Sure, but what about an interface that isn't tied to just what's visible on the screen? What if you just want to view the latest episode of Game of Thrones without having to work your way through menus from wherever you are at the moment (such as playing a game from the ? TV App Store)? Can you make your laser pointing remote do that?
You're not thinking of all of the huge possibilities here.
Yes, lets see a scenario.
You could say while in the living room, "Put last week's "Person of Interest" on the bedroom TV" and it would sort out how to do it, stream, recording, file on a NAS, renting an episode, whatever... If you need to buy it, it could come back and ask "Do you want to purchase that episode", you answer yes, and bam you're set it finds itself on that TV. If later you ask to watch it say in the living room, it doesn't ask you anything and just puts it on.
You could ask for the same thing with Music. Say, "Hey Siri, play Michael Jackon's Thriller in the Living Room", "in the whole house", "in the car", or "on my Iphone". In theory, if there was a way to DRM stream transfers, you could transfer streams temporarily to the watch too so you can listen to them even out of range of cellular (kinda like rented streams).
You don't have to hunt down anything, or think too hard about payment. Media (Video or Music) is available on demand in 1-2 seconds everywhere in the house.
You could do also do searches like that on your TV. Say, "Show me direction from here to the Civic Auditorium", map with direction appears on TV, then you could add annotations to that map with the remote and then say "Siri, add this memo to the map, "Jackie, these are the directions, see you soon". Then, you could say "Siri, email this to aunt Jackie".
Apple doesn't typically reduce pricing simply because they sell another several million of whatever over what they did last year. If the media companies follow Apple's lead, which would be smart IMO, they won't either. Why should they? Right now they have the upper hand.
The current ? TV is already priced low enough. They are $69. I bought 4 of them when they were $99.
I would expect the new one, since it will likely involve hardware updates (better chips, better remote) to achieve the rumored objectives, to be a little more expensive than the $99 version. I think that this is low-priced enough to cause a huge growth in ? TV sales, provided it offers an App Store and the apps start coming. There will also likely be ties into HomeKit.
Once there is a larger installed base of these things (there will be, because of the added functionality) and a few networks start taking advantage of that, there will be a domino effect as well as a feedback loop (more users, more networks, more competition, more low-priced content, more users, more networks, more competition, more low-priced content, etc). It may take a few years, but it will ultimately evolve to what I envision. And the networks will no longer have the upper hand. Just watch.
In other words any market that Apple isn't in is ripe for destruction.
Well, not exactly. Only the markets that involve some sort of problem that Apple believes it can come in and contribute a good strong solution for. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have both described that as being one of their criteria when deciding whether to enter a new market. Why do I sense that you are writing this with disdain?
You could say while in the living room, "Put last week's "Person of Interest" on the bedroom TV" and it would sort out how to do it, stream, recording, file on a NAS, renting an episode, whatever... If you need to buy it, it could come back and ask "Do you want to purchase that episode", you answer yes, and bam you're set it finds itself on that TV. If later you ask to watch it say in the living room, it doesn't ask you anything and just puts it on.
You could ask for the same thing with Music. Say, "Hey Siri, play Michael Jackon's Thriller in the Living Room", "in the whole house", "in the car", or "on my Iphone". In theory, if there was a way to DRM stream transfers, you could transfer streams temporarily to the watch too so you can listen to them even out of range of cellular (kinda like rented streams).
You don't have to hunt down anything, or think too hard about payment. Media (Video or Music) is available on demand in 1-2 seconds everywhere in the house.
You could do also do searches like that on your TV. Say, "Show me direction from here to the Civic Auditorium", map with direction appears on TV, then you could add annotations to that map with the remote and then say "Siri, add this memo to the map, "Jackie, these are the directions, see you soon". Then, you could say "Siri, email this to aunt Jackie".
Exactly. All things that are needlessly complicated to achieve with current dumb smart TVs, especially armed only with a laser pointing remote.
All of those game makers are going to have to make their games available for a much lower price in order to compete when a bazillion developers come out of the woodwork and make their own games available on the ? TV App Store. I don't see how it's possible to avoid the forthcoming dent.
