I have had many conversations over the years with cable and satalite companies where the position was always, "customers want channel packages. We tried alacarte and they did not buy." This is probably true as for the most part television is a passive activity. People plop down in front of the TV and surf around until something catches their interest. DVR's has changed this somewhaat to now poeple will at least take the time to program the DVR to get what they want. For a complete shift in how it all works will require people to become active not passive viewers. Alacarte works even if channels cost as much as HBO Now. It is the rare person who in one months time would watch everything on 30 or 40 channels that is of interest to them. The approach is subscribe to a few channels in a month, watch all you care to and the next month subscribe to a different group of channels. If the new Apple TV could make it very easy to subscribe and unsubscribe to channels the alacarte model could work very well both content and finacially for an active viewer.
That's for old people. There's a new generation growing up without cable, getting all their content through the internet and on demand from services like Netflix. The concept of waiting to watch a show on a specific channel on a specific date and time is ludicrous.
Who made you arbiter of what market needs disruption?
I'm an observer, not an arbiter.
Quote:
The most hated cable company in America is…
According to a survey of more than 14,000 customers released on Tuesday by the American Customer Satisfaction Index, customers’ satisfaction with subscription TV services — this includes cable and satellite TV companies — has fallen by 3.1% from last year, to a score of 63 out of 100. This means that the industry (along with Internet service providers) is the most disliked in the nation. “Customers expect a lot more than what the companies deliver,” says ACSI managing director David VanAmburg — who notes that these companies have “what seems to be endemic poor customer service.”
This rising dissatisfaction with subscription TV services — as well as viable alternatives to cable like Netflix and Hulu — may explain why consumers are ditching cable in droves. The number of cable subscribers fell from 102.7 million in 2013 to 101.7 million in 2014, according to research firm IBISWorld — and the firm predicts that the companies will lose subscribers at the rate of about one million a year for the next several years.
No, if you want to play halo 5 you will get an Xbox. The device doesn't have to be dedicated as a gaming device to give Xbox and PlayStation a run for their money. It just needs to be pretty damn good, and great at doing other things as ell where consoles quite frankly suck and cost five times as much. And remember, Microsoft gave Xbox a pretty good initial leg up by buying out bungee and making halo, at that time being developed as a Mac only game, into an Xbox exclusive. Imagine if Apple was to do the similar trick for an up and coming must have game. Vengeance is a dish best served cold.
Yes, sports is the biggest impediment of cable cutting, IMHO. What really matters if you watch an episode of any show later than its original airing? But watching non-live sports events is robbing the viewer of one of its major attractions...the unknown outcome. Once I've seen or read the outcome, watching it later loses a lot of the event's appeal.
As for the other issues, I agree that with our $8 Netflix, along with iTunes and the free OTA broadcast (which is still mandated by the govt so local broadcasters cannot decide to block it), our household has little need to pay even $40/month for set bundles. I do like the Sling TV bundle which gives me the holy grail ESPN but also the very popular AMC along with TNT/TBS and other attractive channels. Even that has me only to $28/month total....and with 90% channels I want, unlike my previous DirecTV or Charter cable which has several dozens of channels I NEVER watched.
(And don't forget, Netflix and/or Hulu also offer selectable movies within their subscriptions...something not provided by the set channel bundles)
Yes, sports is the biggest impediment of cable cutting, IMHO. What really matters if you watch an episode of any show later than its original airing? But watching non-live sports events is robbing the viewer of one of its major attractions...the unknown outcome. Once I've seen or read the outcome, watching it later loses a lot of the event's appeal.
As for the other issues, I agree that with our $8 Netflix, along with iTunes and the free OTA broadcast (which is still mandated by the govt so local broadcasters cannot decide to block it), our household has little need to pay even $40/month for set bundles. I do like the Sling TV bundle which gives me the holy grail ESPN but also the very popular AMC along with TNT/TBS and other attractive channels. Even that has me only to $28/month total....and with 90% channels I want, unlike my previous DirecTV or Charter cable which has several dozens of channels I NEVER watched.
