or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New Apple TV 'stalls' because of cable companies & content deals, likely not arriving until 2015 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Apple TV 'stalls' because of cable companies & content deals, likely not arriving until 2015... - Page 2

post #41 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

Which UI do you like?
I've heard good things about Roku and Amazon's Fire TV looks promising (like that they have voice capabilities). Heck right now I'd take my DirecTV interface over ATV. I mostly use ATV for AirPlay functionality.
post #42 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

So there's no way for Apple to update the ATV without these content deals worked out? Or are they sitting on an ATV with new/better UI, App Store gaming capabilities waiting for these content deals to materialize?

Perhaps Cook needs to hire someone specific to take over Apple's TV plans. Someone from the industry that will be able to get deals done. Eddy Cue doesn't seem to be the guy that can get this stuff done.

It's not about a personality.  It's about control of big $$$ going forward.

 

Apple may have to reach into that big bank of theirs and buy some content after all.

post #43 of 94
Any Apple TV upgrade is me for a lot of people who just have an antenna. We are not tied to the cable companies except for Internet service. Every icon they add to AppleTV you have to have a cable TV service. If they have a big grand design a better take that into consideration. Cutting cable TV is more than a fad it's a necessity because it's too darn expensive.
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


That's what Apple needs. There are things Apple might have been able to do just because of Steve. And I'm not sure Eddy (or Tim) have the same ability. I like that Apple is apparently thinking big in this space but I hope they don't neglect their existing product while going after this grander vision.

Even Steve wasn't going to be able to crack the content nut, not after the TV industry saw how Apple ultimately eclipsed the other partners it worked with (music industry, telecom).  The cable companies don't want to end up as dumb pipes (like telecom did) and the content owners don't want to end up with little negotiating power (like the music owners did).  Not to mention that there are already lots of exclusive contracts between content producers, channel owners, and cable companies, all intertwined.  There's a heck of a lot more money in the TV space than the music space, so this is necessarily going to be much harder. 

post #45 of 94
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post
 

Comcast is not the "TV industry", but I think they're the main entity blocking progress now. How we allowed the biggest TV-delivery company to become the biggest internet provider is beyond me- and that inherent logjam is going to take a while to work through, I fear. Personally, I'm hoping that Comcast starts seeing an accelerating loss of subscribers willing to pay $150+/mo for sports plus 200 channels of crap.

 

Excellent point.  I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple.  Bundling is such a 20th century racket.  I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.

 

Sure, we've all grown up with 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60+ button remotes.  But if you look at the current television viewing experience objectively, it's clear that decades of lazy decisions have clumped together into a logjam of terrible design.  It's a big ugly mess, but because it became big and ugly so gradually, we just shrugged and accepted each new bit of terribleness.  And some of us actually like the fact that it's confusing, so we can be "smarter" than our parents, or something like that.  A quick example: channel numbers.  It would be vastly easier to remember to just type E, S, P, and N on your remote control than it would be to type 208.  And you might not even need to type that last N (or even the P) if the TV supported predictive typing.  But no, our receivers are shipped with massive charts, on paper, of channel numbers next to channel names.  Ridiculous.

 

Apple has already proven that they can do these three things conveniently and efficiently: 1. sell content, 2. rent content, and 3. stream live content.  The iTunes Festival events are proof that Apple has the ability to do it all.  Live streaming, pre-recorded streaming, been there, done that.  And all that viewing and listening is conceptually contained in the iTunes Festival app.  In general, there wouldn't be any need to need to remember what show is on what network, then remembering what that network's channel number is, then programming your DVR to record it.  Apple has, to a great extent, app-ified web viewing on iOS.  TV is ripe for app-ification too.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Yes content is important. But there are a lot of improvements Apple could make even if these deals aren't worked out yet. The ATV is in real need of an interface overhaul. It needs better navigation and search (voice would be nice). It needs an App Store. It would be really great if you could enter your cable provider credentials once rather than having to enter them for each individual app. There's plenty Apple could do to keep ATV competitive with other streaming boxes like Roku and Fire TV.