Thompson
Good.
$50 games are the ripoff of the century.
Hard to beleive when I bought the Legend of Zelda in 1990 for $50 that is actually $90 in today's money. Yikes.
It's down to the price of labor. If you have a team of just 300 people - developers, artists, animators/mocap, musicians/audio people, voice actors - and they make $30k each per year, that's $9m costs every year. If a game takes 3 years to go from concept to production quality, you have to recoup $27m just to break even. So if you sell the games for $50, you have to sell 540k copies. Just breaking even will leave you with zero budget to do another game. To fund the next game with the same budget you have to sell over 1m copies. The salaries of a high-end studio will be higher too although not all roles are full-time.
GTA V cost $265m to make, it sold over 52m copies and has made billions in revenue, likely ~$3b. However, the overall company has been losing money as they have 2100 employees and 17 studios. You can see their financials here:
2015 = $1.08b revenue, net loss $279m
2014 = $2.35b revenue, net gain $362m
2013 = $1.21b revenue, net loss $29m
2012 = $826m revenue, net loss $109m
2011 = $1.14b revenue, net gain $48m
In 5 years, that's revenue of $6.6b, net loss of $7m. They have enough assets to sustain operations. EA and Activision do really well with ~$4b revenue each per year but this is down to major franchises that make ~$0.5-1b per game per year.
Square Enix was disappointed with just 3.4m copies for their Tomb Raider game:
Fortunately it sold even more to reach over 8.5m ( http://www.pcgamer.com/tomb-raider-reboot-has-sold-85-million-copies/ ) and there's a sequel but the whole model for developing and monetizing high-end games is risky and not keeping all developers afloat. Just one wrong turn and they can go under. DontNod who made Remember Me, went into some financial protection and restructuring but seem to be coping and have their episodic game Life is Strange (this kind of game would be good on devices like a TV box).
This is what pushes game developers more into mobile games because they have lower development costs so the return on investment is higher. They are lower quality though. Call of Duty is on mobile but according to the following site made <$2m in 6 months:
EA and Activision seem to be doing ok from mobile making 10% of their overall revenue but Activision lumps other things in the reports like physical toy sales, which have sold in the hundreds of millions. EA has managed to get 165 million monthly users on their mobile titles. You can see why because they bought PopCap games:
Plants vs. Zombies, Real Racing and Bejeweled, as well licensed intellectual properties such as Tetris and The Simpsons. Fifa, Madden NFL.
The route some games are going now is episodic in order to keep revenue flowing during production. Even the big franchises aim to get a completed title out every year and release DLCs to complete them. This can be annoying as it leads to shorter games and it breaks the flow of games up.
iOS users would expect free to play or ad-driven games on a TV box just like on mobile. You end up with the same revenue model as iOS but with a further 1/10th the volume or less so it would be responsible for <1% of the revenue of big publishers.
If games feature on the box at all, I'd expect them to be more casual in nature. I could see Apple just making a single-handed touch remote with motion and pressure. This allows things like board games, karaoke, basic point and tap games. The biggest feature would be allowing content apps from anywhere in the world so networks can broadcast content anywhere in the world. They just have to work out a subscription model. I would have expected each app to offer a subscription but Apple would bill your collection all together in one payment to avoid excess credit card fees. So someone anywhere in the world could subscribe to HBO plus Australian channels plus European channels and they'd all be brought into one monthly subscription. You'd then be able to watch this anywhere in the world with any internet connection just by taking the ?TV box or signing into one elsewhere.
Just bundle all the steaming apps and have global search. Forget what the cable companies won't agree to. And build an iTunes subscription. Eventually a streaming company will get rich enough to stream sport, and then the cable companies are stuffed.
It'll do worse than a dent. Look at what the wii did. Im a hard core gamer and I can see this coming... think about it.
The Wii didn't hurt other consoles. It was almost a different product with a different market, largely women and young children. People often had a Wii as well as Xbox 360 and PS3, some had all 3. Why Should I believe that performance that probably can't match consoles from eight years ago is going to wipe the floor with the PS4s and Xbone?
