Read elsewhere that the Salesforce convention is being held much earlier than usual and booked several usual Apple venues. That could explain it partially; I think it will be a pretty big announcement with demo area and Apple Music concert at the end.
Nope. Here's where the Salesforce conference is being held this year:
http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF15/faq.jsp
The Dreamforce campus is made up of multiple venues in downtown San Francisco. This year, the event will take place at the Moscone Center, Marriott Marquis, InterContinental, The Palace Hotel, Hilton Union Square, The Park Central (formerly Westin Market Street), Century Theaters & Bespoke at Westfield, and AMC Metreon Theaters.
The venue is the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, not Billy Graham, but it gave me a idea as to what could be happening after a recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Apple will register as a bona fide, legally recognized religion so it can avoid taxes in everything it does.
I'll one up you and say that Apple is going to not only register a religion but also declare their own state in Cupertino (hence the new campus).
so you read rumor sites, then complain about not being surprised? err....yyyeahhh...
define innovating, please. and have some sources handy.
I'm simply responding to the overly optimistic posters. Since the death of SJ, I've never been surprised or amazed anymore by Apple. They haven't done a good job at keeping secrets anymore because they are more concerned with volume and profitability quickly so they don't make products in secrecy anymore which would require building their samples elsewhere then these chinese factories that have plenty of spies working inside.
Prepare for disappointment as usual the Fall event always predictably boring. Pretty much all the leaks have covered the event already.
The Apple TV will be the weakest product. Apple is more concerned about bringing content than innovating.
Content IS the key for a successful streaming service, I have no idea why you would consider otherwise. The biggest innovation would be the contracts they can negotiate, not the dumb box.
I'm sure Apple has developed some amazing GUI and search tools around a next gen Apple TV years ago, but there would be no reason to waste that equity on a device that still did not have the back end content conduits figured out. I'm fairly certain the rights, at all levels, even starting in the US alone, is immensely more complex than the music business was. And you have to be able to account for access to live news, sports, weather and other real time feeds, at a national, regional, and local level, along with all the on demand content.
The totality of the services cannot cost more than current cable/satellite costs. It has to be comprehensive enough that one does not need to still maintain a cable connection. For me, if the service doesn't give me all the games of the NY Rangers, for example, which my family watches consistently, I wouldn't make the move regardless of what else is in the package.
I'm sure they can get some package together at the start, but the lighter it is, the fewer sign-ups they'll have because people won't want to give up must-have, go-to content they already receive via traditional cable/satellite means.
I'm guessing the delays is Apple has been/is working on making it as comprehensive as possible to minimize the "m'eh" response.
Content IS the key for a successful streaming service, I have no idea why you would consider otherwise. The biggest innovation would be the contracts they can negotiate, not the dumb box.
I'm sure Apple has developed some amazing GUI and search tools around a next gen Apple TV years ago, but there would be no reason to waste that equity on a device that still did not have the back end content conduits figured out. I'm fairly certain the rights, at all levels, even starting in the US alone, is immensely more complex than the music business was. And you have to be able to account for access to live news, sports, weather and other real time feeds, at a national, regional, and local level, along with all the on demand content.
The totality of the services cannot cost more than current cable/satellite costs. It has to be comprehensive enough that one does not need to still maintain a cable connection. For me, if the service doesn't give me all the games of the NY Rangers, for example, which my family watches consistently, I wouldn't make the move regardless of what else is in the package.
I'm sure they can get some package together at the start, but the lighter it is, the fewer sign-ups they'll have because people won't want to give up must-have, go-to content they already receive via traditional cable/satellite means.
I'm guessing the delays is Apple has been/is working on making it as comprehensive as possible to minimize the "m'eh" response.
I agree with your assessment, my original reply was towards some that predicts the Apple TV = OLED TV. Which is never going to happen, Apple has already tossed that idea away, a setup box or stick makes the most sense.
As for the content services, I think this is where they can make some strides but the content providers are the ones holding back against Apple. Apple will partner and bring over some content but don't expect a full lineup to replace your Cable yet. Sports shows are the most difficult content to get a streaming agreement with because they they're making billions with network TVs.
There are still many that prefer using their Mac Mini to stream content vs an Apple TV device.
