Second-gen iPhone in final phase; Apple TV update planned - report - Page 3

This is still a new business. no one has it completely right yet. But someone will. The question is who?

But, if Apple has no content, then they can't even try.

I think Netflix has 4,000 films in their online catalog. Why not Apple?


For the record, I didn't say that the ATv was a lemon, but that the service was.


Well, as I said, most of that is because the service has proven to be a bomb, so far. The ATv CAN do 720p which is as good as network Tv The point is that there is no 720p content on iTunes to buy, or rent. In fact, there is almost no content of any sort on iTunes to buy, and none to rent.


Then you aren't the targeted audience for the ATv.

I'd add a zero. They claim to have 90,000 titles. I can see 40k of them being theatrical films.

I just remember the number from their opening day, i've never actually gone to the site.

But that just makes the comparison worse, doesn't it?

And in the UK we've still got zero movies on iTunes and TV episodes that cost twice as much as the competition or are free. Total washout in the UK.

That's nonsense. My own (and countless others') personal use case would be as the most seamless streaming/storage for music available, bar none. That alone is worth the price. I paid $300 for a Slimbox that is far less functional. (BTW I've never gotten onto Slim forums to bash them for not releasing the be-all-end-all product right out of the chute.


They're hardly failing.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...wnload-market/



Good for you. That's admirable.
You'd be toast in the big leagues.

Jobs is not dealing with reasonable people.

The entertainment industry consists essentially of wolves who want to drain every penny they can out of both their talent and their customers. Ask anyone who's ever dealt with record labels. I have.
Ask the writers who are trying to get a paltry 4% for their work on sales that the moguls , in bald faced lie, say doesn't exist. (Otherwise what's the big deal about givint them 4% of nothing?)

Ask anyone who's ever bought a $20 CD with 1 good song and 11 crap ones.

Listen. I understand the frustration with the fact the neither ITV or ATV are mature.
But your previous comment to the effect that its somehow common for companies to release fully mature products right off the bat is just silly. That is NEVER how it works.

And you can download these titles to own, and easily stream them to any device in your home? And they're 1080p?
My god... why aren't you beating down the door to buy their product? (Oh yeah, they don't have one.)

But if that's all you're using it for, an Airport Express would be as useful. I had an AE till it blew up! and it was a handy little gadget and also was quite useful as a network extender and makeshift portable wireless hotspot.

At least the Netflix service doesn't require devices that can only be made by one company.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what the difference is between an Apple TV with an LCD screen and a lap top or iMac.

Why would Apple spend effort adding a screen when everyone has stated that what is missing is a DVD player and HD content and the ability to play it.

Well an Apple TV with an LDC (Plasma) screen would be an actual TV, that's the difference. Yeah though, It'd still be missing the DVD slot, the HD content, the movie rentals, the TV show iTunes subscription service, the 5.1 surround iTunes content, and the direct iTunes store connectivity - not to mention the ability to play full 1080p.

If Apple don't come up with some decent deals on video content soon the whole iPod line is shot. AppleTV potentially holds the strategic high-end of iTunes video content but without those media deals in place the only real contender here is MicroSoft. MCE/Zune/Xbox may be less polished that iTunes/iPod/AppleTV but with Global, HD Marketplace to back it up - right now it's the best solution it's where Apple should be and they're not. Apple can hold that combination off by existing iPod market traction but for how long?

MS have really blind-sided Apple this time - sad to say.

McD

Here's your offer - retail price Sell you old one for $200 or $250 easily. You won't have to extend your contact. Happy?

Why are truffles so expensive? You dig them up out of the ground for free!

Even with Apple's current content situation, no one is yet even close to matching iTunes TV or movie sales.


The content providers are certainly not victims in all of this. They are fully invested in their old business model and are not at all adept at taking advantage of new media. In the case of the music downloading Apple's bulldosing benefited the entire market. The content providers are fully invested in their old business models and have no sense of the changing times. Had it been left up to the music industry they would have bulldozed the retail sites into selling music for far more than most people would want to pay for it.