Content that could run on an Apple TV will only attract a different type of person to those attracted by consoles, just as with the Wii. Many people might get one as well as a mainstream console but no one is going to say 'gee, should I get a PS4/bone and Project Cars, Forza, Asseto Corsa, Gran Turismo etc and have this:
No, no, I'd rather have an Apple TV and have this':
An Apple TV that does games will likely take a slice of the cake, as do all platforms, but it's not going to eat the whole thing.
The Wii didn't hurt other consoles. It was almost a different product with a different market, largely women and young children. People often had a Wii as well as Xbox 360 and PS3, some had all 3. Why Should I believe that performance that probably can't match consoles from eight years ago is going to wipe the floor with the PS4s and Xbone?
Content that could run on an Apple TV will only attract a different type of person to those attracted by consoles, just as with the Wii. Many people might get one as well as a mainstream console but no one is going to say 'gee, should I get a PS4/bone and Project Cars, Forza, Asseto Corsa, Gran Turismo etc and have this:
An Apple TV that does games will likely take a slice of the cake, as do all platforms, but it's not going to eat the whole thing.
I hear what you are saying but the casuals are the larger market not the gamers. If I wasn't hard core about fallout I'd probably let my kids stick with said Apple TV gaming. And while I love my rpgs I admit the market is just smaller
I hear what you are saying but the casuals are the larger market not the gamers. If I wasn't hard core about fallout I'd probably let my kids stick with said Apple TV gaming. And while I love my rpgs I admit the market is just smaller
They are a larger market, but they are also a different market so an Apple TV that could do games is not going to be a console killer. Anyone who wants to play Halo 5 Guardians, or Fallout, is not going to get an Apple TV as their primary console.
the problem is that cable providers like Comecast will eliminate the stand alone internet services or price it very high or bundled with TV services. You need internet for everything so you can't get away with cable services. Sucks!
That can provably be fixed with a lawsuit. Or just switch to a different internet provider
I don't see the appeal of this at all - at any price. The only possible reason to watch these channels is to catch local news. Other than that, they are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to programming. I'm just fine with HBO, Netflix, and PBS, thanks.
Someone created it and was presumably paid for their expertise /talent, someone paid for the infrasrtucture needed to deliver it to your home, and whoever is viewing it there thinks it's worthwhile to spend time with.... But not worthwhile enough to pay much of anything for? I guarantee Apple will make money on it. and they're simply the end-provider rather than the creative. Surely most here don't think Apple should act like the record labels do: We'll make ours, you're on your own. You need us more than we need you.
I live how you're always there to stick up for the big guys, lol.
I am curious, how would it be possible that Apple lacks the infrastructure for such a service when the article suggests they would have come out with it in June or at the fall event if they had reached a deal with the content holders?
If those rumors were true, it would seem to clearly indicate that Apple feels it does have the infrastructure needed to provide the service.
-kpluck
They may not have sufficient network infrastructure of their own, but there's nothing keeping them from using an established CDN like Akamai, like everyone else does.
What's the point of skinny bundles? Unless I can pick the exact channels I would want in a bundle it's pointless to me. I'll keep my directv. I'm able to watch more and more channels outside my house with its app. Pretty much most channels except the major networks and I couldn't care less about those anyway.
I suspect (or perhaps it's just hope) that Apple's angle will be to change the whole TV viewing experience by letting users access the programming they want directly without navigating through an obnoxious hierarchy of individual channels, each with their own, crappy navigation menus.
There are many more unknowns regarding the Apple TV. What's it going to look like? Is it going to have an app store? Will SIRI be built in to it? Will it be a gaming console also?
I think the answer will be 'yes' to all of the above, along with a novel new user experience and an app store.
Sweet baby Jesus let the new controller have Bluetooth.
I hope it has both bluetooth AND IR. That way it can function as a universal remote, and the Apple TV can (finally) be the central hub for everything instead of just another input source.