Which is why I'm going with a "meh" about the Apple TV. It will be a step up upgrade like the new iPod Touch with a new remote but nothing that will surprise anyone. This is where Amazon is trying to out-do Apple with their Fire Stick and Prime Streaming service by adding content like a new Top Gear show.
I agree with your assessment, my original reply was towards some that predicts the Apple TV = OLED TV. Which is never going to happen, Apple has already tossed that idea away, a setup box or stick makes the most sense.
As for the content services, I think this is where they can make some strides but the content providers are the ones holding back against Apple. Apple will partner and bring over some content but don't expect a full lineup to replace your Cable yet. Sports shows are the most difficult content to get a streaming agreement with because they they're making billions with network TVs.
There are still many that prefer using their Mac Mini to stream content vs an Apple TV device.
Which is why I'm going with a "meh" about the Apple TV. It will be a step up upgrade like the new iPod Touch with a new remote but nothing that will surprise anyone. This is where Amazon is trying to out-do Apple with their Fire Stick and Prime Streaming service by adding content like a new Top Gear show.
I wrote this on another thread about a week ago...
Quote:
"The more I think about this space, the more I wonder if Apple does have to sell the glass as well - a true Apple Streaming flat panel TV
Now I know all the issues - little margin in selling the glass, Apple can add no real value, different sales channels...etc etc...
But if they don't, the challenge long term will be every set they want to connect a new Apple TV to will itself be a smart tv, likely a Samsung. The Apple TV will always be an add on purchase for something that already exists in the set - a package of streaming services. Apple may do it better, but if others do it well enough to AND it's already in the set customers paid for, it's a tougher sell. Owning the panel cuts competitive services out, or at least some makes them an add on service.
And somehow, Apple does provide enough engineering to its glass making partners to consistently make some of the finest computer displays available. Why not apply that to an industry that's filled with many sets that have color, greyscale, processing, uniformity, and other issues?
Finally, between the Apple Stores, Best Buy, Microcenters, Frys etc, Apple could easily have more than enough outlets (being US centric for now).
Still would need to make a stand-alone streaming box for those that don't want to change sets, but a full fledged display makes more and more sense when you think of some of these issues. And an integrated set can afford some other unique benefits and better home/hub integration as well...
Or, conversely, they license tvOS to set manufacturers (competitors would have none of that though)..."
Comments
I think he's right about the concert part.
Nope. Here's where the Salesforce conference is being held this year:
http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF15/faq.jsp
The Dreamforce campus is made up of multiple venues in downtown San Francisco. This year, the event will take place at the Moscone Center, Marriott Marquis, InterContinental, The Palace Hotel, Hilton Union Square, The Park Central (formerly Westin Market Street), Century Theaters & Bespoke at Westfield, and AMC Metreon Theaters.
The venue is the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, not Billy Graham, but it gave me a idea as to what could be happening after a recent episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Apple will register as a bona fide, legally recognized religion so it can avoid taxes in everything it does.
I'll one up you and say that Apple is going to not only register a religion but also declare their own state in Cupertino (hence the new campus).
so you read rumor sites, then complain about not being surprised? err....yyyeahhh...
define innovating, please. and have some sources handy.
I'm simply responding to the overly optimistic posters. Since the death of SJ, I've never been surprised or amazed anymore by Apple. They haven't done a good job at keeping secrets anymore because they are more concerned with volume and profitability quickly so they don't make products in secrecy anymore which would require building their samples elsewhere then these chinese factories that have plenty of spies working inside.
Prepare for disappointment as usual the Fall event always predictably boring. Pretty much all the leaks have covered the event already.
The Apple TV will be the weakest product. Apple is more concerned about bringing content than innovating.
Content IS the key for a successful streaming service, I have no idea why you would consider otherwise. The biggest innovation would be the contracts they can negotiate, not the dumb box.
I'm sure Apple has developed some amazing GUI and search tools around a next gen Apple TV years ago, but there would be no reason to waste that equity on a device that still did not have the back end content conduits figured out. I'm fairly certain the rights, at all levels, even starting in the US alone, is immensely more complex than the music business was. And you have to be able to account for access to live news, sports, weather and other real time feeds, at a national, regional, and local level, along with all the on demand content.
The totality of the services cannot cost more than current cable/satellite costs. It has to be comprehensive enough that one does not need to still maintain a cable connection. For me, if the service doesn't give me all the games of the NY Rangers, for example, which my family watches consistently, I wouldn't make the move regardless of what else is in the package.
