AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › First year Apple TV sales fall below expectations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First year Apple TV sales fall below expectations - Page 3

post #81 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

In June, "NOW" had NBC shows- hello??? Apple has less now than it had then!!! Are you clueless??

So you would have wished Apple to appease NBC by forcing you to pay double what you were paying before and let NBC force you to buy suckier shows with the shows you were buying before? Somehow I think you'd be bitching about Apple bowing to NBC's stupid wishes if that happened...
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

The aTV does support 1080i and 720p...

Are you sure about that? The aTV specs page says maximum resolution is 1280 by 720. I don't doubt you can *connect* it to a 1080 TV and it will upscale, I'm talking about being able to output 1080i much less p.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

People will eat Soylent Green if that's all that's offered.

So...are you saying you think people will watch it? Because it looks like it is all that will be offered, at least for now.
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

It's illegal to eat chicken with a fork in Gainesville, GA ( Link ), that doesn't mean it can be enforced.

RIAA is not breaking down doors of people who use handbrake; P2P - now that's a different story

Yes, Apple does need more content. but that does not make AppleTV a failure.

Just because it isn't, or can't be enforced doesn't mean it's right to do.

The point I was making is that very few people do that, so to them, the reason you have for using this doesn't apply.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

But there is 1080p content available. Why would you say otherwise?

Virtually none.

As far as I know, all broadcast is 720p or 1080i.
Frankly don't know if Blu-Ray or HD-DVD release are currently 1080p.

But I have no ego invested in being wrong about the amount of 1080p content.
There is no 'wow' factor between 1080i and 1080p. I've seen both on good systems.

Its not what will drive the market.... HD is barely doing that on its own.

The improvement over even DVD quality is a diminishing logarithmic curve.

My point is that simply that 1080p has zero bearing on AppleTV's success.

Now 5:1 audio, that's another story, but that's an issue with the content, not the box.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

1) The most flexible DRM I've seen (can you even rip to CD with other DRMs?
2) and they were supposed to do what then? Not get the biggest concessions from the labels ANYONE to that point was able to get? Not provide any content other than your own collection.

Audible does provide many of their audio books in a DRMed format burnable to CD. I think if you bought tracks from the Napster service, you could write to CD.

I don't understand what you're saying about point 2. I just don't see why Apple wouldn't allow "Fairplay" interoperability except to be grinches.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

jobs should let them try it their way. If it then fails, then fine, they tried, and it didn't work.

Jobs did let NBC try it their way - NBC is doing it now, just not dragging Apple's iTunes name down into mud in the process...
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

What has been released in 1080p? Doing a quick search in google, I'm not even sure where I'd find any.

All Blu-Ray content is 1080p. All HD-DVD content is 1080p, even though the cheaper players can only show it as 1080i.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

I can't see an internet provider streaming 1080P uncompressed to all the households in NYC. I don't think it's technically possible and even if it were it would be financially inviable. Who's going to pay for all this extra bandwidth that the internet can magically make appear?

ALL 1080p content is compressed. It's either H.264, or MPEG 2. It wouldn't have to be sent as uncompressed.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Apple and Microsoft provides 1080p trailers and teasers. Most Blu-Ray and HD DVD movies are 1080p.

ooh wow. trailers!

How's that rollout going for either of those, btw.
As I said... diminishing returns, and consumers by and large get it. They're being forced to shell out for hardware and content replacement for what is at best a marginal improvement.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Are you sure about that? The aTV specs page says maximum resolution is 1280 by 720. I don't doubt you can *connect* it to a 1080 TV and it will upscale, I'm talking about being able to output 1080i much less p.

I have my aTV connected to my 1080p capable 46" philips via HDMI. I set the aTV output settings to output 720p (it gave me the option for 1080i but I prefer progressive)...

The aTV does upscale...
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

So you would have wished Apple to appease NBC by forcing you to pay double what you were paying before and let NBC force you to buy suckier shows with the shows you were buying before? Somehow I think you'd be bitching about Apple bowing to NBC's stupid wishes if that happened...

