Originally Posted by caliminius
Just because you want to call it a game changer doesn't make it so. What's so revolutionary about the AppleTV? The fact that you get to pay for every little thing you want to watch separately? The fact that you'll be restricted to a fairly small amount of content? The fact that if they want live events, they'll either still have to pay for some level of cable or go back to the 70's and 80's and deal with a pair of rabbit ears attached to their TV?
Well for those who aren't addicted to television, paying for only the content we watch is much cheaper than paying for content we don't (and again, I love not having to deal with commercials, and I can re-watch episodes if I want). Live events is
a factor, but I still pay $14/month to have access to that.
I have a $15 cable that coupled with my iPod allows me to do all that. Why would I want to shell out $229 for AppleTV? Yes, you have to have an iPod for that but I think that would be a given for most iTunes users.
Honestly I considered that (and did shell out $50 for the cable for the iPod Classic), but it's not as seamless. I come home and have video content (from season passes and podcasts) ready and waiting for me. Having hacked my AppleTV, I can also push DivX content onto it.
Or maybe they actually prefer to actually have a wide variety of content at their fingertips that they pay for with one monthly bill, instead of multiple payments for everything they want to watch. I'm sure content providers would love you to have to pay for everything you wanted to watch, but how quickly would the ratings for many shows drop when they were charged $1.99 an episode? Would someone be watching Jeopardy at $9.95/week?
Fair enough, and as I said in a previous post, this device ain't gonna be a game changer for them (I might suggest a library card could be, however). I never watch Jeopardy nor mind-numbing sitcoms, and do have access to the dramas and a significant portion of the documentaries I want through the iTunes store (or through other means).
How many differnt shows do you watch during a season of TV? If it's more than a few, AppleTV WILL NOT be cheaper than cable. It's that simple. I think the American average is around 4 hours a TV a day. 28 hours a week at $1.99/episode comes out to over $220 a month via Apple TV. Sure makes that $100/month figure you tossed out sound cheap.
As I said, this is a good point. I often forget that the bulk of America lives in their living rooms and doesn't engage in behaviour that doesn't involve their televisions. In my household, we do watch a few shows, but choose to participate in more active activities the majority of the time.
You also seem to be forgetting multiple rooms. Want AppleTV in 4 rooms, that's over $900 in equipment alone. Hardly cheap.
True, but I can't for the life of me imagine having a family whereby we all excuse ourselves to our own rooms to sit in a chair and drool while having the life sucked out of us by a box. Four TVs? That's wrong (in my opinion, of course). Most of us grew up in households with one (maybe two) televisions, and life was good. I don't see disconnecting from my wife and children every night as a way to increase the quality of our lives.
Or they could save several hundred dollars and get a TiVo and couple it with their existing cable service and they'd have everything the AppleTV has and more: audio/video streaming, downloadable content from Amazon Unbox and other sources, YouTube, DVR functionality, photo viewing. And TiVo boxes are cheaper than AppleTV. Sure, there's a $13/month charge, but that's peanuts.
I can't argue that point. I seriously considered the TiVo route myself, but opted for the Apple TV because I was able to get (near) HD content without an expensive cable subscription. To get TiVo HD, I'd still pay $80 to comcast and $13 to TiVo. I'm not saving any money (but am gaining access to a wider variety of content, but that's not worth the increase in cost to me -- but I get that for most people, it is).