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

15681011

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Porchland View Post


    Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.



    As another person has pointed out, they wouldn't need access to the content provider if they are aligned with Dish or whoever. What they could do is use the ATV to notice when you've missed a recording and if it's available in iTunes, provide you the link to rent or buy it. That would be pretty cool.
  • Reply 142 of 203
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rhyde View Post


    One word: Newton.

    They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.



    Yeah but they weren't trying to sell each unit at under manufacturing cost. It lost money because they failed to recoup the development and setup costs. And it failed to do that because it was shit.
  • Reply 143 of 203
    joe hsjoe hs Posts: 488member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rhyde View Post


    One word: Newton.

    They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.



    They should bring back the newton.

    Same case as that MessagePad [OMG iPhone has MessagePad in it's dictionary as a correction from messagepad] not the clamshell eMate but the candybar style but with new internals and capacitive screen-with color newton OS- and imagine the guts you could fit inside one of those monsters now!



    /I doubt it would sell but tbh i wound get one.
  • Reply 144 of 203
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,730moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post


    A lot of postings have stated that if the device is not 1080p, then they would not purchase the new device. My question is, what would the difference in bandwidth be between 720p and 1080p?



    You can broadcast 1080p at the same bitrate as 720p but you are more likely to get compression artifacts in high motion scenes. I generally find 4Mbps to be an acceptable minimum for 720p and 8Mbps for 1080p. 1080p has just over 2x the pixels of 720p so those bitrates should suffice.



    iTunes uses 4Mbps currently and that falls within the FCC definition of what a broadband connection is.



    The Zune network (XBox Live video) broadcasts 1080p at 3Mbps.



    The choice on bitrate depends on your quality bar. Microsoft's as we all know is pretty low and I think Apple make the right choice to go with 720p for a 4Mbps stream.



    The Playstation store uses 8Mbps 1080p, which is great but businesses have to think about scalability. It's best to start out smaller to determine the market and load and ramp up if they can sustain it than to start with 1080p and find they can't, then have to downgrade the service and have people return the device as it wasn't what was advertised.
  • Reply 145 of 203
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    The Apple TV failed because it was too locked down. With iOS I think it'll be a huge hit with the apps. But that doesn't mean it will "change" TV.



    There may be a few great apps that give people a reason to get an iTV, but I don't think it will be "huge" numbers. I still think Apple needs to follow the iPod business model:



    1. Make a simple device that allows you to listen to the music you already own.

    2. Sell lots of them to build up a critical mass.

    3. Tell the music execs, "look we have all these devices in consuer's hands, how about we sell them some content?"



    But since Apple is now the 800 lb gorilla, they really need to build up a huge number of devices (#2) to make #3 an attractive enough proposition to get the tv/movie execs to get over their fears of working with Apple. The problem is that Apple is trying to skip #1, go straight to #3, and hope that #2 follows on it's own.



    Apple needs to give people a reason to buy that is familiar...watching the content they already own. Assuming we'll never see a blu-ray player in an Apple device, we are talking about being able to play the DVDs we already own. Ideally, this would be by ripping; but it's unlikely the movie industry would ever formally endorse that. So we are really talking about including a DVD player. Sure, some of you will consider that "dead" technology. But it's the carrot that would allow the iTV to be a Trojan Horse. It would help immensely in justifying the purchase, and once it's in the homes, people can try out the other features including buying content from Apple.



    But first they have to get the box in your living room. Even if that means for the near-term putting up with people watching movies they already own (gasp!).
  • Reply 146 of 203
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stompy View Post


    Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.



    There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.



    The premium for 1080p sets is negligible now, but the point is taken. Lots of people are perfectly happy watching distorted or clipped SD content on their HDTV sets, thinking I guess that if the picture is bigger that it must be better. Not that the broadcasters and the content producers aren't equally to blame. They are still pumping out clipped, distorted, letter-boxed and pillar-boxed content. Pixel count is the least of the problems with so-called HDTV -- the entire "standard" is a disaster. If Apple ventures into this swamp, they'd better be wearing stainless steel hip-waders.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post


    Yeah but they weren't trying to sell each unit at under manufacturing cost. It lost money because they failed to recoup the development and setup costs. And it failed to do that because it was shit.



    It failed because it was ahead of its time. The product was actually very good.
  • Reply 147 of 203
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by djg View Post


    This has very little, if anything to do with TV - its primarily a move to stop people moving to Android. Having an iOS device for your TV means that people can feel comfortable buying iPhone apps and iPad apps and getting their TV versions too. If people start buying Android apps for their TV and there is no iOS alternative, then that is going to pull people towards Android phones as well.



