I totally agree that they need to be in there in some form, but I'd like to see them trying something a little more bold than a place holder...
I'm wondering why they don't look to partner with one of the content providers and effectively make the set-top box for them. Dish Network would seem to be a useful company to work with...
I really like the sound of this one. I'm sure I echo the feelings of everyone here when I say that the user interface on my setop box is one of the most obtuse and unintuitive interfaces I've ever seen. I keep wishing someone like Apple could do SOMETHING. (It's even worse than that monstrosity Microsoft Sync in my car. Don't get me started...)
If the thing doesn't have hardware 1080p support, there's no wonder Steve doesn't believe it will be a success: It can't be.
The only thing stopping me from getting the current Apple TV is lack of 1080p support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Someone who will eventually post in response to the above, attempting to call me out
But you can get a Broadcom decoder chip and have that support now!
Sure, at the expense of its Wi-Fi, rendering it absolutely useless for my needs.
I don't watch television and haven't for years. I have simply digitized all of my older movies and video content and watch them on my computer in iTunes. I've been moving to 1080p versions for some time now, and I'd like an Apple solution to give me a reason to buy a television.
If Apple doesn't want to cater to my wish of 1080p playback of my existing content, then I just won't buy the new Apple TV or a television. I'm not too broken up about it, but I'd love for them to at least try.
Let's get this .99 deal under way and get the volume up to prove to the studios that it works. Then the transition to a fixed monthly subscription will be a no brainer, especially with the embedded advertising gambit in play.....
At the same time the server farm will be coming on line in North Carolina with the implied impact of Apple starting its own network to compete with cable and satellite companies... the new dawn is coming and the next six months will shake up the competition to the new realities of such a discount alternative.
Apple being able to go directly to content providers with a viable solution at least one-third to as much as one-half the cost to consumers is a no brainer.... adding another leg to the stool (I'm wondering how many legs will the stool have some day???)
I don't own a TV, don't pay for cable and NEVER will. If I had a way to pay for the single show I want, with no BS craptastic advertising, I would. Probably a few times a month, maybe up to $10 or so. That is $120 that the shittard TV execs will never, ever see any other way. So yeah, iTV is aimed right at someone like me. Now I just hope I can pay my $.99 for something worth watching, from say The History Channel. Because the shit on network TV isn't worth 9 cents a show, say anything about 99. Now if I could get streamed shows where the 70% that Apple pays out goes directly to the producers of the show, and totally circumvents the current business model, I would gladly pay even more. But if ANY money is getting back to the networks then a dollar is my limit.
For what it is worth, when I watch "TV" now it is picking up a season long DVD from the library. Executive Idiots likely don't get it, so it will be interesting to see how many teeth Steve can actually get pulled from these morons.
SJ has it right. Gotta break down the subsidized set-top box model. Get the studios on board with subscription plans. And do something about local sports. Then, it's bye-bye cable. Unfortunately for people (like me) in cities like Philadelphia, Comcast owns the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers, and the TV networks which air most of their games. That's a tough nut to crack.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
I think that apple is undersellong this and will be looking to make money through iAd
Although it us unlikely that you read all of my comments on this thread, I said in response to someone else that by selling iTV at a loss an therefore cheaper more will be sold and there will be more consumers to have money 'made off of' through Apps, Media content and of course iAds- which coincidently would co-inside with the international debut of iAd
It failed because they put their full weight behind it and few people were interested.
The only thing to infer from your comment is that if they didn?t ?put their full weight behind it? it would have been successful. DOES NOT COMPUTE
Think back to the first time Apple introduced the AppleTV as iTV back in 2006. They did a preview demo, something they don?t do. They demoed it with an internal name without having settled on the final name. Something they don?t do. They then demoed it again in 2007 before the epoch-making iPhone demo. Something that in retrospect was a foolish move as two new product category announcements aren?t typically good for business. Then, as I recall, they promised a Feb release which was pushed back to March. This last one is to show how incomplete it was when they first demoed in back in October(?) 2006.