Someone created it and was presumably paid for their expertise /talent, someone paid for the infrasrtucture needed to deliver it to your home, and whoever is viewing it there thinks it's worthwhile to spend time with.... But not worthwhile enough to pay much of anything for? I guarantee Apple will make money on it. and they're simply the end-provider rather than the creative. Surely most here don't think Apple should act like the record labels do: We'll make ours, you're on your own. You need us more than we need you.
I live how you're always there to stick up for the big guys, lol.
The article is indeed wrong. Akamai provides Apple the necessary storage and delivery service on a distributed and localized level which is necessary for smooth streaming on a large scale. That in fact is what Akami does for many large providers around the world through their global system of data centers so there is no need for Apple to build out that part of the network.
Two words: vertical integration. Apple always seeks to control all the critical parts of the chain used to make and sell their products. This allows them a cost advantage and ensures they retain complete control over the user experience. The fact that they've spent years building huge data centers seems to support this notion.
First things first. Here's hoping Apple TV updates its "wilderness of icons interface" into a device that is user programmable through iTunes. Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly. I've pretty much given up on using Siri anyway except to chuckle at how it bungles simple requests. It seems pretty obvious an updated Apple TV would stream in 4K but god help Apple if it doesn't. Standard HD is going the way of the dodo bird. I'm curious to see if Apple can turn this into a real product instead of a "hobby". A subscription service will come when Apple gets it out of the oven but the hardware and interface must be improved first.
Wow, talk about being wrong on every point, lol.
The UI doesn't have to be "programmable". It just has to make it easy for the user to find what they want without navigating through endless menus.
Siri works great, except when speaking in a foreign language or with a heavy accent. Half the time when I use my iPhone, I'm dictating to Siri rather than typing anything. It's awesome.
The new Apple TV will NOT have 4K, nor should it. 4K for home video is a stupid marketing gimmick at this point. Few people have a large enough TV to appreciate the difference in resolution. Most people don't have the bandwidth necessary to stream 4K content without a horrible degree of compression.
I don’t believe a word of any of this. First of all why would content creators/owners negotiate strictly with Apple when other players are just as capable of providing the service? Amazon, Google, Roku, Netflix for example come to mind. Second the content owners already have a good revenue stream with cable and satellite subscriptions. Why screw that up with lower prices for so-called cord cutters? Thirdly this whole cord cutting thing is suspect in my opinion. We hear all the blathering from faux techie wannabes in forums about how they can get all the content they want little cost. Put all those $10/month services like Netflix, Hulu+ and others together and price starts to add up.
I don’t know what Apple is going to announce in the way of a ‘new’ Apple TV but I think there’s been way too much wishful thinking and speculation and whatever is released will disappoint those same faux techie wannabes flapping their lips in the breeze about 4K and gaming consoles and App Stores and Browsers.
Contrary to what many people think, cord cutting is not about saving money. It's about eliminating the cable box and the cable company as the middle man. I don't pay for cable nor have a cable box. I pay for HBO Now and Netflix, and I get other channels like PBS for free - all through an Apple interface rather than a Comcast one...
Comments
Sure, but what about an interface that isn't tied to just what's visible on the screen? What if you just want to view the latest episode of Game of Thrones without having to work your way through menus from wherever you are at the moment (such as playing a game from the ? TV App Store)? Can you make your laser pointing remote do that?
You're not thinking of all of the huge possibilities here.
Yes, lets see a scenario.
You could say while in the living room, "Put last week's "Person of Interest" on the bedroom TV" and it would sort out how to do it, stream, recording, file on a NAS, renting an episode, whatever... If you need to buy it, it could come back and ask "Do you want to purchase that episode", you answer yes, and bam you're set it finds itself on that TV. If later you ask to watch it say in the living room, it doesn't ask you anything and just puts it on.
You could ask for the same thing with Music. Say, "Hey Siri, play Michael Jackon's Thriller in the Living Room", "in the whole house", "in the car", or "on my Iphone". In theory, if there was a way to DRM stream transfers, you could transfer streams temporarily to the watch too so you can listen to them even out of range of cellular (kinda like rented streams).
