or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices - Page 2

post #41 of 73
Didn't realize this was the MacRumors website.
post #42 of 73
The iPad Air that blew up in Australia...wasn't an iPad Air: http://mashable.com/2013/11/10/apple-ipad-explosion-not-an-ipad-air-says-vodafone/

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #43 of 73
Sounds mostly like analysts have no idea what Apple is going to do, and at this point Apple also quite possibly aren't sure what they want to do.

TVs are logical, but margins are low. Watch's are in the news but the market for that kind of watch will be small. Gaming is another option but again, the profits are low and competition high.

Maybe they should follow Google and build self driving cars.
post #44 of 73

I am waiting on the wearable Apple TV with a curved glass screen in a gold case.

post #45 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrangerFX View Post

I don't understand why Apple cannot upgrade its existing Apple TV with an A7 processor and third party apps while working on wearable devices? Apps for Apple TV are long overdue. Apple now has the SDK and specs for iOS game controllers so all the pieces are now in place for a fantastic TV experience with iOS.

has not != cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

The iPad Air that blew up in Australia...wasn't an iPad Air: http://mashable.com/2013/11/10/apple-ipad-explosion-not-an-ipad-air-says-vodafone/

Waiting for the retractions or the trolls.
post #46 of 73
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices

 

NO. REALLY. A DEVICE THAT WAS NEVER GOING TO EXIST, EVER, AT ANY TIME, FOR ANY REASON, IS ‘ON HOLD’ NOW. COUNT ME SHOCKED.

 

Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post
So was Steve bluffing? It certainly wouldn't take going on to 3 years to produce what was supposedly "cracked"?

“Cracked the TV” “The only possible explanation is that we’re going to make a television set.”


Edited by Tallest Skil - 11/11/13 at 11:50am
post #47 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

not a surprise.

 

Content is the key and the content providers are not giving in.  Apple may need to just buy out several media companies

Or let the inevitable sea change happen. Saw an article today about how media producers are finding ways to get their content into users' hands ahead of the normal channels. 

post #48 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

“Cracked the TV” “The only possible explanation is that we’re going to make a television set.”

 

Perhaps it merely related to a purchase order for a new 50" Sony to replace a forcibly broken Samsung TV? I'm just being silly, but it kind of works.

post #49 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Oh Apple. Start funding the creation of original content, like Amazon. Or buy a studio like Sony did.

They have a lot of competition already. Netflix and Hulu are also creating original content.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Am I the only one here who is finding the mobile version of AppleInsider almost unusable? Massive lag just trying to scroll through content and text entry is a nightmare. Took 3-4 times longer creating this post versus the desktop. AI...big problems here.

Agreed. It sucks.

post #51 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post
 

 

However, it can be the 'look at the left hand... while we buy a TV company with our right'  

 

 

you think too small.

 

Think Parent. 

 

Think....

 

 

Disney.     (or... The company who's largest current stockholder(or trustee for the owner) happened to be married to Steve Jobs)

 

 

 

(Pixar + ESPN ABC LucasFilm Marvel, even the Muppets... and Disney India... don't laugh... bollywood is a market).

 

 

 

yes.

 

Too big, way too big and too hard to manage.

 

If you own the content, or large share of the content, you don't have any of the managing headaches, but all the availability to rent/sell the content. Those mentioned also have licensing deals in place that would probably prevent you from doing what you want to do. 

post #52 of 73
My kids who are in high school and college hardly ever watch TV on the 'real' TV set. They still catch shows, but on their iPads, MacBooks, and even iPods. That's the future of large screen fixed-location TV sets. Apple wisely figured it out on the fly. Amazing how fast the landscape changes.

In a few years the networks and content providers and maybe even satellite and cable carriers will be begging the new gatekeepers (the mfrs of the devices which are the last stop between the content providers and human eyes and ears) to let them in and through. That's where the puck is going to be.
post #53 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

So was Steve bluffing? It certainly wouldn't take going on to 3 years to produce what was supposedly "cracked"?