So why such an odd past with this device? My hypothesis has to do with the content owners. They did the preview demo for them, not the consumer. They did it to so they had a secure way to get their content to the living room via the internet. Apple lost this battle as it took way too long to finally ink the deal and word back in the day was Apple had to bend over to get it. This is what hurt the AppleTV, not the device itself.
It?s still the best UI for a media extender I?ve used. Prior to the AppleTV I bought (and returned) many. They all sucked. Sure, they offered more codec supports but they were a mess to setup and were very poor at streaming any content despite what the white paper specs stated. The AppleTV was the first media axtender appliance that actually worked well. It?s too bad that they didn?t get the content owners on board.
Since it?s debut a lot has changed on this front from HW to services. Many consoles we already own are doing things the AppleTV was doing back in 2007. Now Apple has the movie studios on board. Now they need a different reason for you to buy the device. I think apps are that reason, complemented by the best UI for an home theater appliance.
I would be willing to cut the cord, but no way on the kiddos, not paying 99 cents for a cartoon. They tend to be way more random on the cable use than the adults here.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.
I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.
The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.
However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.
If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.
I'm very please to see that Steve Jobs does indeed "get it". My previous post at the announcement, I made the statement that he didn't get it. Seems like the writer of the article (not AppleInsider) didn't get it. Mr. Jobs' statement that it was more of a hobby is in-line with what he's said about it before and what it actually is (and will be). I still wish that Apple would produce a product to be in direct competition with Windows Media Center. I like my Media Center, but Apple could do it so much better - if they would. But I suppose Steve knows what he's doing by not getting into that arena. He always has been a forward thinker, producing for the future and not for today.
I know that most people that own Apple TV have it hooked up to the living room entertainment system, but I would love to have the new "iTV" in my bedroom. I have an older 32" Sony Bravia LCD in there without any HD media attached to it. It is connected to basic cable and it is displayed in SD format because the TV does not have an HD tuner built in for cable use. I would love to have a very small device like an iTV for the bedroom. Especially, if it could stream other media that is located on my mac mini in the living room. It may not do it natively, but if Plex made an app that allowed it to stream on the iTV, that would be incredible. Eye TV already lets me do it to my iPhone.
I have burned a lot of my DVD library onto the Mac Mini and It would be so convenient to just watch it in the bedroom without having to get out of bed and go get the disc to play in the bedroom dvd player.
I also would hope that Apple would have a way to use a current iDevice to act as a remote control for the iTV. Since multi touch is not possible on a tv, the iDevice would be able to handle the touch aspect. Maybe even allow for motion sensing for game use. How cool would that be for people to have? What about Facetime? You could use your iPhone4 or next generation iPod camera and watch the other party on the TV screen.
Heck, now I want 2 of them so I can have it in the living room as well. Shoot, I guess my title is wrong after all.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
'live feed' is the biggest obstacle. Although most content can time shift, the perfect world is to see a 'tweet[push notification]' at the bottom of your current iTV/pad/pod/phone saying 'breaking developments in afghanistan from your favorite news source,' and you then 'tap' to watch.
Eventually Fox/CNN/NPR will be craving to 'push notification to watch me NOW,' as we become more and more mobile, and the little pipes become bigger and bigger. To integrate that into the 'big pipe' in the living room, makes for a compelling 'content hub model' with iAd for the content monetization stream (people who stare at their TV all day aren't great purchasers... but people who have an iPad and iTV are in a consumer demographic)
But I agree, Cable's lock on sports controls the minds of most of the people who spend $$ on 1080p wall units. SO ESPN would be a good place to start as well....
I do think that the camel's nose under the tent is the ability to get 'oprah' at 5:15pm on your iPad for the commute home, walk in, and iRemote your iTV to pick it up where you left off at the bus station. All for $.99 an episode. The fact that iTV drives your life to a 'content' hub (streaming ITMS) that feeds your need, will cause the critical mass to make 40 .99 shows a month (2 a day), to a $40/month revenue stream, and cause upsell for desktop Macs, iPad 2,3,4,5, and iPod Touches for those with little pockets. The hub sells the HW.
Couple this with games, Facetime (iTV with HDinput), it becomes a compelling 'content interaction model'
Well, if SJ would add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV/iTV as some of us have been waiting years and years for, perhaps he'd sell a lot more of them. As it is, I'm recording my shows on a Windows 7 Media Center that needs rebooting every few days because it's so unstable. I'd punt it out the door in a heartbeat if Apple offered an off-the-shelf DVR solution. But Steve is being stubborn Steve and still won't provide what the customers want.
The DVR business is not really profitable as Steve Jobs said - The cost of getting it from your cable provider is too cheap. Look at Tivo and see how they are doing in this business - not very well. The cost of the hardware compared from a cable company lease (which Apple is unlikely to get) is drastic. And the cable cos are not very open to competing on a level playing field with anybody else.
I know that most people that own Apple TV have it hooked up to the living room entertainment system, but I would love to have the new "iTV" in my bedroom. I have an older 32" Sony Bravia LCD in there without any HD media attached to it. It is connected to basic cable and it is displayed in SD format because the TV does not have an HD tuner built in for cable use. I would love to have a very small device like an iTV for the bedroom. Especially, if it could stream other media that is located on my mac mini in the living room. It may not do it natively, but if Plex made an app that allowed it to stream on the iTV, that would be incredible. Eye TV already lets me do it to my iPhone.
methinks SJ believes the iPad is the perfect bedroom content viewer.
It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.
I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.
The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.
However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.
If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.
I think the MLB deal was what got me thinking about the NFL stuff I wrote about. The MLB pricing is reasonable. That said, I was pretty irritated that the Phillies Nationals game was blacked out in Charlotte NC as a local market - with DC almost 400 miles away !!
I was thinking about this today - what if Apple partnered with Hulu like they did one the iphone/ipad for Hulu+ through an APP. Unlimited viewing of entire seasons of hit shows for only $9.99 a month. If you only watch a season of one show it pays for itself, plus you can watch on the go. This would get me to buy in a heartbeat.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
I agree. There is nothing that had given FOX more legitimacy than when they got NFC football in the 90s. It also killed NBC to lose the AFC and those ramifications are still felt today.
I'm beginning to believe that the only way for Apple to get what they want is to make deals such as this and to buy up at least one of the big networks. They have more than enough money.
Comments
@ktappe
Do not worry. Apple TV also needs reboot every some time.... especially when it has problem with content and hickups. It ain't high quality either.
I often wonder what I do wrong with my Apple stuff such that I'm the only one who never has problems.
I can honestly say I've never had to reboot my Apple TV, except when it does a software update.
Are there some exciting but risky features I'm missing????!!!!
I totally agree that they need to be in there in some form, but I'd like to see them trying something a little more bold than a place holder...
I'm wondering why they don't look to partner with one of the content providers and effectively make the set-top box for them. Dish Network would seem to be a useful company to work with...
I really like the sound of this one. I'm sure I echo the feelings of everyone here when I say that the user interface on my setop box is one of the most obtuse and unintuitive interfaces I've ever seen. I keep wishing someone like Apple could do SOMETHING. (It's even worse than that monstrosity Microsoft Sync in my car. Don't get me started...)
The only thing stopping me from getting the current Apple TV is lack of 1080p support.
But you can get a Broadcom decoder chip and have that support now!
Sure, at the expense of its Wi-Fi, rendering it absolutely useless for my needs.
I don't watch television and haven't for years. I have simply digitized all of my older movies and video content and watch them on my computer in iTunes. I've been moving to 1080p versions for some time now, and I'd like an Apple solution to give me a reason to buy a television.
If Apple doesn't want to cater to my wish of 1080p playback of my existing content, then I just won't buy the new Apple TV or a television. I'm not too broken up about it, but I'd love for them to at least try.