You don't have to hunt down anything, or think too hard about payment. Media (Video or Music) is available on demand in 1-2 seconds everywhere in the house.
You could do also do searches like that on your TV. Say, "Show me direction from here to the Civic Auditorium", map with direction appears on TV, then you could add annotations to that map with the remote and then say "Siri, add this memo to the map, "Jackie, these are the directions, see you soon". Then, you could say "Siri, email this to aunt Jackie".
Apple doesn't typically reduce pricing simply because they sell another several million of whatever over what they did last year. If the media companies follow Apple's lead, which would be smart IMO, they won't either. Why should they? Right now they have the upper hand.
The current ? TV is already priced low enough. They are $69. I bought 4 of them when they were $99.
I would expect the new one, since it will likely involve hardware updates (better chips, better remote) to achieve the rumored objectives, to be a little more expensive than the $99 version. I think that this is low-priced enough to cause a huge growth in ? TV sales, provided it offers an App Store and the apps start coming. There will also likely be ties into HomeKit.
Once there is a larger installed base of these things (there will be, because of the added functionality) and a few networks start taking advantage of that, there will be a domino effect as well as a feedback loop (more users, more networks, more competition, more low-priced content, more users, more networks, more competition, more low-priced content, etc). It may take a few years, but it will ultimately evolve to what I envision. And the networks will no longer have the upper hand. Just watch.
In other words any market that Apple isn't in is ripe for destruction.
Well, not exactly. Only the markets that involve some sort of problem that Apple believes it can come in and contribute a good strong solution for. Steve Jobs and Tim Cook have both described that as being one of their criteria when deciding whether to enter a new market. Why do I sense that you are writing this with disdain?
Yes, lets see a scenario.
You could say while in the living room, "Put last week's "Person of Interest" on the bedroom TV" and it would sort out how to do it, stream, recording, file on a NAS, renting an episode, whatever... If you need to buy it, it could come back and ask "Do you want to purchase that episode", you answer yes, and bam you're set it finds itself on that TV. If later you ask to watch it say in the living room, it doesn't ask you anything and just puts it on.
You could ask for the same thing with Music. Say, "Hey Siri, play Michael Jackon's Thriller in the Living Room", "in the whole house", "in the car", or "on my Iphone". In theory, if there was a way to DRM stream transfers, you could transfer streams temporarily to the watch too so you can listen to them even out of range of cellular (kinda like rented streams).
You don't have to hunt down anything, or think too hard about payment. Media (Video or Music) is available on demand in 1-2 seconds everywhere in the house.
You could do also do searches like that on your TV. Say, "Show me direction from here to the Civic Auditorium", map with direction appears on TV, then you could add annotations to that map with the remote and then say "Siri, add this memo to the map, "Jackie, these are the directions, see you soon". Then, you could say "Siri, email this to aunt Jackie".
Exactly. All things that are needlessly complicated to achieve with current dumb smart TVs, especially armed only with a laser pointing remote.
It's down to the price of labor. If you have a team of just 300 people - developers, artists, animators/mocap, musicians/audio people, voice actors - and they make $30k each per year, that's $9m costs every year. If a game takes 3 years to go from concept to production quality, you have to recoup $27m just to break even. So if you sell the games for $50, you have to sell 540k copies. Just breaking even will leave you with zero budget to do another game. To fund the next game with the same budget you have to sell over 1m copies. The salaries of a high-end studio will be higher too although not all roles are full-time.
GTA V cost $265m to make, it sold over 52m copies and has made billions in revenue, likely ~$3b. However, the overall company has been losing money as they have 2100 employees and 17 studios. You can see their financials here:
http://ir.take2games.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86428&p=irol-reportsannual
2015 = $1.08b revenue, net loss $279m
2014 = $2.35b revenue, net gain $362m
2013 = $1.21b revenue, net loss $29m
2012 = $826m revenue, net loss $109m
2011 = $1.14b revenue, net gain $48m
In 5 years, that's revenue of $6.6b, net loss of $7m. They have enough assets to sustain operations. EA and Activision do really well with ~$4b revenue each per year but this is down to major franchises that make ~$0.5-1b per game per year.