(And don't forget, Netflix and/or Hulu also offer selectable movies within their subscriptions...something not provided by the set channel bundles)
The interesting thing about sports channels is that they account for a large chunk of a typical cable bill, though many cable customers have no interest in watching them.
Netflix is great, but i dont consider their movie selection worth mentioning. And what's on AMC besides the recently ended Mad Men? I think any cord-cutting strategy is incomplete without HBO.
Who made you arbiter of what market needs disruption?
No one, obviously, nor was he claiming to be such a thing.
Why do people post stuff like like this in response to comments and opinions? Do you think ordinary people should not be entitled to have opinions unless they have some official jurisdiction over the matter?
No, if you want to play halo 5 you will get an Xbox. The device doesn't have to be dedicated as a gaming device to give Xbox and PlayStation a run for their money. It just needs to be pretty damn good, and great at doing other things as ell where consoles quite frankly suck and cost five times as much.
And remember, Microsoft gave Xbox a pretty good initial leg up by buying out bungee and making halo, at that time being developed as a Mac only game, into an Xbox exclusive. Imagine if Apple was to do the similar trick for an up and coming must have game. Vengeance is a dish best served cold.
Making a compelling exclusive is much harder to do now. Microsoft having the Tomb Raider exclusive should be huge but people won't migrate from the PS4 or PC just to play it. Uncharted similarly doesn't have XBox players migrating.
Apple doesn't need to make a push to get people over quickly, although having good titles can persuade people to buy a cheap box in addition to other platforms. They didn't have exclusives at the iPhone or iPad launch but they dominate in mobile gaming and apps. This is in just a few years from launch. The ?TV can play the long game in the same way. They make the platform, developers gradually find ways to make money and eventually it reaches a position where it's competitive.
The developers who made FPS games for iPhone and iPad discovered that this isn't the type of game people want to be playing on mobile devices. They want casual games that can entertain them for a few empty minutes during the day that can be shut on/off instantly.
Platforms build usage habits and expectations. There are comparisons made to the Wii a lot but the Wii games sell for a high price:
If you put any of those games on the App Store, would they sell for those prices? Some people would buy them but it goes completely against their expectations. Square Enix has managed to sell on the App Store at higher than usual prices:
The revenue they make can cover porting costs but it's not a sustainable model for exclusive titles. The big App Store earners are the ones that manage to get people addicted to the game mechanic and they hit a high volume of buyers by being free-to-play and that volume makes ads and IAPs pay out.
Any disruption to mainstream gaming would likely be very slow. The Amazon Fire TV gaming shown in the following video looks pretty good (2:30):
[VIDEO]
The ?TV has sold 5x more units than that so it would definitely be a compelling addition to the box and having a controller as the only gaming input offers more opportunity for traditional game developers to take advantage of it.
Disrupting the local cable stranglehold over content distribution is more likely to be the primary aim of the TV box but getting as many compelling features as possible to get people to buy the box in the first place helps.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if all Apple could do to "reinvent" TV is to offer some sort of thin or a-la-carte bundle. It's pointless, really, because in a lot of places, you can get TV+internet bundle at LOWER cost than internet only, and even if internet only is cheaper, the price difference most likely wouldn't be more than $40.
What would make sense is a service that is fully on-demand, a service that does away with the concept of "channels" but instead presents shows as independent units of entertainment you can choose on your own terms, so you can binge on seasons of whatever or create your own programming lineup/schedule without changing channels or keeping track of time. Now that is what Netflix (and other streaming offerings) does, and DVR can bring you similar experience. But Apple can offer far more content than Netflix and better UI than your typical DVR (for one, you won't even have to make the thing to record your shows).
And you can imagine why content owners would be hesitant to sign on for something like that. I mean they already have deals with Hulu and Netflix so if what Apple intends to do is similar to what they are doing, why wouldn't the content owners be on board? I suspect it is because this would be more like Spotify for TV, a subscription service for all seasons of most shows they got. In other words, this could potentially threaten their syndication revenue while gaining subscription revenue, which they were already getting via cable TV.
Ultimately, I think it would be something people would be willing to pay extra money to get, even if they have cable/satellite TV. That would be much more in line with what Apple is all about. They have never been really about saving you money. They are all about offering a great experience at a premium.
Disrupting the local cable stranglehold over content distribution is more likely to be the primary aim of the TV box but getting as many compelling features as possible to get people to buy the box in the first place helps.
In the 'what could Apple do with all that money category', I have for some years said Apple should put up a globe-spanning satellite network to provide their own high-bandwidth content pipes.
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 illustrious BGR's comment;
"With streaming services like Netflix and HBO Now more popular than ever, the writing on the wall is clear: consumers, on the whole, just aren’t as interested in paying $100 a month for 150 channels. Instead, they’re much happier getting less and paying less."
Perhaps the Cable Industry has the upper hand now...
edit: Using BGR for a source is pretty low I know, but every now and then, they create a quotable line.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if all Apple could do to "reinvent" TV is to offer some sort of thin or a-la-carte bundle. It's pointless, really, because in a lot of places, you can get TV+internet bundle at LOWER cost than internet only, and even if internet only is cheaper, the price difference most likely wouldn't be more than $40.
What would make sense is a service that is fully on-demand, a service that does away with the concept of "channels" but instead presents shows as independent units of entertainment you can choose on your own terms, so you can binge on seasons of whatever or create your own programming lineup/schedule without changing channels or keeping track of time. Now that is what Netflix (and other streaming offerings) does, and DVR can bring you similar experience. But Apple can offer far more content than Netflix and better UI than your typical DVR (for one, you won't even have to make the thing to record your shows).
And you can imagine why content owners would be hesitant to sign on for something like that. I mean they already have deals with Hulu and Netflix so if what Apple intends to do is similar to what they are doing, why wouldn't the content owners be on board? I suspect it is because this would be more like Spotify for TV, a subscription service for all seasons of most shows they got. In other words, this could potentially threaten their syndication revenue while gaining subscription revenue, which they were already getting via cable TV.
Ultimately, I think it would be something people would be willing to pay extra money to get, even if they have cable/satellite TV. That would be much more in line with what Apple is all about. They have never been really about saving you money. They are all about offering a great experience at a premium.
It's really a situation of broadband being an expensive proposition (generally) in the U.S. and it shouldn't be. Cable TV companies act effectively as regulated monopolies in some local communities that they serve, and many ISP's end up using AT&T infrastructure, so AT&T is effectively a regulated monopoly in many communities, effectively controlling price. Regulation also grants certain franchises that public access initiatives have great difficulty in breaking, even given generally non-existent services in rural areas.
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
I have no interest in a bundle. Both Apple and the Networks are out-to-lunch. I've already cut the cord. Hello Networks, I'm already NOT viewing your content, partially because your content stinks, and partially because the Cable TV bundle model is insanely overpriced ("150 channels of crap").
I would be interested in an a-la-cart model, where each "channel" would cost somewhere between $2.99 to 4.99 per month. I would choose the ones I want, which is good for me, and which means the Networks (channels) that I choose would experience the full revenue (minus Apple's cut) instead of pennies spread across the socialist model of channel bundling.
This is the way it needs to be. Best for consumers, and best for the Networks - if your Network is worth watching, you'll succeed, if your Network stinks it will soon cease to exist.
I'd say go one further... I don't see cable/dsl/fiber co's getting along with this unless they don't own the content (eg Google Fiber, TelusTV, Verizon FiOS, AT&T, and numerous reseller/third-parties) because it's a win for them if they don't have to manage all the content licenses. Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, Shaw Communications, Bell Canada, Rogers all own content and license their content to other cable companies and the ones that don't own any content.
Like it's a rather large quagmire to figure out who owns things, it would be so much easier for one entity (eg Apple, Google) to arrange for ALL content channels to be available in a scaleable UHD 8K->UHD4K->HD1080->HD720p->SD480->Radio (24/96 lossless audio)->Radio(16/48 lossy radio for streaming over 3G networks) downgrade system, so the hardware device negotiates what it's capable of, and the user decides which channels to watch live, and which are VOD. Someone might want to watch CNN or ESPN live while there's almost no worthwhile pre-recorded content worth watching the minute it's out due to East/West timeshifting. So someone who subscribes to Disney XD or HBO would have access to all VOD content available (which can be queued and downloaded to the local device if insufficient bandwidth is present to stream,) and "View live" would switch to the broadcast stream for shows that are at a first showing.
Like that for me would improve the TV situation immensely. I should have the ability to watch these TV channels on any device I have, anywhere, anytime without being chained to the broadcast times or cable network just to view it on a mobile device. Like the kind of thing that irritates the hell out of me is that I was at a relatives place. I can't watch "MY" TV shows with the app for my home PVR because my relative has a competing internet/tv service provider, and I can't watch THEIR TV's VOD with THEIR APP because I don't have their account information. If there wasn't a reason to do this (keeping children entertained) I'd have not even tried. I tried a second time at the relatives friends house who had the full package... satellite, big fat NOPE there too.
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
The reason iOS devices beat Nintendo is because they were multi-function devices whereas the Nintendo system was not. The consoles can do just about everything the Apple TV can do plus do a better job playing games.
The reason iOS devices beat Nintendo is because they were multi-function devices whereas the Nintendo system was not. The consoles can do just about everything the Apple TV can do plus do a better job playing games.
An Apple TV with an app store will be cheaper, will play more games, a larger variety of games, and those games will cost less money. There also won't be a subscription charge to play games over the internet, again making it cheaper.
Apple TV is cheap enough to have one on every TV in the house, gaming consoles are expensive enough that they are generally aren't on every TV.
The UI on the Apple TV is already better and apparently is going to get better still.
Some people are going to spend the money to get the high end games that make full use of the GPU in the gaming consoles, but for the vast majority of games, that really doesn't matter. A lot of people like to play the kind of games that don't require that.
Again, look at the Wii U. It's sold nearly as many units as the Xbox one. An A8 based Apple TV will be in the ballpark of being as powerful as the Wii U, cost a fraction of the price, have more games available, and very likely will even have Nintendo games available.
The current Apple TV with no app store and no games sells more units a year than the Wii U or the Xbox One have sold since their release. It will only take a year or so for the new one to have a larger installed base. And it might not even take that long.
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
As I have already said, and which Marvin has expounded on, the people who game on iOS exclusively are a completely different market to those who game on consoles. The scope, depth and immersive nature of the games is quite different. Yes, Nintendo will likely suffer but they have been on the way out for years. The Wii/U, as I have mentioned previously, attract a different clientele to the Sony/Xbox type consoles. People don't get into those systems because they want the cheapest gaming experience they can get. They are prepared to pay for complex and involved games with very high production values and development costs and the HW to run them. It's like arguing The entire film industry is under threat from Youtube.
Have you ever played a major title game on a current generation console?
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
As I have already said, and which Marvin has expounded on, the people who game on iOS exclusively are a completely different market to those who game on consoles. The scope, depth and immersive nature of the games is quite different. Yes, Nintendo will likely suffer but they have been on the way out for years. The Wii/U, as I have mentioned previously, attract a different clientele to the Sony/Xbox type consoles. People don't get into those systems because they want the cheapest gaming experience they can get. They are prepared to pay for complex and involved games with very high production values and development costs and the HW to run them. It's like arguing The entire film industry is under threat from Youtube.
Have you ever played a major title game on a current generation console?