 

No, I think things just change THAT fast in the tach business.

post #54 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Agreed. It sucks.

 

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one with the terrible web site interactivity experience. On my iPhone, this site slows me to a crawl.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #55 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Invest in more production studios, like Pixar, so they have the leverage from the content side. Probably cheaper investment and if it does not help to leverage other content, they still have original content they can rent/sell through Apple TV channels. 

With Apple's money, they could easily fund multiple movie projects and even TV series, documentaries, specials, etc. If they start building a library of original content through iTunes and Apple TV, that could be huge. 

Unfortunately in the content creation business, money is the last concern. The brain is more important. And as the old saying go - don't get into a business you don't understand. There was only one Steve ...
post #56 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelchu View Post


Unfortunately in the content creation business, money is the last concern. The brain is more important. And as the old saying go - don't get into a business you don't understand. There was only one Steve ...

 

Apple gets into lots of businesses it did not start out understanding, but learned very well. Computers, Music, Phones, Mapping, Manufacturing, etc., etc.. Apple was all about hardware, then software, now content, next, content creation. I think the progression is natural. 

 

Finding a studio that meets your needs, such as a Pixar, then contracting with them for x% ownership of the content would be very easy, or buy out the studio for exclusive content ownership. Agreed that funding project would be the easiest way to start. 

 

I would guess that if Apple floated this idea around, you would have many people wanting to create new studio startups to provide Apple exclusive content. People want to be apart of the Apple ecosystem, and if Apple created the next 'Toy Story', super hero, or action franchise that is exclusive to iTunes and Apple TV, after theatrical release, or the next 'Big Bang Theory', 'Sherlock', 'Game of Thrones' tv series, would be huge for the Apple TV growth. 

 

You don't have to take people eyes 100% away from cable to viewing Apple TV, but as more time is spent viewing Apple TV, all other content providers will take notice. 

 

I see a 2014 Apple TV that allows apps (yes, gaming), and has exclusive movie/TV content, as really shaking up the home entertainment market. 

 

But I'm just dreaming here :) 

post #57 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsharrington View Post

I don't see Apple entering the content creation space.. the opportunity here is to improve upon existing delivery, which is currently dependent on the cable/satellite companies. The fact that content providers won't budge the way that the music industry did is not surprising. While Apple could likely build some very impressive hardware, if it's dependent on a cable card or cable box, it's not going to be considered innovative.

Imagine Dish / DirecTV style programming, delivered via broadband (4G or FTTH) instead of satellite, to desktop and mobile devices, and with a much smarter Siri-ized-like interface.

I never watch cable but when I do, I HATE scrolling through an xfinite number of channels to find anything.

How much nicer to just SAY "if any Anthony Hopkins movies come on in the next three days, DVR them and strip out any commercials"

In fact, why isn't anyone doing that yet?
post #58 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW the sole reason I subscribe to HBO is the original content. Started with The Soprano's years ago and continues with Game of Thrones. Creatively entertaining TV doesn't get any better.

Same reason I have fast broadband, VPN and p2p. Give me reasonable access and I'll stop.

"It's better to be a pirate than join the navy" when it comes to "original programming"...
post #59 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

 

Apple gets into lots of businesses it did not start out understanding, but learned very well. Computers, Music, Phones, Mapping, Manufacturing, etc., etc.. Apple was all about hardware, then software, now content, next, content creation. I think the progression is natural. 

 

Finding a studio that meets your needs, such as a Pixar, then contracting with them for x% ownership of the content would be very easy, or buy out the studio for exclusive content ownership. Agreed that funding project would be the easiest way to start. 

 

I would guess that if Apple floated this idea around, you would have many people wanting to create new studio startups to provide Apple exclusive content. People want to be apart of the Apple ecosystem, and if Apple created the next 'Toy Story', super hero, or action franchise that is exclusive to iTunes and Apple TV, after theatrical release, or the next 'Big Bang Theory', 'Sherlock', 'Game of Thrones' tv series, would be huge for the Apple TV growth.  

