New Apple TV 'stalls' because of cable companies & content deals, likely not arriving until 2015 - r

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 87
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Yes content is important. But there are a lot of improvements Apple could make even if these deals aren't worked out yet. The ATV is in real need of an interface overhaul. It needs better navigation and search (voice would be nice). It needs an App Store. It would be really great if you could enter your cable provider credentials once rather than having to enter them for each individual app. There's plenty Apple could do to keep ATV competitive with other streaming boxes like Roku and Fire TV.

    I agree 100%.

     

    If AppleTV could get much nicer, especially with regard to gaming, there may be a large enough critical mass that the content owners can't shun the device.

  • Reply 42 of 87
    sog35 wrote: »
    "Previously, analyst [SIZE=18px]Ming-Chi Kuo[/SIZE] of KGI Securities said that a new Apple TV with motion controls would play a "key role" for the company this year. He had predicted that the upgraded hardware would arrive this fall, leveraging the technology Apple acquired from its acquisition of PrimeSense, which also powered the tech behind Microsoft's first-generation Xbox Kinect gaming peripheral."

    So Ming is WRONG again.....

    Kuo has never claimed he had a "notable" track record on rumors; that's AppleInsider's claim as far as I can tell.
  • Reply 43 of 87
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

     

    Excellent point.  I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple.  Bundling is such a 20th century racket.  I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.

     

    Sure, we've all grown up with 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60+ button remotes.  But if you look at the current television viewing experience objectively, it's clear that decades of lazy decisions have clumped together into a logjam of terrible design.  It's a big ugly mess, but because it became big and ugly so gradually, we just shrugged and accepted each new bit of terribleness.  And some of us actually like the fact that it's confusing, so we can be "smarter" than our parents, or something like that.  A quick example: channel numbers.  It would be vastly easier to remember to just type E, S, P, and N on your remote control than it would be to type 208.  And you might not even need to type that last N (or even the P) if the TV supported predictive typing.  But no, our receivers are shipped with massive charts, on paper, of channel numbers next to channel names.  Ridiculous.

     

    Apple has already proven that they can do these three things conveniently and efficiently: 1. sell content, 2. rent content, and 3. stream live content.  The iTunes Festival events are proof that Apple has the ability to do it all.  Live streaming, pre-recorded streaming, been there, done that.  And all that viewing and listening is conceptually contained in the iTunes Festival app.  In general, there wouldn't be any need to need to remember what show is on what network, then remembering what that network's channel number is, then programming your DVR to record it.  Apple has, to a great extent, app-ified web viewing on iOS.  TV is ripe for app-ification too.


    Exactly so.

     

    Note that there are no technical hurdles to a better television experience for us.  But the people that are currently making the big money are standing in the way.  They LIKE the status quo.  They are making serious $$$ off of it.  And they'll be damned if they are going to partner with a company that is well known for, and will undoubtedly attempt to do again, disrupting every industry it enters.  Apple may have to buy a studio or two, and/or create some original content like Netflix did.

  • Reply 44 of 87
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    thompr wrote: »
    I agree 100%.

    If AppleTV could get much nicer, especially with regard to gaming, there may be a large enough critical mass that the content owners can't shun the device.
    New UI with better search, AppStore and updated internals to facilitate gaming. That would be a huge winner even if Apple didn't have content deals in place. The longer Apple delays updating ATV the further they fall behind others.
  • Reply 45 of 87
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    New UI with better search, AppStore and updated internals to facilitate gaming. That would be a huge winner even if Apple didn't have content deals in place. The longer Apple delays updating ATV the further they fall behind others.

    True.

     

    Would also like the content deals, but even failing that, you are right: they need to move forward at least this much.

  • Reply 46 of 87
    constable odoconstable odo Posts: 1,041member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    The original Apple TV almost failed because of the lack of content deals. This is important for this device to succeed.

    We don't, but since those that also have cable TV in an area are very likely to also get their internet from their cable company that means Apple has to work with them or risk being throttled, or worse, shut out, like what happened with the original Google TV. This is a very tricky nut to crack.