Some get the consoles for the very best graphics, others get it just to play games with their family on a big screen. The overall play a game on the TV will grow while the market for the dedicated consoles will shrink to some extent.
I have two current generation consoles. I have a Wii U just to play Mario Cart, which is my all time favorite game on any platform. I have an Xbox One primarily for the Kinnect games, which there are very few. I would rather play a game like Peggle on the big screen with my kids than any of the first person shooters. There are tons of iOS games that could be great played with the family on a TV which are not available on dedicated consoles.
Comments
I have had many conversations over the years with cable and satalite companies where the position was always, "customers want channel packages. We tried alacarte and they did not buy." This is probably true as for the most part television is a passive activity. People plop down in front of the TV and surf around until something catches their interest. DVR's has changed this somewhaat to now poeple will at least take the time to program the DVR to get what they want. For a complete shift in how it all works will require people to become active not passive viewers. Alacarte works even if channels cost as much as HBO Now. It is the rare person who in one months time would watch everything on 30 or 40 channels that is of interest to them. The approach is subscribe to a few channels in a month, watch all you care to and the next month subscribe to a different group of channels. If the new Apple TV could make it very easy to subscribe and unsubscribe to channels the alacarte model could work very well both content and finacially for an active viewer.
That's for old people. There's a new generation growing up without cable, getting all their content through the internet and on demand from services like Netflix. The concept of waiting to watch a show on a specific channel on a specific date and time is ludicrous.
I don't understand the incessant need to destroy markets.
Some markets are long overdue for disruption. Cable is at the top of that list.
Who made you arbiter of what market needs disruption?
And there still will be hardcore console systems
There are still trucks, but most people drive cars.
Who made you arbiter of what market needs disruption?
I'm an observer, not an arbiter.
The most hated cable company in America is…
According to a survey of more than 14,000 customers released on Tuesday by the American Customer Satisfaction Index, customers’ satisfaction with subscription TV services — this includes cable and satellite TV companies — has fallen by 3.1% from last year, to a score of 63 out of 100. This means that the industry (along with Internet service providers) is the most disliked in the nation. “Customers expect a lot more than what the companies deliver,” says ACSI managing director David VanAmburg — who notes that these companies have “what seems to be endemic poor customer service.”
This rising dissatisfaction with subscription TV services — as well as viable alternatives to cable like Netflix and Hulu — may explain why consumers are ditching cable in droves. The number of cable subscribers fell from 102.7 million in 2013 to 101.7 million in 2014, according to research firm IBISWorld — and the firm predicts that the companies will lose subscribers at the rate of about one million a year for the next several years.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-most-hated-cable-company-in-america-is-2015-06-02
And remember, Microsoft gave Xbox a pretty good initial leg up by buying out bungee and making halo, at that time being developed as a Mac only game, into an Xbox exclusive. Imagine if Apple was to do the similar trick for an up and coming must have game. Vengeance is a dish best served cold.
Yes, sports is the biggest impediment of cable cutting, IMHO. What really matters if you watch an episode of any show later than its original airing? But watching non-live sports events is robbing the viewer of one of its major attractions...the unknown outcome. Once I've seen or read the outcome, watching it later loses a lot of the event's appeal.
As for the other issues, I agree that with our $8 Netflix, along with iTunes and the free OTA broadcast (which is still mandated by the govt so local broadcasters cannot decide to block it), our household has little need to pay even $40/month for set bundles. I do like the Sling TV bundle which gives me the holy grail ESPN but also the very popular AMC along with TNT/TBS and other attractive channels. Even that has me only to $28/month total....and with 90% channels I want, unlike my previous DirecTV or Charter cable which has several dozens of channels I NEVER watched.
(And don't forget, Netflix and/or Hulu also offer selectable movies within their subscriptions...something not provided by the set channel bundles)
The interesting thing about sports channels is that they account for a large chunk of a typical cable bill, though many cable customers have no interest in watching them.
Netflix is great, but i dont consider their movie selection worth mentioning. And what's on AMC besides the recently ended Mad Men? I think any cord-cutting strategy is incomplete without HBO.
Who made you arbiter of what market needs disruption?
No one, obviously, nor was he claiming to be such a thing.
Why do people post stuff like like this in response to comments and opinions? Do you think ordinary people should not be entitled to have opinions unless they have some official jurisdiction over the matter?
Making a compelling exclusive is much harder to do now. Microsoft having the Tomb Raider exclusive should be huge but people won't migrate from the PS4 or PC just to play it. Uncharted similarly doesn't have XBox players migrating.
Apple doesn't need to make a push to get people over quickly, although having good titles can persuade people to buy a cheap box in addition to other platforms. They didn't have exclusives at the iPhone or iPad launch but they dominate in mobile gaming and apps. This is in just a few years from launch. The ?TV can play the long game in the same way. They make the platform, developers gradually find ways to make money and eventually it reaches a position where it's competitive.
The developers who made FPS games for iPhone and iPad discovered that this isn't the type of game people want to be playing on mobile devices. They want casual games that can entertain them for a few empty minutes during the day that can be shut on/off instantly.
Platforms build usage habits and expectations. There are comparisons made to the Wii a lot but the Wii games sell for a high price:
http://www.amazon.com/Mario-Kart-8-Nintendo-Wii-U/dp/B00DC7G2W8 ($57)
http://www.amazon.com/Donkey-Kong-Country-Tropical-Freeze-Nintendo/dp/B00DC7O77A ($42)
http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Zelda-Waker-nintendo-wii-u/dp/B002I0GF72 ($39)
If you put any of those games on the App Store, would they sell for those prices? Some people would buy them but it goes completely against their expectations. Square Enix has managed to sell on the App Store at higher than usual prices:
https://itunes.apple.com/app/final-fantasy-vi/id719401490?mt=8 ($16)
There are estimates of the app earnings here:
https://sensortower.com/ios/publisher/square-enix-inc/300186801/
Final Fantasy 7 is listed at $8.9m so would represent just under 600k downloads at $16. The development budget for that game was $67m:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_VII#Development
The revenue they make can cover porting costs but it's not a sustainable model for exclusive titles. The big App Store earners are the ones that manage to get people addicted to the game mechanic and they hit a high volume of buyers by being free-to-play and that volume makes ads and IAPs pay out.
Any disruption to mainstream gaming would likely be very slow. The Amazon Fire TV gaming shown in the following video looks pretty good (2:30):
[VIDEO]
The ?TV has sold 5x more units than that so it would definitely be a compelling addition to the box and having a controller as the only gaming input offers more opportunity for traditional game developers to take advantage of it.
Disrupting the local cable stranglehold over content distribution is more likely to be the primary aim of the TV box but getting as many compelling features as possible to get people to buy the box in the first place helps.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if all Apple could do to "reinvent" TV is to offer some sort of thin or a-la-carte bundle. It's pointless, really, because in a lot of places, you can get TV+internet bundle at LOWER cost than internet only, and even if internet only is cheaper, the price difference most likely wouldn't be more than $40.
What would make sense is a service that is fully on-demand, a service that does away with the concept of "channels" but instead presents shows as independent units of entertainment you can choose on your own terms, so you can binge on seasons of whatever or create your own programming lineup/schedule without changing channels or keeping track of time. Now that is what Netflix (and other streaming offerings) does, and DVR can bring you similar experience. But Apple can offer far more content than Netflix and better UI than your typical DVR (for one, you won't even have to make the thing to record your shows).
And you can imagine why content owners would be hesitant to sign on for something like that. I mean they already have deals with Hulu and Netflix so if what Apple intends to do is similar to what they are doing, why wouldn't the content owners be on board? I suspect it is because this would be more like Spotify for TV, a subscription service for all seasons of most shows they got. In other words, this could potentially threaten their syndication revenue while gaining subscription revenue, which they were already getting via cable TV.