If I was creating content then Apple would be the last people I would want to partner with to provide exclusive content.

 

The problem would be that your stuff would only be on Apple devices. Partner with anyone else and your on multiple devices. It doesn't matter how good Apples devices are, the fact remains most people don't have them and even if 50% of people did have them you'd still be cutting your audience in half.

post #60 of 73
I don't get the big deal on this topic!

Why? Because I have my "Apple TV" already!

My Mac mini HDMI output to my Vizio TV HDMI. With Hulu, Crackle and various other sites I have access to more movies and series than I'll ever have time to watch having new series to catch on, like Sons of Anarchy and keeping current with ones like Boardwalk Empire. My Mac mini gives me all a smart TV gives and then some (I.e. digital pic frame, music visualizer, realistic aquarium, et. al.)

1wink.gif
post #61 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Thanks. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one with the terrible web site interactivity experience. On my iPhone, this site slows me to a crawl.

I'm on the App and that runs fine for me most of the time.
post #62 of 73
Where is the part forecasting wearables?

Comments quoted only discount the possibility of an Apple TV and say nothing about wearables. Maybe you should change the lede?
post #63 of 73

Apple TV would fly off the shelves if Apple would just put the App Store on it.

post #64 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Am I the only one here who is finding the mobile version of AppleInsider almost unusable? Massive lag just trying to scroll through content and text entry is a nightmare. Took 3-4 times longer creating this post versus the desktop. AI...big problems here.

Not having any lag on iPhone 5. Other than crappy KB UI in iOS, everything works fine.
post #65 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

Apple TV would fly off the shelves if Apple would just put the App Store on it.

And then controlling it with your iOS device... which we already do.
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
Send from my iPhone. Excuse brevity and auto-corrupt.
Reply
post #66 of 73
And that's like saying Apple will close tomorrow.
Apple doesn't just give up. And the story gets it wrong in another way.
Apple sells content to sell hardware, not the other way around.
Apple may not release a product soon but just plain give up, I don't think so.
Apple worked on the iPhone for 7 years before it's release. So I think a big grain of salt
needs to be tossed on this story. So yea we may not see an Apple TV tomorrow but don't bet against Apple for the near future though.
Unlike Google, Apple wants to have good content available before it releases a newer Apple TV.
They have been making good progress recently with updates to the current Apple TV content.
Hopefully that will continue.
post #67 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

If I was creating content then Apple would be the last people I would want to partner with to provide exclusive content.

 

The problem would be that your stuff would only be on Apple devices. Partner with anyone else and your on multiple devices. It doesn't matter how good Apples devices are, the fact remains most people don't have them and even if 50% of people did have them you'd still be cutting your audience in half.

 

I thought iTunes was available on Mac and PC, has that changed? /s

 

HBO has 114 million subscribers while iTunes has 575 million so if you were going to product content exclusive for HBO, you would be better to do so for iTunes. I also think iTunes does a decent job of renting and selling TV and movie content already, along with music. 

post #68 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

 

I thought iTunes was available on Mac and PC, has that changed? /s

 

HBO has 114 million subscribers while iTunes has 575 million so if you were going to product content exclusive for HBO, you would be better to do so for iTunes. I also think iTunes does a decent job of renting and selling TV and movie content already, along with music. 

ITunes is still on the PC but it would be interesting to see what it's usage stats are these days. As MP3 players are dropping sales and people use there phones instead, there's not much use for iTunes any more. I still use it for my iPod shuffle, but that's about it. I dont really use it to actually play music on any more.

 

The 575 million iTunes users is also worldwide whereas the HBO figure is just US isn't it?

