The Xbox360, PS3 and Wii all support video content and gaming. In fact the majority of Netflix streaming is viewed on games consoles. With the latest version of the 360 dashboard, MS is busy adding options for watching both live and on demand video content from providers like Comcast, Verizon, HBO, the BBC and more.
Why did you conveniently just skip over this post TS, yet respond to the others?
He's right in both regards. You said Jobs was only opposed onstage (implying he was for it behind the scenes, which the link clearly proves he wasn't).
And he's dead on about the 360 doing video and gaming. I know you said "broadcast content"- which only cable boxes have, but one could argue HBO go is definitely broadcast content.
Either way, he had your number on the first point. You could at least admit it rather than avoid it and keep arguing the same thing that has been disproven.
Why did you conveniently just skip over this post TS, yet respond to the others?
Because I didn't see it.
Quote:
You said Jobs was only opposed onstage (implying he was for it behind the scenes, which the link clearly proves he wasn't).
I DID say Steve, didn't I? I apologize for that; wasn't reading closely. Apple itself didn't, Steve did. Yes, I remember that now. Sorry about that.
Quote:
And he's dead on about the 360 doing video and gaming. I know you said "broadcast content"- which only cable boxes have, but one could argue HBO go is definitely broadcast content.
And truly, that's much closer to what any Apple 'cracking the television' would be than the archaic system we associate with cable and satellite TV.
How long one can wait for this things to work together and stop segregation?
I do not give damn about restrictions. I am not going to use iPad to watch some video service when I am home. I have big f... TV set for this and Apple TV!
Another year to wait until this stuff is "developed" by Apple?
Thank God for hackers/jalbreakers job.
So when are we going to have PPV and customized Internet TV at last? I want to pay, but in the meantime I have to use grey area streaming by people, because I am not paying for sh... model of cable or satelite TV regardles how "fast" they sell it for in bulk crap that I do not care for.
How long one can wait for this things to work together and stop segregation?
I do not give damn about restrictions. I am not going to use iPad to watch some video service when I am home. I have big f... TV set for this and Apple TV!
Another year to wait until this stuff is "developed" by Apple?
Thank God for hackers/jalbreakers job.
So when are we going to have PPV and customized Internet TV at last? I want to pay, but in the meantime I have to use grey area streaming by people, because I am not paying for sh... model of cable or satelite TV regardles how "fast" they sell it for in bulk crap that I do not care for.
Since you can Airplay anything from the iPad/iphone I don't see this has a big deal except for high end games that just don't airplay very well because of latency and skip frames.
VOD internet "may" work in volume (if the ISP don't block it), but not live feeds. (already explain why several times not gonna do it again in this reply, IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level)
The real problem for PPV:
Packaging channels seems to be a problem in both the US Canada except for Quebec province which allows "a la carte" programming. imo the fight should be on that front. I don't know at what level is packaging being force down. Is it Cable/sat, the FCC/CRTC or studios?
Quebec "a la carte". Note that you still must buy the start-up base before you can choose channels.
Since you can Airplay anything from the iPad/iphone I don't see this has a big deal except for high end games that just don't airplay very well because of latency and skip frames.
VOD internet "may" work in volume (if the ISP don't block it), but not live feeds. (already explain why several times not gonna do it again in this reply, IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level)
The real problem for PPV:
Packaging channels seems to be a problem in both the US Canada except for Quebec province which allows "a la carte" programming. imo the fight should be on that front. I don't know at what level is packaging being force down. Is it Cable/sat, the FCC/CRTC or studios?
Quebec "a la carte". Note that you still must buy the start-up base before you can choose channels.
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
Indeed. But I did choose Discovery, history (french) on my a la carte programming. Would be interesting to see Bell stats on the "a la carte" channels. Noticed you can even do packaging in "a la carte", sometimes they package channels that count has one choice. They could package a bunch of education channels for the price of one choice. The must get first start-up package does include all the major networks and the unpopular educational channels. I don't think a true PPV channel line-up with no minimal startup package is doable indeed. Not gonna happen. They could also promote channels by given them for free for a limited time.
anyway if Apple get into the IPTV market the won't have to bother with any of this because they won't get into the live feeds market and stay with VOD. There is plenty of room to improve there VOD selection and pricing. Live feed is a complex beast.
Imo Apple may announce VOD subscription. The dream would be: lets say IPTV with AT&T and Apple VOD doesn't consume internet bandwidth. AT&T stop offering VOD but get a cut from Apple revenue. AT&T could then cache all the VOD content from inside there IPTV network insuring quality streaming for all clients no matter what the load is. AT&T would be outsourcing there VOD to Apple.