I agree 100%.

 

If AppleTV could get much nicer, especially with regard to gaming, there may be a large enough critical mass that the content owners can't shun the device.

post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

"Previously, analyst Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities said that a new Apple TV with motion controls would play a "key role" for the company this year. He had predicted that the upgraded hardware would arrive this fall, leveraging the technology Apple acquired from its acquisition of PrimeSense, which also powered the tech behind Microsoft's first-generation Xbox Kinect gaming peripheral."

So Ming is WRONG again.....

Kuo has never claimed he had a "notable" track record on rumors; that's AppleInsider's claim as far as I can tell.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #48 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
 

 

Excellent point.  I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple.  Bundling is such a 20th century racket.  I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.

 

Sure, we've all grown up with 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60+ button remotes.  But if you look at the current television viewing experience objectively, it's clear that decades of lazy decisions have clumped together into a logjam of terrible design.  It's a big ugly mess, but because it became big and ugly so gradually, we just shrugged and accepted each new bit of terribleness.  And some of us actually like the fact that it's confusing, so we can be "smarter" than our parents, or something like that.  A quick example: channel numbers.  It would be vastly easier to remember to just type E, S, P, and N on your remote control than it would be to type 208.  And you might not even need to type that last N (or even the P) if the TV supported predictive typing.  But no, our receivers are shipped with massive charts, on paper, of channel numbers next to channel names.  Ridiculous.

 

Apple has already proven that they can do these three things conveniently and efficiently: 1. sell content, 2. rent content, and 3. stream live content.  The iTunes Festival events are proof that Apple has the ability to do it all.  Live streaming, pre-recorded streaming, been there, done that.  And all that viewing and listening is conceptually contained in the iTunes Festival app.  In general, there wouldn't be any need to need to remember what show is on what network, then remembering what that network's channel number is, then programming your DVR to record it.  Apple has, to a great extent, app-ified web viewing on iOS.  TV is ripe for app-ification too.

Exactly so.

 

Note that there are no technical hurdles to a better television experience for us.  But the people that are currently making the big money are standing in the way.  They LIKE the status quo.  They are making serious $$$ off of it.  And they'll be damned if they are going to partner with a company that is well known for, and will undoubtedly attempt to do again, disrupting every industry it enters.  Apple may have to buy a studio or two, and/or create some original content like Netflix did.

post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

I agree 100%.

If AppleTV could get much nicer, especially with regard to gaming, there may be a large enough critical mass that the content owners can't shun the device.
New UI with better search, AppStore and updated internals to facilitate gaming. That would be a huge winner even if Apple didn't have content deals in place. The longer Apple delays updating ATV the further they fall behind others.
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


New UI with better search, AppStore and updated internals to facilitate gaming. That would be a huge winner even if Apple didn't have content deals in place. The longer Apple delays updating ATV the further they fall behind others.

True.

 

Would also like the content deals, but even failing that, you are right: they need to move forward at least this much.

post #51 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The original Apple TV almost failed because of the lack of content deals. This is important for this device to succeed.
We don't, but since those that also have cable TV in an area are very likely to also get their internet from their cable company that means Apple has to work with them or risk being throttled, or worse, shut out, like what happened with the original Google TV. This is a very tricky nut to crack.

Apple could simply buy one of those cable companies if the Feds allowed it and run that cable company as it sees fit using its own hardware.  I say simply because I'm guessing its just a matter of how much money Apple would be willing to pay or rather the cable company be willing to accept.  Buying a cable company is probably the only way Apple could get it done and fix its subscriber pricing accordingly.  Although with Apple behind it, I don't know how it could ever come out cheaper for subscribers because Apple prefers to charge more for everything than anyone else.

post #52 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I've heard good things about Roku and Amazon's Fire TV looks promising (like that they have voice capabilities). Heck right now I'd take my DirecTV interface over ATV. I mostly use ATV for AirPlay functionality.

Rogi- you can't complain about a UI and mention two things you've never used that you like better- you've never used them. Roku is NOT as good. And the voice feature for amazon is a joke. It only works for amazon content, not Netflix or a universal search. So what's the point?

That said, a unified search is a MUST (TiVo has this), and voice search across ALL apps would be phenomenal. I do agree the current UI is severely lacking.

Personally, I prefer TiVo and Xbox interfaces. Although I know those have their criticisms as well.

Roku? Come on man...

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #53 of 94
With this, and the tepid Mac updates because of the lack of Broadwell (and the fact that it's almost AUGUST!), it looks like Eddy Cue's "greatest roadmap ever" is in trouble!
post #54 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post
 

Apple could simply buy one of those cable companies if the Feds allowed it and run that cable company as it sees fit using its own hardware.  I say simply because I'm guessing its just a matter of how much money Apple would be willing to pay or rather the cable company be willing to accept.  Buying a cable company is probably the only way Apple could get it done and fix its subscriber pricing accordingly.  Although with Apple behind it, I don't know how it could ever come out cheaper for subscribers because Apple prefers to charge more for everything than anyone else.

No one cable company has complete US coverage.  So what of the other customers that can't get the AppleTV service?  Will the other cable companies allow Apple to play in their backyards (i.e. work with Apple to make their set-top boxes and/or TV deliver their cable stream) when they see what is happening "over there"?  Doubt it.

 

This is going to take a long time to unwind, even if Apple buys a cable company.  But if they could get direct access to content over internet... that's when things would get interesting.

post #55 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post
 

Personally, I'm hoping that Comcast starts seeing an accelerating loss of subscribers willing to pay $150+/mo for sports plus 200 channels of crap.

 

One of the things that keeps me clinging to my cable subscription is sports. I can't get hockey, football or F1 over the air. Not even local games.

 

In fact, for two of the last three weeks I couldn't get F1 even WITH my cable subscription. TSN/ESPN, in their infinite wisdom, decided that other events matter more and bumped the F1 race over to TSN2. Is anyone surprised that TSN2 is only available with a subscription to yet ANOTHER channel package?

 

So, it isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Getting the few things I want is migrating towards adding even more cost and unwanted channels. I may have to just go without sports for a few years to send a message to the cable company and content providers. If enough of us refuse to buy in, maybe they'll change.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #56 of 94

I sometimes have a hard time figuring out which thieving laggards I despise worse, government bureaucrats or cable companies. It's a dead heat so far.

 

We need more Apple in our lives.

post #57 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Rogi- you can't complain about a UI and mention two things you've never used that you like better- you've never used them. Roku is NOT as good. And the voice feature for amazon is a joke. It only works for amazon content, not Netflix or a universal search. So what's the point?

That said, a unified search is a MUST (TiVo has this), and voice search across ALL apps would be phenomenal. I do agree the current UI is severely lacking.

Personally, I prefer TiVo and Xbox interfaces. Although I know those have their criticisms as well.

Roku? Come on man...
How is Roku worse?
post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

They can keep the same UI for now- I'm ok with that.  Just give me:

 

1- Hardware- A7, Wireless AC, Bluetooth LTE, 16gb storage, 1gb ram

2- App Store.  Let me say that again.  App Store.  I can download games, it gives a standard that allows content providers to be able to develop for- which means content will be on their faster and anyone can do it.  Vudu, BBC, Amazon, etc- as long as it's under the correct guidelines.  Then allow me to delete (not hide) the Apps I don't use.

 

There are other things I'd love- but I don't need.  Media hub, dvr, etc.  But I just want a box that is made in 2014- not May of 2012.  This update cycle is beyond ridiculous now.

 

Is this really complicated?  They can wow me with the revolutionary content deals and UI next time- We're running on outdated hardware.  I don't need CBS to allow me to buy an individual station.  I just want to be able to sign into a damned hotel's wifi.

App store? Games? It's easier to talk than to work on it. iOS in ATV is not the same as in iPhone iPad. The apps in mobile iOS are written specific to the device screen resolutions. What will be ATV screen resolutions? How's an app displayed on a 40" 720P TV vs 65" 4K TV when you use the same ATV? The only way that Apple can utilize the full iOS in ATV is somehow to have auto resolution up-conversion to the resolution of the display screen, but this will impact the quality of the apps.


Edited by fallenjt - 7/30/14 at 5:07pm
I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
I Want My iOS UI Like in Apple Watch"
Reply
post #59 of 94
I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.

Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.

Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.

peace.
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

How is Roku worse?

Because it's not Apple. 1wink.gif
"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 #61 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

No one cable company has complete US coverage.  So what of the other customers that can't get the AppleTV service?  Will the other cable companies allow Apple to play in their backyards (i.e. work with Apple to make their set-top boxes and/or TV deliver their cable stream) when they see what is happening "over there"?  Doubt it.

This is going to take a long time to unwind, even if Apple buys a cable company.  But if they could get direct access to content over internet... that's when things would get interesting.

There has to be a 'unbundling' of the network. Just how telcos had to let CLECs (competitive local exchange carrier) and wireless providers MDVOs (Mobile Dynamic Virtual Organizations) onto their networks and give consumers some choice. Why can't the same be done over a cable company's coaxial network?
"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 #62 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

How is Roku worse?
Because it's hideous. Purple background and a dozen sub categories on the left? No thanks. It's also clunky as hell. You've never used it, so you don't know any different.

You said you "like" roku and the search function on amazon. Of course, you've never used either- so that's like saying I like hang gliding.

As I said in the earlier post- amazons search is criticized heavily as it only does searches within amazon. Who cares about that? The idea is novel- if it were functional- like Tivos is. TiVo functionality with Xbox aesthetic would be my favorite as it stands. But that's like saying you're the tallest midget. They all suck, really- except TiVo. They have it down the best.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #63 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy Dog View Post

Go ahead and open your HBO-style studio division, Apple. That's why you paid big bucks for Jimmy Iovine, isn't it?

That's not going to help acquire rights to sports: NFL, MLB, NBA, etc.

post #64 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post
 

No one cable company has complete US coverage.  So what of the other customers that can't get the AppleTV service?  Will the other cable companies allow Apple to play in their backyards (i.e. work with Apple to make their set-top boxes and/or TV deliver their cable stream) when they see what is happening "over there"?  Doubt it.

 

This is going to take a long time to unwind, even if Apple buys a cable company.  But if they could get direct access to content over internet... that's when things would get interesting.

 

Like the phone industry you need to find the first company willing to play ball like AT&T.

 

Once the other companies start to lose customers because of not having an iTV they will bend just like Verizon and Sprint did.

Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
Apple Purchases last 12 months - iPhone 5S (two), iPhone 6, iPhone 6+ (two), iPadAir, iPadAir2, iPadMini2, AppleTV (two), MacMini, Airport Extreme, iPod Classic.
Reply
post #65 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Like the phone industry you need to find the first company willing to play ball like AT&T.

Once the other companies start to lose customers because of not having an iTV they will bend just like Verizon and Sprint did.

Except there's no company that has coast to coast coverage. There are very strict boundary lines that they have to operate in. It's nowhere near the same thing. Unless they go satellite of course.
"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 #66 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Except there's no company that has coast to coast coverage. There are very strict boundary lines that they have to operate in. It's nowhere near the same thing. Unless they go satellite of course.

Fios and U-Verse combined have plenty of coverage to make it feasible.  Satellite wouldn't ever happen because you'd need, well... a satellite :D

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #67 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Excellent point.  I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple.  Bundling is such a 20th century racket.  I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.

Sure, we've all grown up with 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60+ button remotes.  But if you look at the current television viewing experience objectively, it's clear that decades of lazy decisions have clumped together into a logjam of terrible design.  It's a big ugly mess, but because it became big and ugly so gradually, we just shrugged and accepted each new bit of terribleness.  And some of us actually like the fact that it's confusing, so we can be "smarter" than our parents, or something like that.  A quick example: channel numbers.  It would be vastly easier to remember to just type E, S, P, and N on your remote control than it would be to type 208.  And you might not even need to type that last N (or even the P) if the TV supported predictive typing.  But no, our receivers are shipped with massive charts, on paper, of channel numbers next to channel names.  Ridiculous.

Apple has already proven that they can do these three things conveniently and efficiently: 1. sell content, 2. rent content, and 3. stream live content.  The iTunes Festival events are proof that Apple has the ability to do it all.  Live streaming, pre-recorded streaming, been there, done that.  And all that viewing and listening is conceptually contained in the iTunes Festival app.  In general, there wouldn't be any need to need to remember what show is on what network, then remembering what that network's channel number is, then programming your DVR to record it.  Apple has, to a great extent, app-ified web viewing on iOS.  TV is ripe for app-ification too.

Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'

I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.

I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.
Edited by palomine - 7/30/14 at 10:42pm
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto
Reply
post #68 of 94
Originally Posted by jwyatt View Post
Stall and delay after stall and delay. Rumors of no sapphire on iPhone 6, late arrival of iwatch and now ATV. Depressing week for those of us excited about this years releases...if of course the rumors are to be believed.

 

That’s why you don’t listen to the FUD in the first place.

post #69 of 94
Originally Posted by palomine View Post


Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'

I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.

I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.

 

Agree.  Instead of trying to destroy the cable / satellite companies, it's probably more likely that Apple will want to attract them to something better than the status quo.  Better cable company profitability, end-user experience, and all that good stuff.  This has worked spectacularly for Apple with iPhone.  It's the device everyone wants and thus the device that all carriers want to sell.  (At least in the US, Japan, etc.)  Apple didn't and probably will never try to destroy or buy a cell carrier.

 

So maybe the next-gen Apple TV really will be the "better mouse trap" of the cable box universe.  It could work with any and all cable / satellite feeds.  It could finally clean up decades of lazy UI design and ancient sedimentary layers of feature-creep.  If users like it as much as they love iPhone, all the cable / satellite incumbents would want to feature it.  (And they could stop wasting all that time, money, customer good will, and carbon footprint designing and building those horrid set-top DVRs.)

 

Of course, the cable / satellite providers would need to build out server farms for storing and playing back prerecorded content on-demand.  Sure, they could continue with their old-school daily programming schedule.  That would be streamed "live."  Anything not first-run would be streamed on-demand.  Live news and sports would also be streamed live.  Exactly like iTunes Festival.  Zero end-user recording.

 

Oh, and I too think Apple should probably not get too deeply into creating their own content.  Content creation is like panning for gold.  Very hit and miss, never know what river bend will make you rich.  The way to get rich in a gold rush is to sell goods to the miners.  Like Levi Strauss did.  There are many streets and buildings in downtown SF named after merchants, bankers, and manufacturers.  All of whom got fantastically rich during the gold rush.  Few if any streets there are named after any miners who got rich.

 

"Content is king.  Distribution is King Kong."

- Old Hollywood saying


Edited by SockRolid - 7/31/14 at 12:38am

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #70 of 94
It is all about control.

They do not need to accede control to Apple. Content sells itself.
As long as there are viewer apps for Apple devices then that famous Apple control is negated.
post #71 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikraz View Post

I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.

Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.

Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.

peace.
How do you propose Apple do this? If a la carte was economically feasible cable companies would already be doing it. People look at what Apple did with music and iTunes and think they should be able to disrupt TV too but the situations are completely different. Nothing comparable to Napster in the TV space.
post #72 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I've heard good things about Roku and Amazon's Fire TV looks promising (like that they have voice capabilities). Heck right now I'd take my DirecTV interface over ATV. I mostly use ATV for AirPlay functionality.

You've hit the nail on the head. The best UI is no UI. Apple should create one iPad-based App to deliver all content via AirPlay. It could use extensions but I'd rather have one, simple manager for all content.

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #73 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave View Post

You've hit the nail on the head. The best UI is no UI. Apple should create one iPad-based App to deliver all content via AirPlay. It could use extensions but I'd rather have one, simple manager for all content.

McD

So what's a household with multiple ATVs, and one iPad to do?
"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 #74 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post
 

 

I've worked since late 2005 in the area of media rights management.   Many of the cable networks as well as other organizations are clients of the enterprise software we produce to manage this.

 

The ISPs themselves, like Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, etc. actually have quite limited options in terms of what they can offer as they don't own the content (although their parent companies do in some cases).

 

Even the cable channels themselves don't have 100% of the rights and can't necessarily offer Apple rights even if they wanted to.   That's not true in all cases, but it's true in many cases.  In addition, they are currently getting big dollars from the major ISPs and they're not going to endanger that, although there's not much the ISPs can do about it if they did.  The cable networks actually do have the upper hand as we've seen in recent contractual disputes.  

 

The contractual rights to the programs are not simple - they're actually quite complex and since Apple is not an ISP, every contract will have to be renegotiated for AppleTV unless Apple offers it in conjunction with an ISP (except where the cable network owns 100% of the rights in all media, in all territories, in perpetuity) and the problem the cable networks have with that is that it opens up the entire contract for renegotiation with the content providers, so they avoid that at all costs.  For them to think that's worth it, Apple would have to prove that they're going to dominate the market.   So far, they haven't done that. 

 

This isn't just a matter of cable companies not understanding the future or otherwise being obnoxious. 

Not to trump you, but I have working the computer and digital video industry since the 1980 and specially digital video equipment since the mid 90's and currently work for the largest company who provides all the video devices to most of the MSO world wide. I am very familiar with how this industries work. 

 

I agree with you that this is complex issue, and it is only complex because the industry has purposely set it up that way. Even today the MSO are doing everything they can to make sure they maintain control over ever aspect of your viewing experience. The only way this will stop is it will end up in court and the MSO will be in the loosing side. DirecTV has to sue to be allow to broadcast local channels since the MSO claimed at one time they had the sole rights to transmit local channels in their area. Hell, when I first got DirecTV in 97, I was lucky I did not live a few miles north of where I was since there was Broadcast Coop which control all content distribution in that area and DirecTV as banned from selling it services there.

 

You know 10 yrs ago the government forces the MSO to stop requiring customers from renting/buy the STB, and they were order to change how they do business. Today we all should be able to buy our own STB at any store with its own features and then plug it into your cable and subscribe to the content you want. Well the MSO have successfully grind progress to a standstill and they use the whole DRM and Content ownership as the reason not to allow users to buy their own equipment.

 

The only this I am surprise is no one has brought a class action lawsuit against the MSO and content owners to create a more free market around how you buy and consume content. I still think it is coming, and suspect that Apple will have lots to say about the Comcast and TW merger since it will put an end to the conversations Apple was having with TW.

post #75 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikraz View Post

I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.

Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.

Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.

peace.


Unfortunately, there is no way they are going to offer you 6 channels for $12.99 or 12 channels for $24.99.  They don't own the content (for the most part), so it is the content owners that will set the price you pay.  Every contract would have to be renegotiated with the content owners.  I would imagine that just ESPN would cost $10-12 per month.  If you want ESPN2, then that's another $8-10 per month.  It will NOT be cheap!  If anyone thinks that going a la carte will save you money, that will only be true if you only opt for a very small number of channels.  If you watch 20 or more channels now, your bill will likely be a lot higher than the 300-400 channels you get now.  Oh, and local channels are not really free.  They just bundle the cost into your monthly bill nowadays instead of a separate line item.  It costs them money to rebroadcast the signal, and that cost is passed on to everyone.

post #76 of 94
Maybe Apple can get a few content deals worked out and then just launch, leaving the holdouts in the cold until they come around like they did with NBC. They don't have to get all content available at launch, they just need to get enough to promote widespread abandonment of cable subscriptions. That movement is already started thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes. If Apple can get a deal with ESPN or someone with good sports coverage cable's days will be over.
post #77 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post
 

I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple.  Bundling is such a 20th century racket.  I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.

 

Most people seem to misunderstand how cable companies price their products. You seem to think that you're being forced to pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want, in order to get the handful of channels that you do want. Therefore, you reason, if you were simply allowed to pick and choose your channels you would pay less while receiving only what you want.

 

In reality, the cable companies GET PAID to push the crappy channels to your home. The crappy channels subsidize the cost of the good channels. Taking them out would increase the cost of the good channels, to a point where few people would pay for them. To cable companies, you are both a consumer and the product being sold. Similar to the reason why Google and Facebook are "free."

post #78 of 94
Apple just needs to punch their way in. Create their own content. Throw cash at sports. Use your relationship with disney(via Jobs legacy) and start creating your own high speed network.

I and I'm sure nearly everyone on here would have no problem giving Apple money for content and connectivity.

Showtime. Dexter and homeland
HBO True blood, GOT sports
STARZ...Spartacus

Apple make your own show for these audiences. Hire the best directors. Have an all you can eat subscription model. Everything with sports being extra. Cable will literally implode. I'll BitTorrent GOT and pay for apple dining
post #79 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Agree.  Instead of trying to destroy the cable / satellite companies, it's probably more likely that Apple will want to attract them to something better than the status quo.  Better cable company profitability, end-user experience, and all that good stuff.  This has worked spectacularly for Apple with iPhone.  It's the device everyone wants and thus the device that all carriers want to sell.  (At least in the US, Japan, etc.)  Apple didn't and probably will never try to destroy or buy a cell carrier.

So maybe the next-gen Apple TV really will be the "better mouse trap" of the cable box universe.  It could work with any and all cable / satellite feeds.  It could finally clean up decades of lazy UI design and ancient sedimentary layers of feature-creep.  If users like it as much as they love iPhone, all the cable / satellite incumbents would want to feature it.  (And they could stop wasting all that time, money, customer good will, and carbon footprint designing and building those horrid set-top DVRs.)

Of course, the cable / satellite providers would need to build out server farms for storing and playing back prerecorded content on-demand.  Sure, they could continue with their old-school daily programming schedule.  That would be streamed "live."  Anything not first-run would be streamed on-demand.  Live news and sports would also be streamed live.  Exactly like iTunes Festival.  Zero end-user recording.

Oh, and I too think Apple should probably not get too deeply into creating their own content.  Content creation is like panning for gold.  Very hit and miss, never know what river bend will make you rich.  The way to get rich in a gold rush is to sell goods to the miners.  Like Levi Strauss did.  There are many streets and buildings in downtown SF named after merchants, bankers, and manufacturers.  All of whom got fantastically rich during the gold rush.  Few if any streets there are named after any miners who got rich.

"Content is king.  Distribution is King Kong."
- Old Hollywood saying

Disagree on some points. Apple believes that for the best user experience you need to control the product creation from start to finish.

A hybrid cable content model just to placate the aging current cable model will create a bad user exp. Apple needs to usher in a new model like they did w the phone.

Only then will cable cos change their behavior. Otherwise apples solution will be tainted w a legacy model based on greed and company, not customer, centric wants
post #80 of 94
Oh please. We have been hearing 'new Apple TV' then 'oh wait it's delayed' rumors for the past four years. Only difference to time is that it's not Gene saying it.

It's CYA. Someone is nervous they takes too soon so they are trumping up a rumor of a delay so they don't look dumb. If the delay doesn't happen they will be all "well we out the heat on them so they got the issue worked out. Aren't we awesome".

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › New Apple TV 'stalls' because of cable companies & content deals, likely not arriving until 2015 - report