Square Enix was disappointed with just 3.4m copies for their Tomb Raider game:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has-sold-3-4-million-copies-failed-to-hit-expectations
It only reached profitability at about 5m copies because the budget was ~$100m:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-17-tomb-raider-finally-achieved-profitability-by-the-end-of-last-year
Fortunately it sold even more to reach over 8.5m ( http://www.pcgamer.com/tomb-raider-reboot-has-sold-85-million-copies/ ) and there's a sequel but the whole model for developing and monetizing high-end games is risky and not keeping all developers afloat. Just one wrong turn and they can go under. DontNod who made Remember Me, went into some financial protection and restructuring but seem to be coping and have their episodic game Life is Strange (this kind of game would be good on devices like a TV box).
This is what pushes game developers more into mobile games because they have lower development costs so the return on investment is higher. They are lower quality though. Call of Duty is on mobile but according to the following site made <$2m in 6 months:
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/58226/gdc-2014-96-of-ios-revenue-is-from-6-month-old-top-earners/
EA and Activision seem to be doing ok from mobile making 10% of their overall revenue but Activision lumps other things in the reports like physical toy sales, which have sold in the hundreds of millions. EA has managed to get 165 million monthly users on their mobile titles. You can see why because they bought PopCap games:
Plants vs. Zombies, Real Racing and Bejeweled, as well licensed intellectual properties such as Tetris and The Simpsons. Fifa, Madden NFL.
The route some games are going now is episodic in order to keep revenue flowing during production. Even the big franchises aim to get a completed title out every year and release DLCs to complete them. This can be annoying as it leads to shorter games and it breaks the flow of games up.
iOS users would expect free to play or ad-driven games on a TV box just like on mobile. You end up with the same revenue model as iOS but with a further 1/10th the volume or less so it would be responsible for <1% of the revenue of big publishers.
If games feature on the box at all, I'd expect them to be more casual in nature. I could see Apple just making a single-handed touch remote with motion and pressure. This allows things like board games, karaoke, basic point and tap games. The biggest feature would be allowing content apps from anywhere in the world so networks can broadcast content anywhere in the world. They just have to work out a subscription model. I would have expected each app to offer a subscription but Apple would bill your collection all together in one payment to avoid excess credit card fees. So someone anywhere in the world could subscribe to HBO plus Australian channels plus European channels and they'd all be brought into one monthly subscription. You'd then be able to watch this anywhere in the world with any internet connection just by taking the ?TV box or signing into one elsewhere.
It'll do worse than a dent. Look at what the wii did. Im a hard core gamer and I can see this coming... think about it.
The Wii didn't hurt other consoles. It was almost a different product with a different market, largely women and young children. People often had a Wii as well as Xbox 360 and PS3, some had all 3. Why Should I believe that performance that probably can't match consoles from eight years ago is going to wipe the floor with the PS4s and Xbone?
Content that could run on an Apple TV will only attract a different type of person to those attracted by consoles, just as with the Wii. Many people might get one as well as a mainstream console but no one is going to say 'gee, should I get a PS4/bone and Project Cars, Forza, Asseto Corsa, Gran Turismo etc and have this:
No, no, I'd rather have an Apple TV and have this':
An Apple TV that does games will likely take a slice of the cake, as do all platforms, but it's not going to eat the whole thing.
I hear what you are saying but the casuals are the larger market not the gamers. If I wasn't hard core about fallout I'd probably let my kids stick with said Apple TV gaming. And while I love my rpgs I admit the market is just smaller
I hear what you are saying but the casuals are the larger market not the gamers. If I wasn't hard core about fallout I'd probably let my kids stick with said Apple TV gaming. And while I love my rpgs I admit the market is just smaller
They are a larger market, but they are also a different market so an Apple TV that could do games is not going to be a console killer. Anyone who wants to play Halo 5 Guardians, or Fallout, is not going to get an Apple TV as their primary console.