The idea is to let them try. If people then didn't buy the product, they would quickly understand. But to not let them try means that no one will ever know.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Not what it would do but in what it would have- and that is content to purchase and play as in NBC shows- comprendez?

it DID have that, it's not Apples fault NBC is run by a moron.
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #93 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:32pm
If it supported more formats including .ts and .mkv, .avi and xvid, etc. and outputed them with 7.1 surround as well as let me rip my DVD's to my computer and play them on it I would have gotten one. Instead I built my own HTPC which does the job.

Apple TV's only purpose is to get apple's DRM'd itunes stuff on your TV.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Are you sure about that? The aTV specs page says maximum resolution is 1280 by 720. I don't doubt you can *connect* it to a 1080 TV and it will upscale, I'm talking about being able to output 1080i much less p.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

You're right about that.

Quote:
So...are you saying you think people will watch it? Because it looks like it is all that will be offered, at least for now.

People bought VHS recorders and used the 6 hour speeds and tapes, so yes, I would say that quality is not an issue for most people.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Virtually none.

As far as I know, all broadcast is 720p or 1080i.
Frankly don't know if Blu-Ray or HD-DVD release are currently 1080p.

Only a small fraction of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is anything less than 1080p. There are some exceptions.

Quote:
But I have no ego invested in being wrong about the amount of 1080p content.
There is no 'wow' factor between 1080i and 1080p. I've seen both on good systems.

You previously said it didn't exist, but then you say you've compared them?

Some displays have deinterlacers, but many don't. I think that's a big factor. The size of the set does make a difference too.

Quote:
Its not what will drive the market.... HD is barely doing that on its own.

Yes and no. It's growing, it's just that the cost needed to come down. The projections are a third of US homes will have an HDTV set this year. I'm pretty sure it's passed 25%.

Quote:
The improvement over even DVD quality is a diminishing logarithmic curve.

My point is that simply that 1080p has zero bearing on AppleTV's success.

You could have made that point without adding an unnecessary statement based on blind assumptions.

Quote:
Now 5:1 audio, that's another story, but that's an issue with the content, not the box.

It's partly an issue with the box too, though maybe it's upgradeable to a sufficient extent. It would either need to support DD playback, be decoded internally and sent out HDMI/recoded to DD, or have a receiver that decodes AAC5.1, which I haven't heard of one.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Sorry- Wrong! If you buy a song from iTunes you are locked into buying iPods unless you convert it into another format and then rip it again to your hard drive.

you are clearly wrong and clearly a troll
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #97 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

Jobs did let NBC try it their way - NBC is doing it now, just not dragging Apple's iTunes name down into mud in the process...

What they are doing now, is showing commercials, and not charging. That's not what they, and Apple, were disputing. The was no issue of NBC having free, commercial supported content on iTunes.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:38pm
I don't know what all the surprise is about. Selling nearly 1 Mio of AppleTVs in the first year sounds great to me. how long did it take to sell 1 million iPods???
Also the first revision of the iPod probably nevery made it to the 1 Million.
I am sure the second revision of the Apple TV will sell even better. There are so many possible improvements on hand that no matter which ones Apple will choose, the thing will be much better:
-make it a full Mac (Mini)
-add DVD or Blueray or HDDVD support
-allow for a 3.5" 1TB HDD
-support HD COntent
-add Bluetooth for wireless keyboard
-online content purchase
-add DVR
-allow for browsing the internet on big screen TV
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

you are clearly wrong and clearly a troll

Why is he wrong?
Reply
Reply
post #100 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:44pm
NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #101 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post

you are clearly wrong and clearly a troll

Actually, he's right. If you want to take your itunes music with you you have to use an ipod. Nothing else works with apple's DRM. And while you can't put purchased music on it from any other service you can put MP3's on it. So if you want to buy music online and have an ipod you are locked into itunes and vice versa.
I have an ipod loaded with music, I use itunes, however I don't buy music from itunes.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why is he wrong?

Because nothing 'locks you into an iPod', by the original post's own admission.
After a while, you get the know the MS troll talking points.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.

The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:47pm
Maybe Apple should just buy TiVo and integrate Front Row into it. Best of both worlds.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #105 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.