 

The other thing to consider would be if it was a subscription model to Apple's TV content. As a consumer Id then be thinking similar to iBooks, that the content would work on our iPads, apple TV, mac and iPhone. But I have a win phone, and we've also got some win 8 tablets which it wouldn't work on. Other people are making apps for everything so it seems better to go with them rather than apple.

post #69 of 73

Analysts are doing the same thing they've always done in regards to Apple:
Throwing out bullshit to make it sound like they have some idea of what Apple is going to do.
 

10% of them have a guy somewhere in the supply chain, who probably knows what the company he works for is doing for Apple, at any given moment. What he doesn't know is that there are 3 other companies supplying the same thing to Apple, and his company is producing the lowest yields vs cost of them all. He thinks that because Apple has decreased orders, that demand for whatever they make is waning.
 

10% of them have the same scenario as above, but his guy's company does good quality work, and can churn out the components at a fair price. He thinks that because orders are staying consistent, that Apple is doing OK with whatever they're making the parts for.
 

10% of them are in the same situation, except the source at his place says that Apple keeps upping orders. His guy keeps telling him Apple must be wildly successful with whatever product they're contributing to, because they just had to add a shift to keep up with demand.
 

None of them know that Apple already has forecasted the number of components they need for the device, and are just shifting production numbers to the manufacturer who is doing the best job.
 

They all trade based on what they think they know, and then put out a press release to move the stock price to where they'd like it to go. Often they are successful at manipulating the price, but it has nothing to do with what is actually going on.
 

70% of them know this, so they don't even bother with "having a guy". They just go long or short on Apple, then put out some bullshit to try and manipulate the market.
Come to think of it, 70% seems a little low.

"We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic."
-Susan Jeffers
Reply
"We have been taught to believe that negative equals realistic and positive equals unrealistic."
-Susan Jeffers
Reply
post #70 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

ITunes is still on the PC but it would be interesting to see what it's usage stats are these days. As MP3 players are dropping sales and people use there phones instead, there's not much use for iTunes any more. I still use it for my iPod shuffle, but that's about it. I dont really use it to actually play music on any more.

 

The 575 million iTunes users is also worldwide whereas the HBO figure is just US isn't it?

 

The other thing to consider would be if it was a subscription model to Apple's TV content. As a consumer Id then be thinking similar to iBooks, that the content would work on our iPads, apple TV, mac and iPhone. But I have a win phone, and we've also got some win 8 tablets which it wouldn't work on. Other people are making apps for everything so it seems better to go with them rather than apple.

 

iTunes is not just used for an iPod, but mostly used to buy, rent, and consume content. 

 

HBO was worldwide figures also. 

 

Okay, if you rent a movie on iTunes or Apple TV today, you can't see that on other platforms iTunes is not on, yet Apple rents and sells millions of movies and tv shows. This is not theory, they are doing it every year. If they are doing this without your win phone for movies they are licensing, how much would they be able to do with movies they own? At least the same. 

 

Other people are making apps for everything, yet year after year Apple give more $$ to developers than anyone. That is why devs like to develop for Apple. Although that has nothing to do with this thread. 

 

The down the road payoff is that Apple would own a large content portfolio, growing larger every year. 5+ years in the future if Apple has movies and TV shows and license other content for news and sports, they would start to have a well rounded alternative to cable. Again, not replacing them, but at least an addition to. Remember, Netflix was never a replacement for per movie rentals when they started, and now look how many accounts they have vs. how many movie rental retail boxes. 

 

What further amazes me is all the TV show purchases as I would never thought to purchase a TV series, but many, many do. So Apple can also buy shows and sell them exclusively. 

 

May opportunities and options in this segment and Apple has proven year after year, that they can sell content like no one else can. 

post #71 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

 

iTunes is not just used for an iPod, but mostly used to buy, rent, and consume content. 

 

HBO was worldwide figures also. 

 

Okay, if you rent a movie on iTunes or Apple TV today, you can't see that on other platforms iTunes is not on, yet Apple rents and sells millions of movies and tv shows. This is not theory, they are doing it every year. If they are doing this without your win phone for movies they are licensing, how much would they be able to do with movies they own? At least the same. 