The reason TV/movie studios are balking at iTunes is because it was a success. It sold content at a price people were satisfied to pay. Because of this success the de-facto price of online music is 99 cents. It is very difficult for anyone to sell music for more than 99 cents. The music industry is not at all happy about that.

The studios don't want iTunes becoming success at selling television and movies for $9.99. Forcing the de-facto price for the entire interweb. They want the flexibility of charging as much as they want. Even if it means short term profit hurting the long term online market.


The one place in all of this I would call Apple overly arrogant is in not sharing AppleTV with partners. Apple should have partnered with Netflix, they both offer what the other needs. Netflix has the content and loyal customer base, but no elegant way of getting that content from the internet onto a television. Apple has the elegant solution for getting content from the internet onto the television.

Apple not making such a deal has limited ATV adoption into the market place.


What combination is that? After five years no has been able to even recreate the success of iTunes + iPod.

Apple would repeat the success of music in video if the studios would cooperate. But that exact scenario is what they fear the most.


Apple had nothing to particularly to gain from selling DRM-less music at $1.99. It could have been a move to tempt other record labels to offer DRM-less music on iTunes. Apple would allow them to sell it for more money, which is what the argument has been about. Once Amazon was free to sell it for .99 there was no reason for Apple to charge more.


There is rumor that Apple will capitulate and offer movies for $14.99. You think Apple is the bad guy in this?


I'm sure they'd rather have that device if it were an elegant solution for getting their internet movies on to a television sold by the same company that invented the iPod.

Yeah, the movies keep coming and it works on every DVD player in my house. I just come home, grab the mail, plop the disc into the player and hit play. If someone tries to download a movie in our household, all hell would break loose because our internet would slow to a crawl for the rest of the family.

Interesting, but hardly applicable.




Get to know the big leagues first. I was ther too.

Jobs is simply unreasonable sometimes. It has nothing to do with anyone else.


I don't know you think you spoke to, but I've dealt with them professionally, and know more than a few professional musicians who have recording contracts. People who say what you are saying don't know the music industry. The profits aren't all that great. And they spend all of the money doing the recordings, promotions, recruiting, etc. The musicians spend none of their own money for that. And most acts are failures. Who do you think pays for that as well?


First of all, you've overpaid for that recording. Secondly, that's the fault of the act. It's their music and performance. You should listen to the music before you plunk down the dollars.


It's more than that. It wasn't even well thought out before it was released. Apple should have at least secured the majors before releasing the device and the service. Even if it took some months before enough content came out, it would be assured that it would.


Not fully mature. Fully prepared. That's the difference. Apple wasn't fully prepared to come out with the service when they opened it. They had no idea if the other studios would come around, and some good reasons to think they wouldn't.

That's the problem.

Who cares about owning? Most people would like to download them to watch once or twice.

I buy DVD's sometimes, but also don't always get to watch them. I'd rather download it for a few bucks. I'm nowhere alone in this.

1080p is a bunch of crap as an argument right now. Perhaps in a year or two.

No disrespect intended, but I'm just too tired to answer another long post point for point after having just done so, so I'll be fairly brief.

things change all the time. no one ever thought that IBM would be knocked offits PC perch. no one thought that Ford would be knowcked off its. No one thought there was a chance that MS could lose significant marketshare.

I could point to plenty of others, but so could you.

The fact that right now, Apple is sitting pretty with downloads, doesn't mean that they will always do so.

And are those video numbers before, or after Universal/NBC left? Lets see new ones a month or two from now, because they were 30% of Apple's sales there. Look at those numbers and subtract 30% from Apples current numbers, and distribute them around. That will give some idea. Apple goes from 42% down to 28%. That's a big difference, and would put them about equal to Vongo.

You also have to think that Apple's movie download service would be much better if APPLE would cooperate.

It's a two way street. Both sides have to give way. This isn't a game of chicken, or at least, it's not supposed to be.

Very true but Apple does not take this for granted as iPod and iTunes are ever changing and adapting. I agree iTunes will not last forever, thus far however we see nothing on the near horizon to take its place.


These numbers are before NBC left. This assumes the same number of people who would have bought NBC content from iTunes will buy it from what ever other service NBC sells it from. That more than likely will not happen. Plus NBC hasn't spread its content evenly around to Apple's competitors.

NBC does not hold all of the power simply because it owns the content. iTunes is nearly all gain with virtually no cost for studios. All they have to do is provide content that already exists. Their basically are no other costs to them and they make 70% pure profit in perpetuity.

NBC is risking sure sales leaving the largest media downloading retailer for start-ups that have little chance at equal success.


Not if the studios forced Apple into charging more money than most people are willing to pay.

It isn't just NBC here. It's all of universal. This includes the SCi Fi channel as well as others. One of the best selling downloads has been Battlestar Galactica. That's gone as well as many others.

And it doesn't really matter which of the other download sites get this stuff. They are also giving ad supported downloads, which are becoming more popular because they fit the "free" category.

If we include ALL downloads of these content categories, then Apple's share will likely be much smaller than it is now, and will be much smaller still in the near future. Apple doesn't have as much power in the video download area as may be assumed.

We don't really know what most people will pay, because Apple hasn't tried it. I'm saying that they should compromise. If sales go down, then it would be seen that it wasn't working. they could then have the chance to reevaluate the price structure, and try again.

It's better than nothing, which is where we're going now.

Who exactly is the targeted audience? People who enjoy lighting their money on fire?

That would be the people who Jobs wants to download all of their media from itunes.

Same thing!

The crappy specs of the AppleTV and their solution is to put a screen on it?!? No surprise that we'd see a rev 1.1 iPhone as well as 2.0 next year. Sounds like a bunch of analyst guesswork crap to me.

With that reasoning, you must love second generation ZUne!
Where's the mature Apple HIFI?
Nobody ever releases a lemon on purpose - that's the lesson from this.

Forget NBC- Where are all the other major film studios' films?- 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros. and Sony? Why aren't they on iTunes? Stop blaming NBC! Do they control these studios as well?

He/she's not silly but That's ridiculous! No one, except god himself, could even know to release a mature electronic product. Electronic products are forever evolving. Whoever could see into the future and know what a final iPod will look like? Not even Steve Jobs himself! The current iPods are not even "mature".

What we are talking about is an incompetent product. So stop with the "it's not mature" whine.

Why not? In the UK Apple and O2 offered O2 customers who had taken out their contracts a few months prior to break their contracts for like £200 so they could start a new iphone one.

And as for the article, haha i told ya so!

Certainly lost content is not good for iTunes. At the same time it does not help really help anyone to deny content to the most popular online retailer.


Well there were movie download sites before iTunes did. Once iTunes began offering movies and TV is when the market began to show some significant growth. Looking at sales none of the other sites have set the market on fire.

We still have to wait and see how it goes with add supported streaming. You're not allowed to keep the content and you cannot take it with you to watch at some other point. For the small amount of convenience add supported streaming offers you can just as well record the show on DVR, watch it via Video On Demand, or wait for the DVD.


Yes we do. Are you really arguing that a lower quality movie with no surround sound and no extras in a new and untested market will sell well against the higher quality incumbent market?

Since this is a fledgling business model that currently offers convenience over quality you cannot treat it the same way you were able to treat DVD's, which were sold at a premium based on higher quality. The studios cannot price lower quality digital downloads at the same level as DVD. The online download is an additional convenience not a whole replacement for the current DVD market. At least not yet.

The shortsightedness of attempting to sell digital downloads for more than the market will buy is that you risk stunting and possible severely damaging that market. The music industry is a prime example.

Apple really should have started offering iTunes movies as an additional convenience to the DVD. People who bought the DVD at a slightly higher cost would then be able to download the same content from iTunes. As people become more used to downloading content, the business grows, and technology improves then they can offer higher quality downloads for more money. Attempting to charge the same price for a lower quality product would hinder the market.


What exactly am I blaming NBC of?

Apple hasn't released an ATv with an LCD yet, so the assertion that they are doing it for some "solution" isn't yet known.

Adding an LCD doesn't mean, despite what some here are saying, that it is going to be a Tv. It could be just for the purpose of helping you go through your media to see a small preview of what you are choosing before you make your selection. some high end video receivers have this as well. It would also allow you to make changes, sorts, or whatever you might want to do without having to turn on your Tv first. Of course, you might have to be in front of the display for that, as it would likely be too small to read a menu from your seat.

It might also have an onscreen clock, and the ability to turn on your systen at a particular time with the chosen content.

It could be used for a lot of things to make the device better. It doesn't have to turn it into a Tv, though I really wouldn't mind Apple coming out with a line of high quality LED backlit LCD Tv's. I'm pretty sure they would sell a lot of them.

But we don't know if any of this LCD business is true yet. This is just like the unreleased "tablet" we argue so much about. There is no indication that Apple has any plans for one.

But they aren't. All of their content will be available elsewhere. And elsewhere is the majority of the market. With the content gone, Apple shrinks to a quarter of the market, and that's only counting the pay sites. If you count all of the places where it can be gotten for free, the Apple's share shrinks to perhaps 15%. The fact that Apple is now the largest retailer means nothing. They are only the largest retailer because they have loyal users. Those users will evaporate if the content isn't there to buy.


yes, of course. I say the same thing myself. But, market conditions change. When Jobs convinced the music companies to go with Apple, and the 99¢ song, it was because nothing had really worked. It was also because most executives (as they has said in interviews, at the time) didn't think it would work, or because they didn't think it would be a major area of sales. They were willing to try it.

But it's become mature, and now they want some control back. They are right that Apple charges little for content because they are only doing it to sell hardware. If Apple wanted to make a real business off music and video, they would be charging more. We benefit, but not for the reasons we like to think.


I think it will do fine. People are used to ad supported content for 90 years, starting with radio. Everything we get is ad supported. Magazines, newspapers, etc. The point that this is FREE!. That's the big word. That's why people steal content. They don't want to pay. When some shows went off iTunes, my wife, instead of buying them, now watches the ad supported downloads. When the commercials come on, she does what she does when watching first run shows. No big deal. It's not like this was a new concept.

Don't forget that most DVR's don't allow you to copy the shows for keeping. My DVR died recently, and I lost an entire season of The 4400, among other shows that I hadn't gotten to see. My wife said that I should just buy them from iTunes, but they aren't there any more. I'll also have to find them somewhere else. Goodbye iTunes.


Most people don't give a rats ass about quality. every time we have some discussion here about compressed audio, and a few of us talk about why we don't buy it, we get stoned from the majority who think that 128k is perfectly fine, and that there is no, or little difference between that and uncompress versions. They think that our audio systems are a waste of money, and that we are crazy for spending so much on them.

That's the market. It's the same market that demands to fill their 16:10 screens with 4;3 content, so that the manufacturers were obliged to stretch it. The same people who seem to think that purple faces are just fine. The same people who watch their 42" screens from 15 feet so that they can't even see the full rez of a 480i show, much less that of 720p content.

The same people who have 3" square speakers, and think that they sound just fine.

Most people like to THINK that they care about quality, but they really don't.


Wrong. If any new service is going to succeed, it has to be well done from the beginning. Otherwise the customers won't be there. That's what's happening. Why are we even arguing about that? That's the problem Apple's havinglow sales of the ATv product. Start from there, and don't act as though it's a success. It isn't. Start from there.

I'm also willing to bet that most of the video sales are coming from a relatively few dedicated people, and from that, a large percentage of those sales are from just a few features, such as High School Movie, which is a blockbuster online.


Even though it loos as though Apple is doing well because of that 42%, it's really just a large number among a total of little sales. The studios know that. They have the sales figures. What I read is that the sales are such a small percentage of their total, that right now, they don't care. They are willing to risk sales now, when they are trivial, rather than to take the risk that they will be locked into a model that they don't like further down the road once sales, and percentages do pick up.

I also feel as though the 800 pound gorilla, Walmart, is still strongly influencing their direction. disney was credited for breaking away, because their DVD sales are so important that they were the only major studio who could defy Walmart and get away with it.


There a undoubtedly many things that can be done. I'd like to see a lot of them tried, on iTtunes, as well as elsewhere. But, Jobs should be more willing to try them. Put some blockbuster movies at a higher price level, and see what happens. It's stupid to refuse to try it, and then to lose content. He isn't helping anyone at Apple, neither it's employees, stockholders (ME!!!), or users by being so defiant, and losing what it is that he already has.


Ok, you've got me. In which post did I say quote that to you?

The obvious use for this LCD might just be as a touch screen TV remote that can dock and charge to the Apple TV. I do believe having a touch screen LCD device to remotely control Apple TV from your easy chair makes great sense for TV, youTubing, iPod type games, and surfing etc.

Remember you heard it here first!

Apple desparately needs to get a bigger iPhone out if the second revision is going to take until summer to land. I (and many, many others) are waiting to get some more space before jumping onboard. I would have bought one day 1 had it had at least 16 gigs of space. This is good news if it's accurate, now let's hope that we see it in mid-January.

As far as Apple TV goes, people actually bought that?

This assumes that the same number of people who would have bought the content from iTunes will follow that content to which ever site sells it. So far we have not seen this trend.


The fact that Apple is the largest now means the other services are not providing what most people want at a price they are willing to pay. This is basic business 101.

If Apple stops selling content its just as likely many people will stop buying online content. I don't think people will take whatever is given to them just for the privilege of buying online.


That was because they had no choice. Today we do have a choice. Its been shown at this point many people would be willing to buy the content if it were provided to them at a cost they are willing to pay. RadioHead just offered their new album online for people to pay whatever price they wanted. NY Times reported that the average price people paid was 6 dollars.


Of the new media services. I like DVR and VOD the best. You are able to watch whatever you want whenever you want. With pretty good quality on your large screen television.

The only advantage of iTunes movies is that you own the digital file and can watch it anywhere. Without the need for portability there is little reason to select it over other media services.


That's not true. People do care about quality even if they don't really understand what quality is. There is a limit on how low the quality can go. iTunes songs are not the worst quality by any stretch.

But anyone can clearly see the difference between a good DVD and an iTunes movie on a 30 inch screen.


I don't believe this is true. There are plenty of examples where a good idea had taken some time to become a success. None of the current video services are notably successful. So by your account the one that will be a success has to be a success from the beginning. So we are still waiting.


I'm sure you are right, but that just bodes even worse for all the other services that average 15% or less.


You and I had this discussion last year. I have a friend who works at Home Entertainment at Paramount. He told me Walmart only holds so much sway over studio decisions. He said that of course the studios don't want to loose WalMart. If by some misfortune they did loose Walmart: Target, Costco, Best Buy, Circuit City and many others would pick up the slack and sell more DVD's.

He told me this right before Paramount announced they were joining iTunes.


iTunes movie downloads to go for $14.99 a pop?


That wasn't you it was someone else.

Who is this "we" you speak of?



It could also simply mean that Apple is the name they are most familiar with, since so many use iTunes already for music.


Why is that so likely? It at least as likely that they will just go somewhere else.


Yeah, and it has also been said that most of them were pirated, and that they lost money on the ones that did sell. They are now making a deal with iTunes, where the price will be higher. Strange, but true.


I like my DVR as well, except that you cant keep the recordings on DVD.


And I'm not saying that it isn't an advantage for those who want to keep them. But many people would rather pay two or three bucks to watch it a couple of times for a week to a month.


Some people care about quality, but not that many. A lot of people like the idea of quality, but that's about it.


Not really. As I said, most people sit too far back to tell if there is any difference. And, amazingly enough, many people can't tell the difference even if they are close enough, because they actually don't know how to notice it. I understand how strange that sounds, but it's really true. You forget that most people here are more tuned in than most. But even here, many people still think that anything over 128k on audio is a waste. It's been stated many times.


That's rare. most times if a goodidea is released half baked, and there is no progress over some time, it dies out.

I'm not saying that its not a good idea. I really think it is.