I'm sure they can get some package together at the start, but the lighter it is, the fewer sign-ups they'll have because people won't want to give up must-have, go-to content they already receive via traditional cable/satellite means.
I'm guessing the delays is Apple has been/is working on making it as comprehensive as possible to minimize the "m'eh" response.
No way. Noooo. It's a bigger announcement. It's got to be a 17" iPad Pro Pro. The second Pro means it's twice as Pro.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there. Especially when you say, "iPad Pro Pro" out loud.
Content IS the key for a successful streaming service, I have no idea why you would consider otherwise. The biggest innovation would be the contracts they can negotiate, not the dumb box.
I'm sure Apple has developed some amazing GUI and search tools around a next gen Apple TV years ago, but there would be no reason to waste that equity on a device that still did not have the back end content conduits figured out. I'm fairly certain the rights, at all levels, even starting in the US alone, is immensely more complex than the music business was. And you have to be able to account for access to live news, sports, weather and other real time feeds, at a national, regional, and local level, along with all the on demand content.
The totality of the services cannot cost more than current cable/satellite costs. It has to be comprehensive enough that one does not need to still maintain a cable connection. For me, if the service doesn't give me all the games of the NY Rangers, for example, which my family watches consistently, I wouldn't make the move regardless of what else is in the package.
I'm sure they can get some package together at the start, but the lighter it is, the fewer sign-ups they'll have because people won't want to give up must-have, go-to content they already receive via traditional cable/satellite means.
I'm guessing the delays is Apple has been/is working on making it as comprehensive as possible to minimize the "m'eh" response.
I agree with your assessment, my original reply was towards some that predicts the Apple TV = OLED TV. Which is never going to happen, Apple has already tossed that idea away, a setup box or stick makes the most sense.
As for the content services, I think this is where they can make some strides but the content providers are the ones holding back against Apple. Apple will partner and bring over some content but don't expect a full lineup to replace your Cable yet. Sports shows are the most difficult content to get a streaming agreement with because they they're making billions with network TVs.
There are still many that prefer using their Mac Mini to stream content vs an Apple TV device.
Which is why I'm going with a "meh" about the Apple TV. It will be a step up upgrade like the new iPod Touch with a new remote but nothing that will surprise anyone. This is where Amazon is trying to out-do Apple with their Fire Stick and Prime Streaming service by adding content like a new Top Gear show.
I agree with your assessment, my original reply was towards some that predicts the Apple TV = OLED TV. Which is never going to happen, Apple has already tossed that idea away, a setup box or stick makes the most sense.
As for the content services, I think this is where they can make some strides but the content providers are the ones holding back against Apple. Apple will partner and bring over some content but don't expect a full lineup to replace your Cable yet. Sports shows are the most difficult content to get a streaming agreement with because they they're making billions with network TVs.
There are still many that prefer using their Mac Mini to stream content vs an Apple TV device.
Which is why I'm going with a "meh" about the Apple TV. It will be a step up upgrade like the new iPod Touch with a new remote but nothing that will surprise anyone. This is where Amazon is trying to out-do Apple with their Fire Stick and Prime Streaming service by adding content like a new Top Gear show.
I wrote this on another thread about a week ago...
Now I know all the issues - little margin in selling the glass, Apple can add no real value, different sales channels...etc etc...
But if they don't, the challenge long term will be every set they want to connect a new Apple TV to will itself be a smart tv, likely a Samsung. The Apple TV will always be an add on purchase for something that already exists in the set - a package of streaming services. Apple may do it better, but if others do it well enough to AND it's already in the set customers paid for, it's a tougher sell. Owning the panel cuts competitive services out, or at least some makes them an add on service.
And somehow, Apple does provide enough engineering to its glass making partners to consistently make some of the finest computer displays available. Why not apply that to an industry that's filled with many sets that have color, greyscale, processing, uniformity, and other issues?
Finally, between the Apple Stores, Best Buy, Microcenters, Frys etc, Apple could easily have more than enough outlets (being US centric for now).
Still would need to make a stand-alone streaming box for those that don't want to change sets, but a full fledged display makes more and more sense when you think of some of these issues. And an integrated set can afford some other unique benefits and better home/hub integration as well...
Or, conversely, they license tvOS to set manufacturers (competitors would have none of that though)..."