 

Other people are making apps for everything, yet year after year Apple give more $$ to developers than anyone. That is why devs like to develop for Apple. Although that has nothing to do with this thread. 

 

The down the road payoff is that Apple would own a large content portfolio, growing larger every year. 5+ years in the future if Apple has movies and TV shows and license other content for news and sports, they would start to have a well rounded alternative to cable. Again, not replacing them, but at least an addition to. Remember, Netflix was never a replacement for per movie rentals when they started, and now look how many accounts they have vs. how many movie rental retail boxes. 

 

What further amazes me is all the TV show purchases as I would never thought to purchase a TV series, but many, many do. So Apple can also buy shows and sell them exclusively. 

 

May opportunities and options in this segment and Apple has proven year after year, that they can sell content like no one else can. 

Ok I understand the HBO figure now. I didn't think they existed outside the US as I'm in the UK and have never seen anything called HBO over here. They are here but there just regular channels on Sky TV which would give them around 25 million subscribers. But it is just a regular TV channel that's part of the most basic package you can get.

 

The millions of rentals etc that iTunes currently does isn't on exclusive content and there not even market leading at doing this.

 

So my point was as a content producer would you really want to be limiting your audience in this way. Then as the service would only be available to people with Apple hardware, if your program became a success it wouldn't be a case of someone taking out a subscription to Netflix, Lovefilm, etc. They would actually have to go and by a £100+ device to get it on there TV.

post #72 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

Ok I understand the HBO figure now. I didn't think they existed outside the US as I'm in the UK and have never seen anything called HBO over here. They are here but there just regular channels on Sky TV which would give them around 25 million subscribers. But it is just a regular TV channel that's part of the most basic package you can get.

The millions of rentals etc that iTunes currently does isn't on exclusive content and there not even market leading at doing this.

So my point was as a content producer would you really want to be limiting your audience in this way. Then as the service would only be available to people with Apple hardware, if your program became a success it wouldn't be a case of someone taking out a subscription to Netflix, Lovefilm, etc. They would actually have to go and by a £100+ device to get it on there TV.
You are, of course, absolutely correct. There is neither a business nor an artistic reason for Apple to get into content production. Apple does content delivery through the iTunes Music Store. However, there is no need for Apple to get much more involved in delivery. This is not where the action is. The action now is in content management and integration. Provide the user seamless access to everything irrespective of source. Other players are establishing digital video recorders at the center of personal/family entertainment with the ability to stream to the subscriber's iPad or iPhone anywhere.

This is happening now. Apple devices are essential components in the new personal entertainment paradigm. However, Apple's role in this entertainment revolution is that of a sideline player. This is a rapidly changing landscape even without Apple as an active player. However, I believe that Apple has significant role to play if it wants to accept its role.
post #73 of 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post
 

Ok I understand the HBO figure now. I didn't think they existed outside the US as I'm in the UK and have never seen anything called HBO over here. They are here but there just regular channels on Sky TV which would give them around 25 million subscribers. But it is just a regular TV channel that's part of the most basic package you can get.

 

The millions of rentals etc that iTunes currently does isn't on exclusive content and there not even market leading at doing this.

 

So my point was as a content producer would you really want to be limiting your audience in this way. Then as the service would only be available to people with Apple hardware, if your program became a success it wouldn't be a case of someone taking out a subscription to Netflix, Lovefilm, etc. They would actually have to go and by a £100+ device to get it on there TV.

 

Again, iTunes is available on the PC, so not limited to just Apple hardware. Yes, if they want it on their TV, they would have to purchase the Apple TV, which would be a very big deal to the company selling the Apple TV device, would it not? 

 

I think you are misunderstanding the 'who' is creating content. I am not talking about a studio making content solely for Apple, but Apple owning a studio and producing content for themselves. I am sure many people in the industry would like to be apart of that, aka, working for Apple to do this. I agree, that no one with their own money will, at this point, want to produce entertainment content for Apple exclusively. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices