NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.
We don't actually know that. It was a more complex issue than that.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
Well where are the $4.99 shows? Again, the only people mentioning this was apple after they got snubbed. I think apple was just trying to save face.
It was $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
They wanted to combine shows for that price. But the assumption has been that that was what they wanted for all of their most popular shows. we don't really know what they wanted to do. Apple apparently refused to negotiate their selling scheme at all. It could be that the price mentioned was only the shot over the negotiating bow. But, we might never know.
TiVo is moving away from hardware into content providing. There's a good article about them today in the NYTimes.
They are not moving away from hardware at all. They are just embracing more ways of receiving content. They are currently working on the OCAP-based Series 4 which works with SDV without the external adapter module as well as interactive features such as On Demand using a "compatability mode" where it defaults into the cable company's ugly interface for such features.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
Publicly, Apple says NBC wanted double its wholesale price, which would force Apple to charge $4.99. NBC says it wanted to raise prices, and the price point would start as an experiment at $2.99. Lots of posturing.
NBC has said publicly many times that it wants higher prices for music on iTunes as well as video, but it complains it has no clout (in music anyway) because Apple controls the music market. There's no doubt NBC wants higher prices.
Don't compare NBC offering shows with ads for 'free' or selling for a lower price on Amazon with what NBC wanted Apple to do. NBC knows how to sell shows on iTunes, but it doesn't know if people will put up with commercials (I won't), or will buy from the unproven Amazon service. The latest report is Amazon has 3% of the download music market (I don't know about video). You can't raise prices on such a small share, or Amazon would fail. If Amazon ever becomes the equal of iTunes, NBC will pressure them to raise prices too.
What I heard was that they wanted a pricing tier with full price for top shows, permanent downloads, no advertising, then another one for top shows, no advertising, time-limited downloads, and then another for with advertising for the old $1.99 price and then yet another for tv movies and mini-series, etc. etc. etc. Another idea was to package a popular show with an unpopular one at a slightly higher price but make that the only way to buy the popular one for a limited time. What a mess that would have been. Keep it simple.
It could of been so good to chuck that DVD player in the bin for good and do what mp3's have done for my messy CD collection. The problem is you cant rent movies out from iTunes to watch on your Apple TV or even buy movies in the UK! total lack of these features means i still have to go rent DVD's and still have to have a big ugly DVD player!
I wonder if apple could get it together and kill blue-ray one day!
I can't see an internet provider streaming 1080P uncompressed to all the households in NYC. I don't think it's technically possible and even if it were it would be financially inviable. Who's going to pay for all this extra bandwidth that the internet can magically make appear?
The internet provider doesn't need to provide the bandwidth for it to everyone, at least not at first. It's a niche thing and it will take years for the adoption to build up. But I'm sure they're probably providing that kind of bandwidth to some users already. Especially considering that people are already pirating HD movies in full 1080p format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
My point is that simply that 1080p has zero bearing on AppleTV's success.
Now 5:1 audio, that's another story, but that's an issue with the content, not the box.
Even if nobody could see the difference, I think lacking 1080p playback capability will matter to people who spent the money on a 1080p screen. Many people do buy on specs, which means that there will be plenty of people who won't buy a box unless it has the highest available numbers.
And 5.1 content IS an issue with the box at this point. It's possible that a firmware update could enable 5.1 surround via the digital out, but I don't think anyone has figured out 5.1 playback regardless of the content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally
The aTV does upscale...
I know that. My point is that the aTV can't output content encoded in 1080i or p. With both disc formats supporting p already and many tv's supporting at least i, not supporting content at that resolution puts it behind the curve.
That wouldn't have helped. If you want an "adoption" you need to target the masses like the iPod did. Home theater enthusiasts who are willing to plunk down thousands for a couple of B&W speakers are far from the "masses" who buy based on convenience and affordability.
At $399, the original iPod did not target the masses either. At the risk of sounding like a marketing 101 textbook, most products must carefully target early adopters to succeed.
True, some home theater enthusiasts buy $1000/foot speaker cables and paint their CD with green marker. But it is these crazy home theater enthusiasts that purchase unproven devices like Apple TV and influence early majority to drive adoption rate.
Although Apple TV looks to be a failure, the category is still legitimate (even without DVR and built-in optical drive) just ahead of its time (and missing several critical features).
The biggest issue isn't the AppleTV or the content providers.
It's Apple.
The content providers want a DRM system that allows time limited playback. Fairplay doesn't do that so they all use Microsoft DRM.
In the UK there's no content at all except for some US derived shows, mostly dross. There's no movies at all. And of course they charge us more here than the USA for less!
But oddly enough, without 5.1 surround sound (which has been around for what, 10 years or more) and 1080i or p, it's a product of the PAST.
It doesn't do 1080p--and I don't see 1080p content being sold on iTunes any time soon: it's rare from ANY source and would mean huge files. But it does do high-def 720p (and 1080i?), and it DOES do 5.1 surround sound. The iTunes Store doesn't sell content to take advantage of these yet, but iTunes will sync real 5.1 to AppleTV, and AppleTV will play it properly.
"In addition to stereo cables, Apple TV also features a Toslink digital optical port. Since we can send raw digital audio data over the Apple TV's optical output, can't we send DTS digitally encoded 5.1 as well?
Of course we can. Download a DTS sample file in WAV format, drop it into iTunes, and Apple TV will happily sync it and play it. Unlike Pro Logic audio, it will sound like static over regular stereo speakers, but hooked up to a DTS receiver, it is decoded into 5.1 channels of sound and played back in real DTS 5.1 surround.
The only limitation with DTS 5.1 sound right now is that Apple isn't offering it on its own movie downloads. The Apple TV can certainly “do it,” because it doesn't have to “do” anything; it merely passes it on to the 5.1 DTS decoder that anyone with 5.1 surround speakers already has.
The PlayStation and Xbox models with digital surround sound similarly output AC3 data over their Toslink optical outputs to a receiver to decode into six channels."
As for people asking for a DVD or DVR... Apple TV is about growing a viable ALTERNATIVE to those. It wouldn't make sense to support the opposite of the device's purpose. It would be a neat product that more people would buy, but Apple TV is NOT about selling high volume. It's about promoting a new kind of media distribution. Not DVD, not TV broadcasts. And promoting that new kind of distribution is great for consumers in the end. It just won't take off instantly.
Now, once video downloading was a done deal, commonplace and without compromises, THEN it could make sense for Apple to include competing means of distribution to add flexibility to AppleTV. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Apple is too stuck on what it wants everyone to do, rather than seeing what everyone wants to do.
Steve Jobs believes that he knows what is best for all of us. I don't think anything will ever change his mind.
This forum is filled with people who use Apple products, but don't drink the Kool Aid. SJ must think there's something wrong with us that we can't see the beauty of the path he has laid before us. To him we're that 5% who'll never be satisfied regardless of how realistic or practical our suggestions may be.
Unfortunately for us Apple doesn't need us any more. Even if we all abandoned the platform Apple would continue to be immensely profitable selling gadgets and "cool" Macs to people with limited technical knowledge.
Trying to get Apple to make products for us is like asking Microsoft to release Office for Linux.
Does anyone really dispute that aTV hasn't sold well and so far has been a missed opportunity for apple?
I think right now the only thing working in apple's favor is that nobody else has really shipped a box that's a better alternative for watching internet video on a TV screen. Is there anything else out there that is selling better than aTV?
If nobody else has captured the market niche, then the opportunity has not yet
been missed. The fact that nobody else has done it, in a world with many consumer
electronics companies competing, implies that it is not that easy and that Apple's
Comments
Why is he wrong?
Because nothing 'locks you into an iPod', by the original post's own admission.
After a while, you get the know the MS troll talking points.
NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
NBC wanted to raise prices for individual tv shows on iTunes as high as $4.99 and when Apple refused they pulled their library and offered them for free (with advertising) on their own website instead. Doesn't seem like a wise business move for NBC unless they are getting massive amounts of money from advertisers which I somehow doubt is the case for online content.
We don't actually know that. It was a more complex issue than that.
Because nothing 'locks you into an iPod', by the original post's own admission.
After a while, you get the know the MS troll talking points.
It locks you into an iPod if you want to play those unadulterated files on a portable player.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
Maybe Apple should just buy TiVo and integrate Front Row into it. Best of both worlds.
TiVo is moving away from hardware into content providing. There's a good article about them today in the NYTimes.
They proposed $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Just as many labels wanted to charge more for more "popular" music artists. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
Well where are the $4.99 shows? Again, the only people mentioning this was apple after they got snubbed. I think apple was just trying to save face.
It was $4.99 for top shows without advertising. Their own financial results showed they were making money off them at $1.99 though. Not sure what their problem is.
They wanted to combine shows for that price. But the assumption has been that that was what they wanted for all of their most popular shows. we don't really know what they wanted to do. Apple apparently refused to negotiate their selling scheme at all. It could be that the price mentioned was only the shot over the negotiating bow. But, we might never know.
TiVo is moving away from hardware into content providing. There's a good article about them today in the NYTimes.
They are not moving away from hardware at all. They are just embracing more ways of receiving content. They are currently working on the OCAP-based Series 4 which works with SDV without the external adapter module as well as interactive features such as On Demand using a "compatability mode" where it defaults into the cable company's ugly interface for such features.
The only place i've ever heard of NBC wanting to raise thier prices was from apple. I have yet to see NBC actually do it. They offer their shows for free on thier site or on Amazon for a fee, but not for the $4.99 price mentioned by apple. Which makes me wonder if it was even true.
Publicly, Apple says NBC wanted double its wholesale price, which would force Apple to charge $4.99. NBC says it wanted to raise prices, and the price point would start as an experiment at $2.99. Lots of posturing.
NBC has said publicly many times that it wants higher prices for music on iTunes as well as video, but it complains it has no clout (in music anyway) because Apple controls the music market. There's no doubt NBC wants higher prices.
Don't compare NBC offering shows with ads for 'free' or selling for a lower price on Amazon with what NBC wanted Apple to do. NBC knows how to sell shows on iTunes, but it doesn't know if people will put up with commercials (I won't), or will buy from the unproven Amazon service. The latest report is Amazon has 3% of the download music market (I don't know about video). You can't raise prices on such a small share, or Amazon would fail. If Amazon ever becomes the equal of iTunes, NBC will pressure them to raise prices too.
It locks you into an iPod if you want to play those unadulterated files on a portable player.
Which makes a point against DRM, not Apple.
Again... what was Apple supposed to do? Offer no content?
And if you say 'license their DRM', you're just delusional about how capitalism works.
I wonder if apple could get it together and kill blue-ray one day!
I can't see an internet provider streaming 1080P uncompressed to all the households in NYC. I don't think it's technically possible and even if it were it would be financially inviable. Who's going to pay for all this extra bandwidth that the internet can magically make appear?
The internet provider doesn't need to provide the bandwidth for it to everyone, at least not at first. It's a niche thing and it will take years for the adoption to build up. But I'm sure they're probably providing that kind of bandwidth to some users already. Especially considering that people are already pirating HD movies in full 1080p format.
My point is that simply that 1080p has zero bearing on AppleTV's success.
Now 5:1 audio, that's another story, but that's an issue with the content, not the box.
Even if nobody could see the difference, I think lacking 1080p playback capability will matter to people who spent the money on a 1080p screen. Many people do buy on specs, which means that there will be plenty of people who won't buy a box unless it has the highest available numbers.
And 5.1 content IS an issue with the box at this point. It's possible that a firmware update could enable 5.1 surround via the digital out, but I don't think anyone has figured out 5.1 playback regardless of the content.
The aTV does upscale...
I know that. My point is that the aTV can't output content encoded in 1080i or p. With both disc formats supporting p already and many tv's supporting at least i, not supporting content at that resolution puts it behind the curve.
That wouldn't have helped. If you want an "adoption" you need to target the masses like the iPod did. Home theater enthusiasts who are willing to plunk down thousands for a couple of B&W speakers are far from the "masses" who buy based on convenience and affordability.
At $399, the original iPod did not target the masses either. At the risk of sounding like a marketing 101 textbook, most products must carefully target early adopters to succeed.
True, some home theater enthusiasts buy $1000/foot speaker cables and paint their CD with green marker. But it is these crazy home theater enthusiasts that purchase unproven devices like Apple TV and influence early majority to drive adoption rate.
Although Apple TV looks to be a failure, the category is still legitimate (even without DVR and built-in optical drive) just ahead of its time (and missing several critical features).
It's Apple.
The content providers want a DRM system that allows time limited playback. Fairplay doesn't do that so they all use Microsoft DRM.
In the UK there's no content at all except for some US derived shows, mostly dross. There's no movies at all. And of course they charge us more here than the USA for less!
Apple is it's own worst enemy here.
But oddly enough, without 5.1 surround sound (which has been around for what, 10 years or more) and 1080i or p, it's a product of the PAST.
It doesn't do 1080p--and I don't see 1080p content being sold on iTunes any time soon: it's rare from ANY source and would mean huge files. But it does do high-def 720p (and 1080i?), and it DOES do 5.1 surround sound. The iTunes Store doesn't sell content to take advantage of these yet, but iTunes will sync real 5.1 to AppleTV, and AppleTV will play it properly.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM...5B4C2B75A.html
"In addition to stereo cables, Apple TV also features a Toslink digital optical port. Since we can send raw digital audio data over the Apple TV's optical output, can't we send DTS digitally encoded 5.1 as well?
Of course we can. Download a DTS sample file in WAV format, drop it into iTunes, and Apple TV will happily sync it and play it. Unlike Pro Logic audio, it will sound like static over regular stereo speakers, but hooked up to a DTS receiver, it is decoded into 5.1 channels of sound and played back in real DTS 5.1 surround.
The only limitation with DTS 5.1 sound right now is that Apple isn't offering it on its own movie downloads. The Apple TV can certainly “do it,” because it doesn't have to “do” anything; it merely passes it on to the 5.1 DTS decoder that anyone with 5.1 surround speakers already has.
The PlayStation and Xbox models with digital surround sound similarly output AC3 data over their Toslink optical outputs to a receiver to decode into six channels."
As for people asking for a DVD or DVR... Apple TV is about growing a viable ALTERNATIVE to those. It wouldn't make sense to support the opposite of the device's purpose. It would be a neat product that more people would buy, but Apple TV is NOT about selling high volume. It's about promoting a new kind of media distribution. Not DVD, not TV broadcasts. And promoting that new kind of distribution is great for consumers in the end. It just won't take off instantly.
Now, once video downloading was a done deal, commonplace and without compromises, THEN it could make sense for Apple to include competing means of distribution to add flexibility to AppleTV. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Apple is too stuck on what it wants everyone to do, rather than seeing what everyone wants to do.
Steve Jobs believes that he knows what is best for all of us. I don't think anything will ever change his mind.
This forum is filled with people who use Apple products, but don't drink the Kool Aid. SJ must think there's something wrong with us that we can't see the beauty of the path he has laid before us. To him we're that 5% who'll never be satisfied regardless of how realistic or practical our suggestions may be.
Unfortunately for us Apple doesn't need us any more. Even if we all abandoned the platform Apple would continue to be immensely profitable selling gadgets and "cool" Macs to people with limited technical knowledge.
Trying to get Apple to make products for us is like asking Microsoft to release Office for Linux.
Does anyone really dispute that aTV hasn't sold well and so far has been a missed opportunity for apple?
I think right now the only thing working in apple's favor is that nobody else has really shipped a box that's a better alternative for watching internet video on a TV screen. Is there anything else out there that is selling better than aTV?
If nobody else has captured the market niche, then the opportunity has not yet
been missed. The fact that nobody else has done it, in a world with many consumer
electronics companies competing, implies that it is not that easy and that Apple's
effort, while immature, was ahead of its time.