Actualy, apple is in a good position with $40bn to sell the box at a loss and still make money off $0.99 TV/movies
I think that apple is undersellong this and will be looking to make money through iAd
At the same time the server farm will be coming on line in North Carolina with the implied impact of Apple starting its own network to compete with cable and satellite companies... the new dawn is coming and the next six months will shake up the competition to the new realities of such a discount alternative.
Apple being able to go directly to content providers with a viable solution at least one-third to as much as one-half the cost to consumers is a no brainer.... adding another leg to the stool (I'm wondering how many legs will the stool have some day???)
For what it is worth, when I watch "TV" now it is picking up a season long DVD from the library. Executive Idiots likely don't get it, so it will be interesting to see how many teeth Steve can actually get pulled from these morons.
Gordon
SJ has it right. Gotta break down the subsidized set-top box model. Get the studios on board with subscription plans. And do something about local sports. Then, it's bye-bye cable. Unfortunately for people (like me) in cities like Philadelphia, Comcast owns the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers, and the TV networks which air most of their games. That's a tough nut to crack.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
I think that apple is undersellong this and will be looking to make money through iAd
Although it us unlikely that you read all of my comments on this thread, I said in response to someone else that by selling iTV at a loss an therefore cheaper more will be sold and there will be more consumers to have money 'made off of' through Apps, Media content and of course iAds- which coincidently would co-inside with the international debut of iAd
It failed because they put their full weight behind it and few people were interested.
The only thing to infer from your comment is that if they didn?t ?put their full weight behind it? it would have been successful. DOES NOT COMPUTE
Think back to the first time Apple introduced the AppleTV as iTV back in 2006. They did a preview demo, something they don?t do. They demoed it with an internal name without having settled on the final name. Something they don?t do. They then demoed it again in 2007 before the epoch-making iPhone demo. Something that in retrospect was a foolish move as two new product category announcements aren?t typically good for business. Then, as I recall, they promised a Feb release which was pushed back to March. This last one is to show how incomplete it was when they first demoed in back in October(?) 2006.
So why such an odd past with this device? My hypothesis has to do with the content owners. They did the preview demo for them, not the consumer. They did it to so they had a secure way to get their content to the living room via the internet. Apple lost this battle as it took way too long to finally ink the deal and word back in the day was Apple had to bend over to get it. This is what hurt the AppleTV, not the device itself.
It?s still the best UI for a media extender I?ve used. Prior to the AppleTV I bought (and returned) many. They all sucked. Sure, they offered more codec supports but they were a mess to setup and were very poor at streaming any content despite what the white paper specs stated. The AppleTV was the first media axtender appliance that actually worked well. It?s too bad that they didn?t get the content owners on board.
Since it?s debut a lot has changed on this front from HW to services. Many consoles we already own are doing things the AppleTV was doing back in 2007. Now Apple has the movie studios on board. Now they need a different reason for you to buy the device. I think apps are that reason, complemented by the best UI for an home theater appliance.
Actualy, apple is in a good position with $40bn to sell the box at a loss and still make money off $0.99 TV/movies
Apple needs to take no such risk since you personally guaranteed its success.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.
I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.
The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.
However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.
If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.
I have burned a lot of my DVD library onto the Mac Mini and It would be so convenient to just watch it in the bedroom without having to get out of bed and go get the disc to play in the bedroom dvd player.
I also would hope that Apple would have a way to use a current iDevice to act as a remote control for the iTV. Since multi touch is not possible on a tv, the iDevice would be able to handle the touch aspect. Maybe even allow for motion sensing for game use. How cool would that be for people to have? What about Facetime? You could use your iPhone4 or next generation iPod camera and watch the other party on the TV screen.
Heck, now I want 2 of them so I can have it in the living room as well. Shoot, I guess my title is wrong after all.
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
'live feed' is the biggest obstacle. Although most content can time shift, the perfect world is to see a 'tweet[push notification]' at the bottom of your current iTV/pad/pod/phone saying 'breaking developments in afghanistan from your favorite news source,' and you then 'tap' to watch.