    Apple could simply buy one of those cable companies if the Feds allowed it and run that cable company as it sees fit using its own hardware.  I say simply because I'm guessing its just a matter of how much money Apple would be willing to pay or rather the cable company be willing to accept.  Buying a cable company is probably the only way Apple could get it done and fix its subscriber pricing accordingly.  Although with Apple behind it, I don't know how it could ever come out cheaper for subscribers because Apple prefers to charge more for everything than anyone else.

  • Reply 47 of 87
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I've heard good things about Roku and Amazon's Fire TV looks promising (like that they have voice capabilities). Heck right now I'd take my DirecTV interface over ATV. I mostly use ATV for AirPlay functionality.

    Rogi- you can't complain about a UI and mention two things you've never used that you like better- you've never used them. Roku is NOT as good. And the voice feature for amazon is a joke. It only works for amazon content, not Netflix or a universal search. So what's the point?

    That said, a unified search is a MUST (TiVo has this), and voice search across ALL apps would be phenomenal. I do agree the current UI is severely lacking.

    Personally, I prefer TiVo and Xbox interfaces. Although I know those have their criticisms as well.

    Roku? Come on man...
  • Reply 48 of 87
    deegee48deegee48 Posts: 66member
    With this, and the tepid Mac updates because of the lack of Broadwell (and the fact that it's almost AUGUST!), it looks like Eddy Cue's "greatest roadmap ever" is in trouble!
  • Reply 49 of 87
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

     

    Apple could simply buy one of those cable companies if the Feds allowed it and run that cable company as it sees fit using its own hardware.  I say simply because I'm guessing its just a matter of how much money Apple would be willing to pay or rather the cable company be willing to accept.  Buying a cable company is probably the only way Apple could get it done and fix its subscriber pricing accordingly.  Although with Apple behind it, I don't know how it could ever come out cheaper for subscribers because Apple prefers to charge more for everything than anyone else.


    No one cable company has complete US coverage.  So what of the other customers that can't get the AppleTV service?  Will the other cable companies allow Apple to play in their backyards (i.e. work with Apple to make their set-top boxes and/or TV deliver their cable stream) when they see what is happening "over there"?  Doubt it.

     

    This is going to take a long time to unwind, even if Apple buys a cable company.  But if they could get direct access to content over internet... that's when things would get interesting.

  • Reply 50 of 87
    lorin schultzlorin schultz Posts: 2,744member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post

     

    Personally, I'm hoping that Comcast starts seeing an accelerating loss of subscribers willing to pay $150+/mo for sports plus 200 channels of crap.


     

    One of the things that keeps me clinging to my cable subscription is sports. I can't get hockey, football or F1 over the air. Not even local games.

     

    In fact, for two of the last three weeks I couldn't get F1 even WITH my cable subscription. TSN/ESPN, in their infinite wisdom, decided that other events matter more and bumped the F1 race over to TSN2. Is anyone surprised that TSN2 is only available with a subscription to yet ANOTHER channel package?

     

    So, it isn't getting better, it's getting worse. Getting the few things I want is migrating towards adding even more cost and unwanted channels. I may have to just go without sports for a few years to send a message to the cable company and content providers. If enough of us refuse to buy in, maybe they'll change.

  • Reply 51 of 87
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,157member

    I sometimes have a hard time figuring out which thieving laggards I despise worse, government bureaucrats or cable companies. It's a dead heat so far.

     

    We need more Apple in our lives.

  • Reply 52 of 87
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    andysol wrote: »
    Rogi- you can't complain about a UI and mention two things you've never used that you like better- you've never used them. Roku is NOT as good. And the voice feature for amazon is a joke. It only works for amazon content, not Netflix or a universal search. So what's the point?

    That said, a unified search is a MUST (TiVo has this), and voice search across ALL apps would be phenomenal. I do agree the current UI is severely lacking.

    Personally, I prefer TiVo and Xbox interfaces. Although I know those have their criticisms as well.