    The biggest barrier to switching between Android and iOS (in either direction) is a person's investment in apps for that platform.



    I am not sure the barrier is the cost of apps for most people. The average price of an iPhone app is about $2 IIRC. How many apps do most people buy?
  • Reply 148 of 203
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Probably should go without saying, but it's difficult to take this hearsay report as Steve lowering expectation about an unannounced and entirely rumored product.



    I agree with you on Apple's technology leveraging ability, though. Apple is in a remarkable position to build on their hardware and software expertise. But they still have to choose their targets carefully. Taking a lesson from Napoleon, they have to avoid the temptation of invading Russia.



    You probably just started one hell of a rumor ...
  • Reply 149 of 203
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    You know one of the nicer matches production company wise is the Discovery Channel. Of course they are $10B.
  • Reply 150 of 203
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stompy View Post


    Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.



    There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.



    This is why research shows many glossy brochures are taken after a purchase ... people like to have material to convince themselves they did the right thing.
  • Reply 151 of 203
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    You probably just started one hell of a rumor ...



    Just remember where you heard it first.
  • Reply 152 of 203
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,471member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rhyde View Post


    One word: Newton.

    They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.



    Can we scratch Apple history when SJ wasn't there? A certain someone should have stayed selling sugar water!
  • Reply 153 of 203
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    This is probably the future of television but it wont happen overnight nor over a few years. This is one industry in which Apple has to go for market share in order to succeed. They will never get agreements with studios, networks, and sports organizations without a ready audience in the 10s of millions. Another problem is most households have multiple TVs. Do we need a box for every set? If I'm watching a live event and my son wants to play a game then what? This is so much different than an ipod and itunes. Music is a more personal activity whereas watching TV can be a family event. Its going to be hard to compete with Netflix. Even if they already have an app, so many people are already watching movies thru their PS3s, XBOXs and the Wii. The TV business model had been around for a VERY long time and has made a lot of people very rich. This is one case where even Apple doesn't have enough money and/or fans to change an industry.
  • Reply 154 of 203
    ouraganouragan Posts: 437member
    Quote:

    "Even with the refresh, Jobs isn't convinced the new version will be a mainstream hit, says the person familiar with Apple's plans," Burrows wrote. "Most consumers aren't ready to cut the cord on their cable company, or put up with the tech-nastics required to stream content from the iTunes collection on their PC to their living room big-screen TV.



    "In other words, it's a product that at best will delight some of the 'hobbyists' that have always been interested in the product."



    He added: "My sense is that Apple doesn't want to overplay its hand, by making too much of this mobile TV opportunity. This isn't another 'revolution' in the making. Even if Apple wanted to try that, studios have all but nullified the possibility by refusing to let Apple sell subscriptions to your favorite shows, to be watched whenever and as many times as you like."





    In fewer words: The iTV is a product without a market or content.



    And I agree with previous remarks:



    Quote:

    No 1080p = no buy

    I would be interested in buying a product like this and subscribing to TV content... but if there really is no support for 1080p, I will not buy it.





    With a cable company, you get a 1080i TV signal which the cable company set top box upgrades to 1080p images. If the Apple iTV set top box cannot do the same, it doesn't stand a chance in the market place. Consumers bought expensive LCD TVs for the quality and depth of 1080p images. They won't go back to mediocre quality, cheap, smaller 720p images just to please Apple.





  • Reply 155 of 203
    smerchsmerch Posts: 25member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GordonPrice67 View Post


    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.



    Gordon



    I'd better dollars to donuts that this is Gordon at the 1:10 mark:



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCumH8LRo1A
  • Reply 156 of 203
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,516member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ouragan View Post




    Consumers bought expensive LCD TVs for the quality and depth of 1080p images. They won't go back to mediocre quality, cheap, smaller 720p images just to please Apple.




    You're painting all consumers with a broad brush.



    I, for one, did not buy an expensive LCD TV just for the reasons you mentioned. My main reason was to be able to see it from my couch, which by necessity is 15+ feet away from my TV. Sure, I like the clarity of the HD channels now and then, but I'm perfectly OK with a lower resolution image on my favorite weekly TV shows.



    I'll pay the measly $99 so that I can toss an extra 99 cents when push comes to shove.





    Thompson
  • Reply 157 of 203
    Steve Jobs is right, this new Apple TV will not be mainstream yet.



    It will only be one of the building blocks in the right direction, by changing the platform to iOS/ARM/iApps, and lowering the entry price to $99. TV show rentals is a good thing, but not a game changer.