We don't actually know that. It was a more complex issue than that.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Because nothing 'locks you into an iPod', by the original post's own admission.
After a while, you get the know the MS troll talking points.

It locks you into an iPod if you want to play those unadulterated files on a portable player.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.

They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #108 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

Maybe Apple should just buy TiVo and integrate Front Row into it. Best of both worlds.

TiVo is moving away from hardware into content providing. There's a good article about them today in the NYTimes.
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.

Well where are the $4.99 shows? Again, the only people mentioning this was apple after they got snubbed. I think apple was just trying to save face.
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 223
12/10/07 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1984 View Post

It was $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.

They wanted to combine shows for that price. But the assumption has been that that was what they wanted for all of their most popular shows. we don't really know what they wanted to do. Apple apparently refused to negotiate their selling scheme at all. It could be that the price mentioned was only the shot over the negotiating bow. But, we might never know.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

TiVo is moving away from hardware into content providing. There's a good article about them today in the NYTimes.

They are not moving away from hardware at all. They are just embracing more ways of receiving content. They are currently working on the OCAP-based Series 4 which works with SDV without the external adapter module as well as interactive features such as On Demand using a "compatability mode" where it defaults into the cable company's ugly interface for such features.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #112 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post

The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.

Publicly, Apple says NBC wanted double its wholesale price, which would force Apple to charge $4.99. NBC says it wanted to raise prices, and the price point would start as an experiment at $2.99. Lots of posturing.

NBC has said publicly many times that it wants higher prices for music on iTunes as well as video, but it complains it has no clout (in music anyway) because Apple controls the music market. There's no doubt NBC wants higher prices.

Don't compare NBC offering shows with ads for 'free' or selling for a lower price on Amazon with what NBC wanted Apple to do. NBC knows how to sell shows on iTunes, but it doesn't know if people will put up with commercials (I won't), or will buy from the unproven Amazon service. The latest report is Amazon has 3% of the download music market (I don't know about video). You can't raise prices on such a small share, or Amazon would fail. If Amazon ever becomes the equal of iTunes, NBC will pressure them to raise prices too.
Reply
Reply
post #113 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:04pm
What I heard was that they wanted a pricing tier with full price for top shows, permanent downloads, no advertising, then another one for top shows, no advertising, time-limited downloads, and then another for with advertising for the old $1.99 price and then yet another for tv movies and mini-series, etc. etc. etc. Another idea was to package a popular show with an unpopular one at a slightly higher price but make that the only way to buy the popular one for a limited time. What a mess that would have been. Keep it simple.

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply

     197619842013  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5 • iPad 4 • CR48 Chromebook • ThinkPad X220

Reply
post #114 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It locks you into an iPod if you want to play those unadulterated files on a portable player.

Which makes a point against DRM, not Apple.
Again... what was Apple supposed to do? Offer no content?
And if you say 'license their DRM', you're just delusional about how capitalism works.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:10pm
It could of been so good to chuck that DVD player in the bin for good and do what mp3's have done for my messy CD collection. The problem is you cant rent movies out from iTunes to watch on your Apple TV or even buy movies in the UK! total lack of these features means i still have to go rent DVD's and still have to have a big ugly DVD player!

I wonder if apple could get it together and kill blue-ray one day!
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kresh View Post

I can't see an internet provider streaming 1080P uncompressed to all the households in NYC. I don't think it's technically possible and even if it were it would be financially inviable. Who's going to pay for all this extra bandwidth that the internet can magically make appear?

The internet provider doesn't need to provide the bandwidth for it to everyone, at least not at first. It's a niche thing and it will take years for the adoption to build up. But I'm sure they're probably providing that kind of bandwidth to some users already. Especially considering that people are already pirating HD movies in full 1080p format.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

My point is that simply that 1080p has zero bearing on AppleTV's success.

Now 5:1 audio, that's another story, but that's an issue with the content, not the box.

Even if nobody could see the difference, I think lacking 1080p playback capability will matter to people who spent the money on a 1080p screen. Many people do buy on specs, which means that there will be plenty of people who won't buy a box unless it has the highest available numbers.

And 5.1 content IS an issue with the box at this point. It's possible that a firmware update could enable 5.1 surround via the digital out, but I don't think anyone has figured out 5.1 playback regardless of the content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

The aTV does upscale...