Ultimately, I think it would be something people would be willing to pay extra money to get, even if they have cable/satellite TV. That would be much more in line with what Apple is all about. They have never been really about saving you money. They are all about offering a great experience at a premium.
Disrupting the local cable stranglehold over content distribution is more likely to be the primary aim of the TV box but getting as many compelling features as possible to get people to buy the box in the first place helps.
In the 'what could Apple do with all that money category', I have for some years said Apple should put up a globe-spanning satellite network to provide their own high-bandwidth content pipes.
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 illustrious BGR's comment;
"With streaming services like Netflix and HBO Now more popular than ever, the writing on the wall is clear: consumers, on the whole, just aren’t as interested in paying $100 a month for 150 channels. Instead, they’re much happier getting less and paying less."
Perhaps the Cable Industry has the upper hand now...
edit: Using BGR for a source is pretty low I know, but every now and then, they create a quotable line.
I'd be surprised and disappointed if all Apple could do to "reinvent" TV is to offer some sort of thin or a-la-carte bundle. It's pointless, really, because in a lot of places, you can get TV+internet bundle at LOWER cost than internet only, and even if internet only is cheaper, the price difference most likely wouldn't be more than $40.
What would make sense is a service that is fully on-demand, a service that does away with the concept of "channels" but instead presents shows as independent units of entertainment you can choose on your own terms, so you can binge on seasons of whatever or create your own programming lineup/schedule without changing channels or keeping track of time. Now that is what Netflix (and other streaming offerings) does, and DVR can bring you similar experience. But Apple can offer far more content than Netflix and better UI than your typical DVR (for one, you won't even have to make the thing to record your shows).
And you can imagine why content owners would be hesitant to sign on for something like that. I mean they already have deals with Hulu and Netflix so if what Apple intends to do is similar to what they are doing, why wouldn't the content owners be on board? I suspect it is because this would be more like Spotify for TV, a subscription service for all seasons of most shows they got. In other words, this could potentially threaten their syndication revenue while gaining subscription revenue, which they were already getting via cable TV.
Ultimately, I think it would be something people would be willing to pay extra money to get, even if they have cable/satellite TV. That would be much more in line with what Apple is all about. They have never been really about saving you money. They are all about offering a great experience at a premium.
It's really a situation of broadband being an expensive proposition (generally) in the U.S. and it shouldn't be. Cable TV companies act effectively as regulated monopolies in some local communities that they serve, and many ISP's end up using AT&T infrastructure, so AT&T is effectively a regulated monopoly in many communities, effectively controlling price. Regulation also grants certain franchises that public access initiatives have great difficulty in breaking, even given generally non-existent services in rural areas.
The Apple TV won't dent the console market.
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
I'd say go one further... I don't see cable/dsl/fiber co's getting along with this unless they don't own the content (eg Google Fiber, TelusTV, Verizon FiOS, AT&T, and numerous reseller/third-parties) because it's a win for them if they don't have to manage all the content licenses. Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Cox, Cablevision, Shaw Communications, Bell Canada, Rogers all own content and license their content to other cable companies and the ones that don't own any content.
Like it's a rather large quagmire to figure out who owns things, it would be so much easier for one entity (eg Apple, Google) to arrange for ALL content channels to be available in a scaleable UHD 8K->UHD4K->HD1080->HD720p->SD480->Radio (24/96 lossless audio)->Radio(16/48 lossy radio for streaming over 3G networks) downgrade system, so the hardware device negotiates what it's capable of, and the user decides which channels to watch live, and which are VOD. Someone might want to watch CNN or ESPN live while there's almost no worthwhile pre-recorded content worth watching the minute it's out due to East/West timeshifting. So someone who subscribes to Disney XD or HBO would have access to all VOD content available (which can be queued and downloaded to the local device if insufficient bandwidth is present to stream,) and "View live" would switch to the broadcast stream for shows that are at a first showing.