Gaming is not what is holding the AppleTV back. It is the fact that streaming services like Netflix are a superior offering to consumers. I want to see something that gives both cable AND Netflix a run for their money.
I'd say even Netflix is not enough.
I believe AI once reported that out of all the media streaming set top boxes (AppleTV, Roku, WD TV, Boxee, etc), AppleTV is the most popular. The problem is none of them are that popular right now. AirPlay, Netflix, ripping DVDs, etc is not driving wide spread adoption of these devices.
In contrast games consoles have been widely adopted. The majority of US households owns a games console. Consumers buy them to pay games, but then quickly start using them for non-gaming features as well.
There are plenty of anti smartTV articles. Articles that say people just want a dumb box. My personal belief is this is because they don't own an AppleTV or smartTV so haven't seen the benefits. Once they do, there is no going back. However, this gives Sony and Microsoft a huge advantage as they already have smart boxes in people's homes so can easily push new services.
Apple needs a stronger message saying why consumers should buy an AppleTV and I personally believe Apps (especially games) would help. Games have certainly helped sell the iPod touch.
This is all moot anyway. Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers. They could then continue to build their own, giving themselves a few months grace on every iOS release, but there is no way that Apple will be able to manufacture enough to compete with Google TV. In fact the release of an Apple TV which uses Siri etc. will "spook", as the Google executive said recently, TV manufacturers into going to a Google TV OS. No entrant into this market is going to be able to produce, from scratch, as many TVs as the incumbents. It will be a faster version of the phone market changes - faster because there is no Nokia to act as a barrier between Apple and Google, and Android has no catching up to do - there is no two years grace.
That is why the Google executive ( Who was it, Rubin?) said that Google TV will be on most TVs in 2013. Apple spooks the market, and then google swoops in with a white horse - a free OS.
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
It would be a shame, assuming all those things come to pass as a result. But I'm not really convinced. It assumes that everyone would abandon packages, and that's just not true. Packages will still be a good value, but the fact is they don't serve everyone well. I think some channels would benefit, because a lot of channels are stuck in higher tier packages, inaccessible to those that don't care to spend so much. I'm not going up a tier to get NatGeo and Science.
Your PBS example doesn't seem right, because PBS airs their content for free, no cable sub required. Most of History Channel's prime shows have nothing to do with history, I'd say they've already deviated from their mission under the current model. The Travel Channel is about people going places to eat and talking about eating, travel is incidental many times. Cartoon Network is showing live action, SciFi (now SyFy) is showing a lot that has nothing to do with its original mission. Don't get anyone started on MTV, which now pretty means eMpTV. All these are examples of "phoning it in" already happening under the current regime, maybe it's time to cull the herd a little.
This anguish on both sides about whether or not to allow a la carte may be beside the point. Linear channels are an artifact of an old regime, and paying for access to bundles and tiers of ad-based linear channels is pretty bizarre on top of that, it might help everyone if channels weren't locked away in bundles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox
Steve Jobs was initially resistant to the idea of third-party apps, but pressure from within Apple and third parties convinced him otherwise.
Is that really known, or is that just reading into the situation? I haven't seen anything that was supposed to be the real story. I think it's at least as likely that they planned it all along, but they weren't ready. After all, it was a brand-new platform, it may have been an extension of what they have already done, but there was a lot of new ground cut there.
Quote:
It is the fact that streaming services like Netflix are a superior offering to consumers. I want to see something that gives both cable AND Netflix a run for their money.
This is all moot anyway. Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers.
Whilst integrated TV sets will be important for introducing smart TV services to new consumers; standalone devices could still easily represent the majority of the market. TVs are not replaced that frequently. It is a lot easier to sell someone a new $99 set top box with new features (such as AppleTV) every few years than to convince them to replace their TV.
This is all moot anyway. Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers. They could then continue to build their own, giving themselves a few months grace on every iOS release, but there is no way that Apple will be able to manufacture enough to compete with Google TV.
Apple doesn't need to win market share to win financially. Also, Apple doesn't make the units. They get one of several contract manufacturers to do the job based on Apple's specifications.
Comments
Anyone have any info or speculation?
Thanks!
Huh?
Does this not show up for you?
I see it now. I must have missed it earlier.
Mystique is important for phone sales and more importantly price maintenance.