I know that. My point is that the aTV can't output content encoded in 1080i or p. With both disc formats supporting p already and many tv's supporting at least i, not supporting content at that resolution puts it behind the curve.
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

That wouldn't have helped. If you want an "adoption" you need to target the masses like the iPod did. Home theater enthusiasts who are willing to plunk down thousands for a couple of B&W speakers are far from the "masses" who buy based on convenience and affordability.

At $399, the original iPod did not target the masses either. At the risk of sounding like a marketing 101 textbook, most products must carefully target early adopters to succeed.

True, some home theater enthusiasts buy $1000/foot speaker cables and paint their CD with green marker. But it is these crazy home theater enthusiasts that purchase unproven devices like Apple TV and influence early majority to drive adoption rate.

Although Apple TV looks to be a failure, the category is still legitimate (even without DVR and built-in optical drive) just ahead of its time (and missing several critical features).
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:18pm
The biggest issue isn't the AppleTV or the content providers.

It's Apple.

The content providers want a DRM system that allows time limited playback. Fairplay doesn't do that so they all use Microsoft DRM.

In the UK there's no content at all except for some US derived shows, mostly dross. There's no movies at all. And of course they charge us more here than the USA for less!

Apple is it's own worst enemy here.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

But oddly enough, without 5.1 surround sound (which has been around for what, 10 years or more) and 1080i or p, it's a product of the PAST.

It doesn't do 1080p--and I don't see 1080p content being sold on iTunes any time soon: it's rare from ANY source and would mean huge files. But it does do high-def 720p (and 1080i?), and it DOES do 5.1 surround sound. The iTunes Store doesn't sell content to take advantage of these yet, but iTunes will sync real 5.1 to AppleTV, and AppleTV will play it properly.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...5B4C2B75A.html

"In addition to stereo cables, Apple TV also features a Toslink digital optical port. Since we can send raw digital audio data over the Apple TV's optical output, can't we send DTS digitally encoded 5.1 as well?

Of course we can. Download a DTS sample file in WAV format, drop it into iTunes, and Apple TV will happily sync it and play it. Unlike Pro Logic audio, it will sound like static over regular stereo speakers, but hooked up to a DTS receiver, it is decoded into 5.1 channels of sound and played back in real DTS 5.1 surround.

The only limitation with DTS 5.1 sound right now is that Apple isn't offering it on its own movie downloads. The Apple TV can certainly “do it,” because it doesn't have to “do” anything; it merely passes it on to the 5.1 DTS decoder that anyone with 5.1 surround speakers already has.

The PlayStation and Xbox models with digital surround sound similarly output AC3 data over their Toslink optical outputs to a receiver to decode into six channels."


As for people asking for a DVD or DVR... Apple TV is about growing a viable ALTERNATIVE to those. It wouldn't make sense to support the opposite of the device's purpose. It would be a neat product that more people would buy, but Apple TV is NOT about selling high volume. It's about promoting a new kind of media distribution. Not DVD, not TV broadcasts. And promoting that new kind of distribution is great for consumers in the end. It just won't take off instantly.

Now, once video downloading was a done deal, commonplace and without compromises, THEN it could make sense for Apple to include competing means of distribution to add flexibility to AppleTV. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply

nagromme
Your Mac, PC or PS3 could help cure cancer!

Reply
post #120 of 223
12/10/07 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple is too stuck on what it wants everyone to do, rather than seeing what everyone wants to do.

Steve Jobs believes that he knows what is best for all of us. I don't think anything will ever change his mind.

This forum is filled with people who use Apple products, but don't drink the Kool Aid. SJ must think there's something wrong with us that we can't see the beauty of the path he has laid before us. To him we're that 5% who'll never be satisfied regardless of how realistic or practical our suggestions may be.

Unfortunately for us Apple doesn't need us any more. Even if we all abandoned the platform Apple would continue to be immensely profitable selling gadgets and "cool" Macs to people with limited technical knowledge.

Trying to get Apple to make products for us is like asking Microsoft to release Office for Linux.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › First year Apple TV sales fall below expectations