Like that for me would improve the TV situation immensely. I should have the ability to watch these TV channels on any device I have, anywhere, anytime without being chained to the broadcast times or cable network just to view it on a mobile device. Like the kind of thing that irritates the hell out of me is that I was at a relatives place. I can't watch "MY" TV shows with the app for my home PVR because my relative has a competing internet/tv service provider, and I can't watch THEIR TV's VOD with THEIR APP because I don't have their account information. If there wasn't a reason to do this (keeping children entertained) I'd have not even tried. I tried a second time at the relatives friends house who had the full package... satellite, big fat NOPE there too.
The reason iOS devices beat Nintendo is because they were multi-function devices whereas the Nintendo system was not. The consoles can do just about everything the Apple TV can do plus do a better job playing games.
The reason iOS devices beat Nintendo is because they were multi-function devices whereas the Nintendo system was not. The consoles can do just about everything the Apple TV can do plus do a better job playing games.
An Apple TV with an app store will be cheaper, will play more games, a larger variety of games, and those games will cost less money. There also won't be a subscription charge to play games over the internet, again making it cheaper.
Apple TV is cheap enough to have one on every TV in the house, gaming consoles are expensive enough that they are generally aren't on every TV.
The UI on the Apple TV is already better and apparently is going to get better still.
Some people are going to spend the money to get the high end games that make full use of the GPU in the gaming consoles, but for the vast majority of games, that really doesn't matter. A lot of people like to play the kind of games that don't require that.
Again, look at the Wii U. It's sold nearly as many units as the Xbox one. An A8 based Apple TV will be in the ballpark of being as powerful as the Wii U, cost a fraction of the price, have more games available, and very likely will even have Nintendo games available.
The current Apple TV with no app store and no games sells more units a year than the Wii U or the Xbox One have sold since their release. It will only take a year or so for the new one to have a larger installed base. And it might not even take that long.
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
As I have already said, and which Marvin has expounded on, the people who game on iOS exclusively are a completely different market to those who game on consoles. The scope, depth and immersive nature of the games is quite different. Yes, Nintendo will likely suffer but they have been on the way out for years. The Wii/U, as I have mentioned previously, attract a different clientele to the Sony/Xbox type consoles. People don't get into those systems because they want the cheapest gaming experience they can get. They are prepared to pay for complex and involved games with very high production values and development costs and the HW to run them. It's like arguing The entire film industry is under threat from Youtube.Have you ever played a major title game on a current generation console?
It depends on what you mean by dent. Apple TV with an app store will have more people spending more hours playing more games than any of the dedicated consoles. The result will be less people will spend money for higher priced dedicated gaming console and their higher priced games.
iOS with an app store on the small screen has already been so disruptive that Nintendo is now building games for iOS. The Apple TV should be in the ballpark of a Wii U in performance, perhaps faster real world performance with it's better development tools..
As I have already said, and which Marvin has expounded on, the people who game on iOS exclusively are a completely different market to those who game on consoles. The scope, depth and immersive nature of the games is quite different. Yes, Nintendo will likely suffer but they have been on the way out for years. The Wii/U, as I have mentioned previously, attract a different clientele to the Sony/Xbox type consoles. People don't get into those systems because they want the cheapest gaming experience they can get. They are prepared to pay for complex and involved games with very high production values and development costs and the HW to run them. It's like arguing The entire film industry is under threat from Youtube.Have you ever played a major title game on a current generation console?
Some get the consoles for the very best graphics, others get it just to play games with their family on a big screen. The overall play a game on the TV will grow while the market for the dedicated consoles will shrink to some extent.
I have two current generation consoles. I have a Wii U just to play Mario Cart, which is my all time favorite game on any platform. I have an Xbox One primarily for the Kinnect games, which there are very few. I would rather play a game like Peggle on the big screen with my kids than any of the first person shooters. There are tons of iOS games that could be great played with the family on a TV which are not available on dedicated consoles.