That is too long a time
Post of the ages. Or for the ages? . . . ?
First day of the new year of the Julian calander.
First AI article of the year.
First post of the year and ConradJoe has to ruin it with an asinine statement.
Awesome¡
He's a product of the Julian calendar, a fraud. But then so are we all, just some more so.
If Hulu Plus runs, its a great thing!
Or HBO Go
But that UI is horrific.
It wasn't just on stage, even in private Steve Jobs was opposed to 3rd party native apps on the iPhone.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...bs-apps-iphone
The Xbox360, PS3 and Wii all support video content and gaming. In fact the majority of Netflix streaming is viewed on games consoles. With the latest version of the 360 dashboard, MS is busy adding options for watching both live and on demand video content from providers like Comcast, Verizon, HBO, the BBC and more.
Why did you conveniently just skip over this post TS, yet respond to the others?
He's right in both regards. You said Jobs was only opposed onstage (implying he was for it behind the scenes, which the link clearly proves he wasn't).
And he's dead on about the 360 doing video and gaming. I know you said "broadcast content"- which only cable boxes have, but one could argue HBO go is definitely broadcast content.
Either way, he had your number on the first point. You could at least admit it rather than avoid it and keep arguing the same thing that has been disproven.
Why did you conveniently just skip over this post TS, yet respond to the others?
Because I didn't see it.
You said Jobs was only opposed onstage (implying he was for it behind the scenes, which the link clearly proves he wasn't).
I DID say Steve, didn't I? I apologize for that; wasn't reading closely. Apple itself didn't, Steve did. Yes, I remember that now. Sorry about that.
And he's dead on about the 360 doing video and gaming. I know you said "broadcast content"- which only cable boxes have, but one could argue HBO go is definitely broadcast content.
And truly, that's much closer to what any Apple 'cracking the television' would be than the archaic system we associate with cable and satellite TV.
How long one can wait for this things to work together and stop segregation?
I do not give damn about restrictions. I am not going to use iPad to watch some video service when I am home. I have big f... TV set for this and Apple TV!
Another year to wait until this stuff is "developed" by Apple?
Thank God for hackers/jalbreakers job.
So when are we going to have PPV and customized Internet TV at last? I want to pay, but in the meantime I have to use grey area streaming by people, because I am not paying for sh... model of cable or satelite TV regardles how "fast" they sell it for in bulk crap that I do not care for.
At last!
How long one can wait for this things to work together and stop segregation?
I do not give damn about restrictions. I am not going to use iPad to watch some video service when I am home. I have big f... TV set for this and Apple TV!
Another year to wait until this stuff is "developed" by Apple?
Thank God for hackers/jalbreakers job.
So when are we going to have PPV and customized Internet TV at last? I want to pay, but in the meantime I have to use grey area streaming by people, because I am not paying for sh... model of cable or satelite TV regardles how "fast" they sell it for in bulk crap that I do not care for.
Since you can Airplay anything from the iPad/iphone I don't see this has a big deal except for high end games that just don't airplay very well because of latency and skip frames.
VOD internet "may" work in volume (if the ISP don't block it), but not live feeds. (already explain why several times not gonna do it again in this reply, IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level)
The real problem for PPV:
Packaging channels seems to be a problem in both the US Canada except for Quebec province which allows "a la carte" programming. imo the fight should be on that front. I don't know at what level is packaging being force down. Is it Cable/sat, the FCC/CRTC or studios?
Quebec "a la carte". Note that you still must buy the start-up base before you can choose channels.
http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf
Since you can Airplay anything from the iPad/iphone I don't see this has a big deal except for high end games that just don't airplay very well because of latency and skip frames.
VOD internet "may" work in volume (if the ISP don't block it), but not live feeds. (already explain why several times not gonna do it again in this reply, IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level)
The real problem for PPV:
Packaging channels seems to be a problem in both the US Canada except for Quebec province which allows "a la carte" programming. imo the fight should be on that front. I don't know at what level is packaging being force down. Is it Cable/sat, the FCC/CRTC or studios?
Quebec "a la carte". Note that you still must buy the start-up base before you can choose channels.
http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
Indeed. But I did choose Discovery, history (french) on my a la carte programming. Would be interesting to see Bell stats on the "a la carte" channels. Noticed you can even do packaging in "a la carte", sometimes they package channels that count has one choice. They could package a bunch of education channels for the price of one choice. The must get first start-up package does include all the major networks and the unpopular educational channels. I don't think a true PPV channel line-up with no minimal startup package is doable indeed. Not gonna happen. They could also promote channels by given them for free for a limited time.
anyway if Apple get into the IPTV market the won't have to bother with any of this because they won't get into the live feeds market and stay with VOD. There is plenty of room to improve there VOD selection and pricing. Live feed is a complex beast.