That can provably be fixed with a lawsuit. Or just switch to a different internet provider
I don't see the appeal of this at all - at any price. The only possible reason to watch these channels is to catch local news. Other than that, they are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to programming. I'm just fine with HBO, Netflix, and PBS, thanks.
Someone created it and was presumably paid for their expertise /talent, someone paid for the infrasrtucture needed to deliver it to your home, and whoever is viewing it there thinks it's worthwhile to spend time with.... But not worthwhile enough to pay much of anything for? I guarantee Apple will make money on it. and they're simply the end-provider rather than the creative. Surely most here don't think Apple should act like the record labels do: We'll make ours, you're on your own. You need us more than we need you.
I live how you're always there to stick up for the big guys, lol.
I am curious, how would it be possible that Apple lacks the infrastructure for such a service when the article suggests they would have come out with it in June or at the fall event if they had reached a deal with the content holders?
If those rumors were true, it would seem to clearly indicate that Apple feels it does have the infrastructure needed to provide the service.
-kpluck
They may not have sufficient network infrastructure of their own, but there's nothing keeping them from using an established CDN like Akamai, like everyone else does.
What's the point of skinny bundles? Unless I can pick the exact channels I would want in a bundle it's pointless to me. I'll keep my directv. I'm able to watch more and more channels outside my house with its app. Pretty much most channels except the major networks and I couldn't care less about those anyway.
I suspect (or perhaps it's just hope) that Apple's angle will be to change the whole TV viewing experience by letting users access the programming they want directly without navigating through an obnoxious hierarchy of individual channels, each with their own, crappy navigation menus.
There are many more unknowns regarding the Apple TV. What's it going to look like? Is it going to have an app store? Will SIRI be built in to it? Will it be a gaming console also?
I think the answer will be 'yes' to all of the above, along with a novel new user experience and an app store.
Sweet baby Jesus let the new controller have Bluetooth.
I hope it has both bluetooth AND IR. That way it can function as a universal remote, and the Apple TV can (finally) be the central hub for everything instead of just another input source.
And who's bigger than Apple?
The article is indeed wrong. Akamai provides Apple the necessary storage and delivery service on a distributed and localized level which is necessary for smooth streaming on a large scale. That in fact is what Akami does for many large providers around the world through their global system of data centers so there is no need for Apple to build out that part of the network.
Two words: vertical integration. Apple always seeks to control all the critical parts of the chain used to make and sell their products. This allows them a cost advantage and ensures they retain complete control over the user experience. The fact that they've spent years building huge data centers seems to support this notion.
First things first. Here's hoping Apple TV updates its "wilderness of icons interface" into a device that is user programmable through iTunes. Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly. I've pretty much given up on using Siri anyway except to chuckle at how it bungles simple requests. It seems pretty obvious an updated Apple TV would stream in 4K but god help Apple if it doesn't. Standard HD is going the way of the dodo bird. I'm curious to see if Apple can turn this into a real product instead of a "hobby". A subscription service will come when Apple gets it out of the oven but the hardware and interface must be improved first.
Wow, talk about being wrong on every point, lol.
I don’t believe a word of any of this. First of all why would content creators/owners negotiate strictly with Apple when other players are just as capable of providing the service? Amazon, Google, Roku, Netflix for example come to mind. Second the content owners already have a good revenue stream with cable and satellite subscriptions. Why screw that up with lower prices for so-called cord cutters? Thirdly this whole cord cutting thing is suspect in my opinion. We hear all the blathering from faux techie wannabes in forums about how they can get all the content they want little cost. Put all those $10/month services like Netflix, Hulu+ and others together and price starts to add up.
I don’t know what Apple is going to announce in the way of a ‘new’ Apple TV but I think there’s been way too much wishful thinking and speculation and whatever is released will disappoint those same faux techie wannabes flapping their lips in the breeze about 4K and gaming consoles and App Stores and Browsers.
Contrary to what many people think, cord cutting is not about saving money. It's about eliminating the cable box and the cable company as the middle man. I don't pay for cable nor have a cable box. I pay for HBO Now and Netflix, and I get other channels like PBS for free - all through an Apple interface rather than a Comcast one...