    It will only go mainstream when Apple TV can really embrace 3 big industries:



    1. Cable TV;

    2. Gaming;

    3. Telecommunications.



    To challenge Cable TV, iTunes needs to offer On Demand Ad supported TV, TV subscriptions and Live Sports Streaming.



    To challenge Game consoles, Apple TV needs more power from the ARM/GPU chips than currently available, and also needs to support games that play on Apple TV's big screen, but use as inputs the iPhones/iPad and iPod touches accelerometers, gyroscopes and touchscreens. Game center and support for multiplayer gaming are an integral part of these building blocks.



    To take some market from the Telecommunications industry, Apple TV needs to offer Facetime conferencing, with multiple simultaneous users.



    As we are observing, Steve is putting in place the required building blocks for Apple TV, and competition is just trying to stop pieces of it, instead of building an equivalent ecosystem. When they realize what Apple has done, they will be too far behind, just as Apple did with the iPod (MP3 player), iPhone (smartphone) and the iPad (tablet), markets that existed before Apple, but no one had a really successful product before.



    Steve has already conceived the whole ecosystem, he is just putting it in place piece by piece.



    Until then, Apple TV will look just like a Hobby, but someday it will become lethal to competitors.



    There are certainly other new products in Apple's radar, like an iOS device for the car and an iOS based interactive table/surface (Apple's version of MS Surface).



    But the market for these two products is still immature, because the ecosystem is not ready for them yet, needing some other building blocks before Apple's intentions become clear.
  • Reply 158 of 203
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iStevo View Post


    Steve Jobs is right, this new Apple TV will not be mainstream yet.



    It will only be one of the building blocks in the right direction, by changing the platform to iOS/ARM/iApps, and lowering the entry price to $99. TV show rentals is a good thing, but not a game changer.



    It will only go mainstream when Apple TV can really embrace 3 big industries:



    1. Cable TV;

    2. Gaming;

    3. Telecommunications.



    To challenge Cable TV, iTunes needs to offer On Demand Ad supported TV, TV subscriptions and Live Sports Streaming.



    To challenge Game consoles, Apple TV needs more power from the ARM/GPU chips than currently available, and also needs to support games that play on Apple TV's big screen, but use as inputs the iPhones/iPad and iPod touches accelerometers, gyroscopes and touchscreens. Game center and support for multiplayer gaming are an integral part of these building blocks.



    To take some market from the Telecommunications industry, Apple TV needs to offer Facetime conferencing, with multiple simultaneous users.



    As we are observing, Steve is putting in place the required building blocks for Apple TV, and competition is just trying to stop pieces of it, instead of building an equivalent ecosystem. When they realize what Apple has done, they will be too far behind, just as Apple did with the iPod (MP3 player), iPhone (smartphone) and the iPad (tablet), markets that existed before Apple, but no one had a really successful product before.



    Steve has already conceived the whole ecosystem, he is just putting it in place piece by piece.



    Until then, Apple TV will look just like a Hobby, but someday it will become lethal to competitors.



    There are certainly other new products in Apple's radar, like an iOS device for the car and an iOS based interactive table/surface (Apple's version of MS Surface).



    But the market for these two products is still immature, because the ecosystem is not ready for them yet, needing some other building blocks before Apple's intentions become clear.



    We shall see if MS can pull it off and they may be late, but they are doing the same. Windows Phone 7, has complete office integration, Exchange/Enterprise, Zune Marketplace for buying music, movies, and TV, and the major hook they are selling is direct integration with XBox Live for gaming. Then they have media center. So it should be an interesting couple of years.
  • Reply 159 of 203
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    dupe post
  • Reply 160 of 203
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Okay here's my (latest) spin on this whole concept....



    1080p I WANT IT TOO!!!



    That being said... I've got a question to all those who are screaming the same song.



    Q: Who streams 1080p movies over the internet?



    - iTunes (nope)

    - Netflix (nope)

    - Hulu (lol.. nope)

    - Hulu+ (still lol nope)

    - Amazon (nope)



    Anyone I'm forgetting?



    SO what content are YOU going to have that IS 1080p?



    - Bitorrent ... 'rentals'

    - Ripped Blu-ray movies? (still very much illegal in the US ... luckily for me I've formed my own 2/3 acre country that refuses to recognize the DMCA)



    Anything else I'm forgetting?



    So yea... I really DO want 1080p (likely for the same reasons as you) but given the points I've made above do you see any justification for offering it from Apples point of view?
Sign In or Register to comment.