But, it was half baked, because it was released to the public before Apple had any idea whether or not they could follow through, and that's the problem. I certainly wouldn't have any objection if Apple started out the way it did, but built up over time. I knew there were problems when Paramount released some of its back catalog, but not new films. Recent events have proven me to be right. There is now substantially lees content now than before. And there may be less content later. Would you really tell someone to buy the ATv based on that? That's what Apple wants to do.


Maybe.


I don't know what your friend purports to know, but Walmart sells over 60% of all DVD's. They are the colossus in the industry, and they have no intention of allowing that to change. If they drop DVD sales, the companies will be devastated. It will not bother the $350 billion a year Walmart, even though they use DVD sales to bring people to the isles. It won't hurt much more than a bee sting. The companies will come crawling back.


Shows how much he knows. Why do you think Paramount only gave iTunes old movies?


I thought so.

I think you're talking about iPhone or iPod touch and a software update. What you're thinking would add totally unnecessary cost to the Apple TV. No, I believe the LCD they are talking about is about Apple selling TV's with Apple TV's technology inside. That and a slot load DVD and it would rock. Add more storage and make them in plasma instead, and I'd pay €2000 for the 42" version.

Because downloading is a small market that most people don't participate in. iTunes video sales were riding on the success of the music sales. Hardly anyone knows any other movie download service even exists.


When looking at those ATV displays in the Apple stores, even if you don't know what artifacts are, any laymen could see that something wasn't right.


That probably means is wasn't a very good idea in the first place. There are many times when products or services for various reasons take some time to find their markets.


Walmart dominates the US, but not the entire world. DVD's unlike video downloading is a large and thriving market. People will go where ever they are offered.


Well...Paramount didn't have to give iTunes anything at all.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.


I wish I could agree. I have friends with satellite, they don't notice the ever present "digititus" that I see. In the old days, when I went to people's houses, faces on their Tv's were either purple ot reen, but they never noticed.

Even at my lab, some customers would bring in prints made on some minilab, and want me to duplicate them. When I asked if they wanted us to make them better (I actually had to ask that, because people always want what they first get), they would look at me and ask, "Better?". I had to explain. Then they asked if it would cost more.


No, good ideas are all too often screwed up in the making. Look at the Cube. A good idea, but screwed up in several areas. Apple never addressed those areas, choosing instead to discontinue it.


That's true. But that's all that matters, because the service is only available here so far, though soon it will be elsewhere.


No, but the fact that they didn't give them anything really good, or new, tells it all.

Sounded as if you were stating these limitations for iTunes and to then exempt every other download service from those same limitations. I'm saying with iTunes having the most sales of all of these services if iTunes has limitations its even worse for the other services that few people have even heard of.

Just because NBC moves its content to another service does not mean that all of the people who would have downloaded NBC content from iTunes are automatically going to move over to that other service. Some people may, I doubt most will.


Well sometimes its subtle. You have to know what to look for to see it. The general public is not educated on proper color and contrast in an image, they will take what they are offered as being true. For people in professional image making or processing, it takes time to train your eye to understand the difference between neutral color/contrast vs anything that is off neutral. After that point you see it everywhere.

Picture quality was one of the selling points of DVD that made it such a big seller in 2000. I remember in The Wiz electronic store. They would have two TV's showing the same movie one on DVD one on VHS. Once given a comparison many people could see the difference in quality.


Yes good ideas are often mismanaged by one company an often another company will pick up that idea and make it work.

The point is that people want specific content. If you want a show, you want that show, not some other one. So, yes, you do follow the content around. You have to.


Of course. I've been taking photo's since I was a teenager in the mid '60's, and professionally in the industry in different capacities since 1969. I tend to notice things that most people don't see even after I point it out.


Just like with the CD, most people bought it because of the convenience. The quality came along for the ride. Except for the high end model Tv's of the day, most sets couldn't show off the quality of a DVD. It did look better than VHS, but not nearly as good as it looked later on, when sets got better.


Sadly enough, I've seen it happen many times, and no one picks it up.

We'll see what happens here. Maybe Jobs&Co. will have made some deal that will be announced at MacWorld. At least, I hope so.