Steve Jobs isn't convinced new Apple TV will be a mainstream hit



  • Reply 81 of 203
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Originally Posted by shehan2 View Post

    While it wasn't technically a partnership, it was promoted by apple. All they need to do is convince Hulu to write another app for the iTV, and promote it heavily during the unveiling. All the major shows are already on there. Instant problem solver.

    I would like to see it but there are issues. Hulu already has blocked Boxee. Some believe it because of the Apple TV and some believe it had to do with ad revenue and site hits. Since 3/4 networks are insetting in Hulu, one has to wonder if they'll allow this to happen if it could possibly mean a loss of TV ad revenue. Not to mention the fees they're collecting from cable companies.
  • Reply 82 of 203
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

    Steve is a significant shareholder in Disney.... Explain to me again why they would never sell?

    Because whilst he's a significant shareholder, he doesn't have a controlling stake. I think he has about 6-7%, which is less than the two biggest institutional holders combined, so basically if the big fund holders (who own pretty much everything!) didn't want to sell, there's not a lot one man could do about it.
  • Reply 83 of 203
    djmikeodjmikeo Posts: 179member
    ABC already makes an iPad app and doesn't that already allow you to watch some programs? Not to mention up to date news stories. So that is already one network that seems to be willing to cooperate. In fact, they did it despite HULU's objection because ABC is providing some shows for free that you need to pay for on the Hulu subscription.

    I wonder if there will be a 3rd App section in iTunes. One just for apps designed for the proposed iTV. Or would it be able to share iPad apps. Hmmm, the possibilities if you could also use a bluetooth keyboard. Shoot, you could do some minor work on it if you could use some iWork apps for the iTV. I already have a bluetooth keyboard so that could be pretty neat.

    Or, maybe the mousepad could be another input device. That would really be a great way to do gestures on the iTV. Better yet, make it with an accelerometer/gyro and things really get interesting for games.
  • Reply 84 of 203
    Maybe it's not going to be an instant hit, but I tell you I would buy one of these things and buy shows a-la-carte in a heartbeat if there is a reasonable selection of shows.

    I hate the cable company. I hate spending top dollar to get 500 channels when I only want 5 or so, but they're spread across five different "packages" each of which costs $10 or more on top of a $40+ "basic" fee.

    The day it looks like I can ditch the cable company and still get the things I really want I will be gone. Moreover, I'm likely to invest in something like Apple TV on top of cable to help fund the shift. I haven't done it yet because the value was too low for the investment, but it has always been *close*.

    I fear that if this model works it's the death of Tivo, and I really like my Tivos, but I won't cry about anything that lets me dump the cable TV bill.
  • Reply 85 of 203
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Originally Posted by skittlebrau79 View Post

    Apple would have to buy production companies and studios, not just the broadcast TV outlets.

    Not necessarily. The big 4 networks essentially control what gets put on the air and own most of the production companies. A company like ABC already owns production companies. Apple could also buy independent production companies.
  • Reply 86 of 203
    sheffsheff Posts: 1,407member
    The thing is, I doubt iTV is gonna be able to do NFL or MLB. I also doubt that it would have CNN or Bloomberg. That said you can of course get the apps, but that I feel is still not as good of an experience as the TV channels themselves.

    Getting movies to stream does not replace the whole TV. I mean I can already watch many shows on Hulu, but if I need to see the bears play it's back to Comcast.

    If apple could work out a deal and push their box out with comcast being able to supply some content, while apple could supply the "On Demand movies, music, games etc. I think it would be a deal breaker.

    In fact if you look at Google TV's approach: They teamed up with Direct TV I believe to become their cable (satellite?) box. In affect you can watch and search regular live TV, but also branch out of that to other sources on the internet (youtube and even hulu I believe) to get content that way. IF such a box is rented just like a regular box I think Google might have an upper hand.

    All this said I am still very excited to see people trying to rework the current TV arrangement, as it has been stale and monopolized by Comcast (cable) for way too long.
  • Reply 87 of 203
    Originally Posted by Shaun, UK View Post

    I still think the new AppleTV is going to look and work a lot like an AirPort Express for TV.

    Same here. Just a wall plug with ethernet, usb and an HDMI port. Its just for streaming. But I also I think the current AppleTV will get revamped too.
  • Reply 88 of 203
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

    I know this because I?ve used my brain. If Apple starts selling every Mac for 99¢ do you think they would be selling more or less then they are now? Do you think they would make more or less money from Mac sales?

    I think you may have confused him with the use of the word "successful." Buying market share has to result in an endgame in which money is made, otherwise the strategy hasn't been successful by any meaningful definition. In any case, I don't know that Apple has ever engaged in a loss-leader strategy, and I wouldn't expect them to start now.
  • Reply 89 of 203
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

    It is clear that Jobs "gets it" even if he doesn't have the leverage to fix it.