    Roku? Come on man...
    How is Roku worse?
  • Reply 53 of 87
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,980member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

     

    They can keep the same UI for now- I'm ok with that.  Just give me:

     

    1- Hardware- A7, Wireless AC, Bluetooth LTE, 16gb storage, 1gb ram

    2- App Store.  Let me say that again.  App Store.  I can download games, it gives a standard that allows content providers to be able to develop for- which means content will be on their faster and anyone can do it.  Vudu, BBC, Amazon, etc- as long as it's under the correct guidelines.  Then allow me to delete (not hide) the Apps I don't use.

     

    There are other things I'd love- but I don't need.  Media hub, dvr, etc.  But I just want a box that is made in 2014- not May of 2012.  This update cycle is beyond ridiculous now.

     

    Is this really complicated?  They can wow me with the revolutionary content deals and UI next time- We're running on outdated hardware.  I don't need CBS to allow me to buy an individual station.  I just want to be able to sign into a damned hotel's wifi.


    App store? Games? It's easier to talk than to work on it. iOS in ATV is not the same as in iPhone iPad. The apps in mobile iOS are written specific to the device screen resolutions. What will be ATV screen resolutions? How's an app displayed on a 40" 720P TV vs 65" 4K TV when you use the same ATV? The only way that Apple can utilize the full iOS in ATV is somehow to have auto resolution up-conversion to the resolution of the display screen, but this will impact the quality of the apps.

  • Reply 54 of 87
    mikrazmikraz Posts: 10member
    I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.

    Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.

    Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.

    peace.
  • Reply 55 of 87
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    rogifan wrote: »
    How is Roku worse?

    Because it's not Apple. ;)
  • Reply 56 of 87
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    thompr wrote: »
    No one cable company has complete US coverage.  So what of the other customers that can't get the AppleTV service?  Will the other cable companies allow Apple to play in their backyards (i.e. work with Apple to make their set-top boxes and/or TV deliver their cable stream) when they see what is happening "over there"?  Doubt it.

    This is going to take a long time to unwind, even if Apple buys a cable company.  But if they could get direct access to content over internet... that's when things would get interesting.

    There has to be a 'unbundling' of the network. Just how telcos had to let CLECs (competitive local exchange carrier) and wireless providers MDVOs (Mobile Dynamic Virtual Organizations) onto their networks and give consumers some choice. Why can't the same be done over a cable company's coaxial network?
  • Reply 57 of 87
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    rogifan wrote: »
    How is Roku worse?
    Because it's hideous. Purple background and a dozen sub categories on the left? No thanks. It's also clunky as hell. You've never used it, so you don't know any different.

    You said you "like" roku and the search function on amazon. Of course, you've never used either- so that's like saying I like hang gliding.

    As I said in the earlier post- amazons search is criticized heavily as it only does searches within amazon. Who cares about that? The idea is novel- if it were functional- like Tivos is. TiVo functionality with Xbox aesthetic would be my favorite as it stands. But that's like saying you're the tallest midget. They all suck, really- except TiVo. They have it down the best.
  • Reply 58 of 87
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,429member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mangy Dog View Post



    Go ahead and open your HBO-style studio division, Apple. That's why you paid big bucks for Jimmy Iovine, isn't it?

    That's not going to help acquire rights to sports: NFL, MLB, NBA, etc.

  • Reply 59 of 87
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Like the phone industry you need to find the first company willing to play ball like AT&T.

    Once the other companies start to lose customers because of not having an iTV they will bend just like Verizon and Sprint did.

    Except there's no company that has coast to coast coverage. There are very strict boundary lines that they have to operate in. It's nowhere near the same thing. Unless they go satellite of course.
  • Reply 60 of 87
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Except there's no company that has coast to coast coverage. There are very strict boundary lines that they have to operate in. It's nowhere near the same thing. Unless they go satellite of course.

    Fios and U-Verse combined have plenty of coverage to make it feasible.  Satellite wouldn't ever happen because you'd need, well... a satellite :D

Sign In or Register to comment.