.99 and everything is available, market forces will take over.

TV shows aren't widely torrented because 1. Most people dont know how to, 2. Its easy to catch a show on a networks website, on demand, DVR, on iTunes, Hulu, Netflix, etc... A TV show is not like music, a song will be heard over and over but a TV will be watched once maybe twice. Good luck getting anyone to agree with selling shows for $.99. Advertising pays for TV shows unlike music where the consumer does.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #39 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

AirPlayed from iDevices. There's no storage on the box nor reason to believe there would be storage on a TV. There's enough for the OS and the Channels on it, plus buffering for streamed stuff.

 

The A5 is wasted for music playback. Should we not have music playback? It's there for 1080p decoding, and that's enough reason for it.

 

There is 8GB of flash storage on the aTV.  The aTV is probably more capable a console as-is in comparison to the Wii if it had controllers.  

 

Porting many existing iOS games wouldn't be hard.  Shooters and RPGs for example.

post #40 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.

If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile. If consumers ditch their cable TV for Internet delivered content they will just raise the price of Internet.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple television announcement expected to precede launch by 2-6 months