    So, no revolution. Too bad. Maybe incremental change will still allow for improvement...

    Yeah, the problem is that the studios just don't need to do anything avant-garde. The old model works just fine for them.

    But there are already TVs that are internet-connected through wi-fi n and that run apps. Even Vizio has one, with a row of icons on the bottom edge of the screen that you can scroll back and forth between and click on to launch the app. (Facebook, browsing, etc.)

    And, in terms of quantity and quality of apps and ease-of-purchase, Apple's App Store is by far the leader. That's why the next Apple TV needs to run iOS - to gain access to the App Store. And not just for games.
  • Reply 90 of 203
    Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

    TV shows are available on iTunes 24 hours after they first air.

    Less. Mad Men is offered a few hours after it airs.
  • Reply 91 of 203
    bagmanbagman Posts: 349member
    Originally Posted by David Honig View Post

    I really wanted the new Apple TV to be a great project, and I hope it still will be, but as long as it does not support full 1080p HD I don't think it can. Regardless if people can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p they want to be able to say that their product can broadcast in full HD because it is the best resolution. Most people can't tell the difference but they still want to be able to say they have the best and as long as Apple TV doesn't broadcast in 1080p it wont be the best and that is a huge fault on Apple's part.

    Actually, I think most people can tell the difference, given a large screen (>40 inches). 480 or 720 just seems a bit blurry, compared to 1080, unless you have a small screen. I agree that to have AppleTV limited to less than 1080 would be a non-starter for me. Does providing 1080p really run the price of the hardware up that much? Is Apple limiting this for some reason other than cost?
  • Reply 92 of 203
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

    I don't care where the shows come from but if they are going to come from the internet, where is the the bandwidth coming from? Oh right, from the cable company. Sort of a Catch 22 there, no?

    Exactly! The owner of the "pipe" is always in a position to win.

    AppleTV faces two other huge hurdles:

    - they can't offer live events like sports, breaking news, etc.

    - cable costs about $1/day while iTunes wants that much for a half hour show.
  • Reply 93 of 203
    1)Apple TV be renamed iTV-- NO

    2) iOS apps -- Yes

    3) 99$ -- Yes

    4) 99 cent shows -- Yes

    5) Instant hit -- NO
  • Reply 94 of 203
    With Google's "Google TV" coming at years end. I don't think anyone will be canceling their cable provider anytime soon. Given the amazing features that Google TV will be bringing to the living room TV watching experience. Having full access to the web on top of our regular cable provider will allow us to search our cable providers TV guide and the web at the same time. Oh and Flash is a big deal as well. Job's needs to get with the times and consider that people don't want to pay for free content just because he sells a device that's locked down that limits what you can do with it.
  • Reply 95 of 203
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    For those with kids like me, cable is the better deal. At 99 cents per show we'd be paying through the nose for the iTunes service. I'll hang-out with Comcast till I can buy the channels I want and not all the fluff on a subscription basis (a.k.a: a la carte).
  • Reply 96 of 203
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

    It is clear that Jobs "gets it" even if he doesn't have the leverage to fix it.

    So, no revolution. Too bad. Maybe incremental change will still allow for improvement...

    Apple has the cash and the ability to make some strategically important acquisitions, but they apparently don't see the value in perpetuating the current cable model.

    The future is in delivering content straight from the producer to the consumer, with apps acting as the channels.
  • Reply 97 of 203
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

    It?s easy to have a successful product when you sell it at a loss.

    I wouldn't be surprised if we got something akin to an Airport Express with an HDMI output
  • Reply 98 of 203
    I will laugh my arse off when it either does not come out, or comes out for $149 and has major limitations like lack of 1080p, and only some content providers support 99 cent rentals. All this hype is funny.
  • Reply 99 of 203
    Channel surfing and watching new things without thinking about paying for it is relaxing. TV watching is supposed to chill you out. I don't want to think about making a purchase everytime I want to maybe watch a show. Maybe the new iTV has a solution for that, or will offer one in the form of apps. Maybe all these companies forced to make boxes to deliver iptv will just head toward the iTV and make life easier for themselves and focus on the content which is most improtant.

    iTV needs to attract all different kinds of media execs to it. It'll probably start with content owners, then move on to distributors. I don't know how iOS is going to work off of a touch screen device, but it's a hot commodity and if it can show them a better way, and apps will be a big part of that, then it's got a lot of slow burn potential, and might eventually be a big success.
  • Reply 100 of 203
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,675member
    Originally Posted by neillund View Post

    With Google's "Google TV" coming at years end. I don't think anyone will be canceling their cable provider anytime soon. Given the amazing features that Google TV will be bringing to the living room TV watching experience. ...

    Yes, amazing! They'll be able to track your TV habits just like they track your online and mobile habits, while, at the same time, bombard you with annoying ads. It'll be almost like having your very own telescreen in your home! I can't wait!
Sign In or Register to comment.