Kind of, but they're not wrong 100% of the time, unfortunately.
There was this article a while back, I forget by who, and they examined a whole bunch of previous Digitimes rumors, and the conclusion was that they were more often wrong than correct, often wildly wrong.
I find the National Enquirer to be more reliable than Digitimes. Digitimes is absolute trash, in my humble opinion.
If there's going to be an "Apple TV" product this year then Apple needs to announce it on or before WWDC. Otherwise developers would have no time to write software for it this year.
We'll see. I have a feeling we'll be hearing an announcement before WWDC.
Based on what, exactly? *confused*
TV might not be the most exciting thing in the world, but it is ripe for a change/reboot. Just think about the massive bandwidth usage on something like YouTube - people want to watch their TV programs on the Internet, they don't want the old broadcast model.
I think in a few years, we may see TV stations purely create TV shows and put them on the Internet. Their broadcast infrastructure, which is a big thing these days, will either be retired or repurposed for Internet usage.
Jim Dalrymple just said, “Nope,” out loud to his computer. It understood completely.
aaronj wrote: »
The $1B number includes content bought through AppleTV. The numbers for iTunes as a whole are WAY bigger than $1B alone.
AppleInsider wrote: »
Despite whirlwind Internet echo chamber of rumors, new Apple TV hardware may not be imminent
pendergast wrote: »
Don't iTunes sales and rentals account for much more than a billion per year?
I believe the $1B figure is just for hardware.
crosslad wrote: »
I agree that the $1 B is just hardware.
10M x $100 = $1B I think (US Billions as opposed to UK Billions)
OK. It may not be imminent, but then again it may be imminent.
That's why it is a rumor.
I'm on the side that thinks Apple TV is way overdue for some type of refresh. On the h/w side, Apple has newer/better processors that can be used and of course, since many people use their Apple TVs over Wi-Fi (I do) there is a big potential benefit to supporting 802.11ac. Having said that, its the software that could drive the biggest changes in the product (UI, apps, overall functionality, etc.).
But, even though I'd like to see these things in a refreshed Apple TV during 2014, the real problem Apple must solve is with content, which is the hardest of them all. Cable companies have a stranglehold on the industry and it will only get worse now with Net Neutrality being overturned. The cable operators are now free to do what they want with content. I already think they are throttling my Netflix. Shows used to load much faster and rewinding and fast-forwarding is extremely slow. Everything else on my Apple TVs work just fine. Anyway, if Apple TV is only going to be a device that sits off of some HDMI port next to a Cable STB, with premium content that requires a subscription through a Cable operator (like how it is now), then they might as well just refresh the hardware just to let customers know they are keeping it current while they figure out a better model for a TV product -- whatever that is. Otherwise, it will look like Apple is selling 2+ year old technology for yet another year, which won't help the perception of them as an innovator, etc., etc.
They seem to be happy just ticking along, adding new channels and minor software updates at the moment. One of the things that makes it so popular is the price I think, it's incredible value. If they make an Airport Express that is also an Apple TV (as was mentioned on this site a month or so ago) that could be even more amazing value.
Only if they keep the analogue audio out!
If you think about 4K TV, I think a rather good way for Apple to spend a bit of their cash hoard would be to create a Satellite infrastructure capable of delivering very wide encrypted bandwidth to Apple devices, because the problem I see with most media markets is that they are insular, regionalised and fragmented. If Apple had control of a massive world-spanning content pipe I think they could leverage that to their significant financial advantage.
US based commentators don't seem to appreciate the variety and differences in the TV delivery methods outside the US. It's a huge problem if you are talking about an Apple TV which actually has a screen. Just look at the Xbox One. It has a host of features designed to make it an entertainment hub with integration and interactivity with TV media content, but those features only work fully in the US - AFAIK, as it's predicated on cable delivery of TV content and US channel info. Not so good when the delivery system is satellite.
If Apple operated a satellite infrastructure they could make just one TV based device that was relevant for the whole world.
Those industry watchers aren't watching very closely if they're still calling AppleTV (and Roku, etc.) "set-top boxes". I challenge them to find a single unit of the millions sold that is actually sitting on top of a TV.