Imo Apple may announce VOD subscription. The dream would be: lets say IPTV with AT&T and Apple VOD doesn't consume internet bandwidth. AT&T stop offering VOD but get a cut from Apple revenue. AT&T could then cache all the VOD content from inside there IPTV network insuring quality streaming for all clients no matter what the load is. AT&T would be outsourcing there VOD to Apple.
Gaming is not what is holding the AppleTV back. It is the fact that streaming services like Netflix are a superior offering to consumers. I want to see something that gives both cable AND Netflix a run for their money.
I'd say even Netflix is not enough.
I believe AI once reported that out of all the media streaming set top boxes (AppleTV, Roku, WD TV, Boxee, etc), AppleTV is the most popular. The problem is none of them are that popular right now. AirPlay, Netflix, ripping DVDs, etc is not driving wide spread adoption of these devices.
In contrast games consoles have been widely adopted. The majority of US households owns a games console. Consumers buy them to pay games, but then quickly start using them for non-gaming features as well.
There are plenty of anti smartTV articles. Articles that say people just want a dumb box. My personal belief is this is because they don't own an AppleTV or smartTV so haven't seen the benefits. Once they do, there is no going back. However, this gives Sony and Microsoft a huge advantage as they already have smart boxes in people's homes so can easily push new services.
Apple needs a stronger message saying why consumers should buy an AppleTV and I personally believe Apps (especially games) would help. Games have certainly helped sell the iPod touch.
That is why the Google executive ( Who was it, Rubin?) said that Google TV will be on most TVs in 2013. Apple spooks the market, and then google swoops in with a white horse - a free OS.
Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers.
Apple does not license its tech.
The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?
There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, only because we didn't know what was out there.
It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
It would be a shame, assuming all those things come to pass as a result. But I'm not really convinced. It assumes that everyone would abandon packages, and that's just not true. Packages will still be a good value, but the fact is they don't serve everyone well. I think some channels would benefit, because a lot of channels are stuck in higher tier packages, inaccessible to those that don't care to spend so much. I'm not going up a tier to get NatGeo and Science.
Your PBS example doesn't seem right, because PBS airs their content for free, no cable sub required. Most of History Channel's prime shows have nothing to do with history, I'd say they've already deviated from their mission under the current model. The Travel Channel is about people going places to eat and talking about eating, travel is incidental many times. Cartoon Network is showing live action, SciFi (now SyFy) is showing a lot that has nothing to do with its original mission. Don't get anyone started on MTV, which now pretty means eMpTV. All these are examples of "phoning it in" already happening under the current regime, maybe it's time to cull the herd a little.
This anguish on both sides about whether or not to allow a la carte may be beside the point. Linear channels are an artifact of an old regime, and paying for access to bundles and tiers of ad-based linear channels is pretty bizarre on top of that, it might help everyone if channels weren't locked away in bundles.
Steve Jobs was initially resistant to the idea of third-party apps, but pressure from within Apple and third parties convinced him otherwise.
Is that really known, or is that just reading into the situation? I haven't seen anything that was supposed to be the real story. I think it's at least as likely that they planned it all along, but they weren't ready. After all, it was a brand-new platform, it may have been an extension of what they have already done, but there was a lot of new ground cut there.
It is the fact that streaming services like Netflix are a superior offering to consumers. I want to see something that gives both cable AND Netflix a run for their money.
AppleTV does offer Netflix playback ability.
Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers.
Completely untrue. And while Apple has licensed things in the past, no way would they license anything complete like iOS.
This is all moot anyway. Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers.
Whilst integrated TV sets will be important for introducing smart TV services to new consumers; standalone devices could still easily represent the majority of the market. TVs are not replaced that frequently. It is a lot easier to sell someone a new $99 set top box with new features (such as AppleTV) every few years than to convince them to replace their TV.
This is all moot anyway. Apple can only win the TV market by licensing iOS to TV manufacturers. They could then continue to build their own, giving themselves a few months grace on every iOS release, but there is no way that Apple will be able to manufacture enough to compete with Google TV.
Apple doesn't need to win market share to win financially. Also, Apple doesn't make the units. They get one of several contract manufacturers to do the job based on Apple's specifications.