Eventually Fox/CNN/NPR will be craving to 'push notification to watch me NOW,' as we become more and more mobile, and the little pipes become bigger and bigger. To integrate that into the 'big pipe' in the living room, makes for a compelling 'content hub model' with iAd for the content monetization stream (people who stare at their TV all day aren't great purchasers... but people who have an iPad and iTV are in a consumer demographic)
But I agree, Cable's lock on sports controls the minds of most of the people who spend $$ on 1080p wall units. SO ESPN would be a good place to start as well....
I do think that the camel's nose under the tent is the ability to get 'oprah' at 5:15pm on your iPad for the commute home, walk in, and iRemote your iTV to pick it up where you left off at the bus station. All for $.99 an episode. The fact that iTV drives your life to a 'content' hub (streaming ITMS) that feeds your need, will cause the critical mass to make 40 .99 shows a month (2 a day), to a $40/month revenue stream, and cause upsell for desktop Macs, iPad 2,3,4,5, and iPod Touches for those with little pockets. The hub sells the HW.
Couple this with games, Facetime (iTV with HDinput), it becomes a compelling 'content interaction model'
Well, if SJ would add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV/iTV as some of us have been waiting years and years for, perhaps he'd sell a lot more of them. As it is, I'm recording my shows on a Windows 7 Media Center that needs rebooting every few days because it's so unstable. I'd punt it out the door in a heartbeat if Apple offered an off-the-shelf DVR solution. But Steve is being stubborn Steve and still won't provide what the customers want.
The DVR business is not really profitable as Steve Jobs said - The cost of getting it from your cable provider is too cheap. Look at Tivo and see how they are doing in this business - not very well. The cost of the hardware compared from a cable company lease (which Apple is unlikely to get) is drastic. And the cable cos are not very open to competing on a level playing field with anybody else.
I know that most people that own Apple TV have it hooked up to the living room entertainment system, but I would love to have the new "iTV" in my bedroom. I have an older 32" Sony Bravia LCD in there without any HD media attached to it. It is connected to basic cable and it is displayed in SD format because the TV does not have an HD tuner built in for cable use. I would love to have a very small device like an iTV for the bedroom. Especially, if it could stream other media that is located on my mac mini in the living room. It may not do it natively, but if Plex made an app that allowed it to stream on the iTV, that would be incredible. Eye TV already lets me do it to my iPhone.
methinks SJ believes the iPad is the perfect bedroom content viewer.
It's certainly the biggest obstacle for me, though there are possible solutions.
I watch 3 TV shows per week (actually my wife does, but we'll pretend I do), so at 99c, I'd be spending $12-$15 per month on shows. I currently pay about $70 for Comcast, so I'm winning on the shows front.
The problem is I watch Formula 1 on Speed TV, as much hockey as I can get away with, and the baseball from time to time, so that needs to be resolved as well.
However, given you can get the MLB At Bat app for the iPad, and I'm sure NHL Centre Ice could become an app (if it's not already, I've not looked yet for the next season), and Formula 1 have done an app, I can start to see how this becomes workable.
If Apple allows content owners (as opposed to content providers) to create apps for this like with the iPad/iPhone, it would become beneficial for them to support it. MLB for example would make more profit from their content if they cut out the middle man, the cable companies, and sell direct.
I think the MLB deal was what got me thinking about the NFL stuff I wrote about. The MLB pricing is reasonable. That said, I was pretty irritated that the Phillies Nationals game was blacked out in Charlotte NC as a local market - with DC almost 400 miles away !!
Sports is the biggest obstacle in all this. There are a lot more sports fans than Apple / tech fans. Take a look at a comment thread at espn.com and see how many people post there compared to here.
I wrote an article (seeking alpha, I know) suggesting Apple should have bid for Sunday Ticket against Direct TV. I still think it was worth taking a hard look at, but I was eaten alive in the comments.
I agree. There is nothing that had given FOX more legitimacy than when they got NFC football in the 90s. It also killed NBC to lose the AFC and those ramifications are still felt today.
I'm beginning to believe that the only way for Apple to get what they want is to make deals such as this and to buy up at least one of the big networks. They have more than enough money.