Yes in fact I do. Most of my friends own the CD's their music came from. Myself and my friends are in our early to mid-30's. We are more from the CD age and do not regularly use peer to peer file sharing.
iTunes.
I don't see that. If anything it has only gotten easier and more convenient. Ripping a CD takes 5 minutes, iTunes automatically loads all of the album information and cover art. You barely have to do anything.
I am in my mid-30's as well. I have hundreds on CD's. I have ripped maybe a couple dozen over the years. Easier to just download, legal or otherwise, songs I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The file size is the problem. Video files takes a long time to download and multiple numbers of video files take up a lot of hard drive space. There is no easy software infrastructure like iTunes set up to download, manage, and store illegal video files. There currently is no easy to use hardware infrastructure for viewing illegal video files. All of this will change eventually.
Not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes the files are bigger. That doesn't make them harder to manage, just much more bandwidth and time to deliver....obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I doubt that's true. I'm sure Apple's R&D budget for the iPod+ iTunes completely eclipse that of TiVO.
umm....yes, that is pretty obvously true. Apple probably puts more R&D into every product they make than TiVo's does. How completely irrelevant.
If you look at just the basic functions, DVR vs Music player, believe me, DVR is more complex. Why? because by definition it needs to play and record video, have schedules, manage tuners, etc. By definition, a music player needs to play music. Once you add additional functionality, yes Apple's implementation of iPod is more complex than TiVo's DVR. They would add the same level of effort to a DVR, which of course would mean additional functionality, i.e. what ATV does now, plus DVR, plus whatever else they might add that is unexpected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
For a market to be fragmented does not mean everyone has to be using the same product. It generally implies there are many suppliers who split the needs and requirements of a market instead of creating a homogeneous one. DRM would be an example of a fragmented market.
fragmented market mean can mean a lot of things. it might mean no defacto standards. It could mean multiple competing, incompatible implementations. The DVR market is very similar to the MP3 player market of the late 90s early 2000's. At that time, if you asked people in their 50s or 60s what a MP3 player was, there was a good chance the would have no idea. Ask them today what an iPod or PMP or Tivo or DVR and which ones do you think they would know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The primary function of Apple TV is to stream movies, TV, and music from iTunes. Providing the user with the instant gratification of having content without the need to leave home or wait for the mail.
Apple could add a DVR. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I just don't see DVR being a killer feature because for many people it would be redundant.
And here we agree. I do think DVR, while not the killer feature to get ATV into living rooms, would be a big help. I personally would not buy an ATV until it had DVR functionality. I would gladly get rid of my TiVo. While it may be the best DVR in the market, that is not saying much, given the state of the DVR market.
Although, it it did DVR with CableCard2 (or Tru2way or whatever) then it doesn't become redundant, it becomes the replacement for the STB/DVR.
I'm baffled why anyone thinks that Apple needs to court or cater to the cable/dish companies, when the real market-breaker is going directly to the show producers and channels. Screw the CableCARD fiasco, screw the insanity of zomg, which hardware works with which hardware.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Give me a fat pipe and a 500GB drive, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about keeping cable. In fact, we're in the process of doing exactly that wiping of the hands. it's amazing how much plasma screen the monthly savings will pay for.
I'm baffled why anyone thinks that Apple needs to court or cater to the cable/dish companies, when the real market-breaker is going directly to the show producers and channels. Screw the CableCARD fiasco, screw the insanity of zomg, which hardware works with which hardware.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Give me a fat pipe and a 500GB drive, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about keeping cable. In fact, we're in the process of doing exactly that wiping of the hands. it's amazing how much plasma screen the monthly savings will pay for.
You my friend get the big picture of what Apple wants to do.
Thanks. Of course, I'm still planning on getting an EyeTV and HD OTA antenna... That will take care of probably 50% of our viewing needs. The fact that it's a DVR device is just a time-shifting convenience - still doesn't require anything to do with the cable or dish companies.
Do cable/satellite providers actually own any content or do they subscribe to it as well?
Where I live, Timer Warner killed access to the NFL Network because they said it was too costly.
Not that I'm aware of. But they still have access to more.
It seems like it is easy for the studios to deny content to Apple. I guessing that would be difficult for them to do to the cable providers, NFL network notwithstanding.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
A good point - and this is where AppleTV tried to jump straight to last year. This year with Rental it's closer to a possibility - but it's happening just as the cable companies are thinking about controlling quota. Also, the majority of internet connections are via those same cable companies who may not want to play nicely with Apple.
So your point about Apple's vision for the future is good - as is your comparison to the music industry, since the existing players may not want to change the status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Of course, I'm still planning on getting an EyeTV and HD OTA antenna... That will take care of probably 50% of our viewing needs. The fact that it's a DVR device is just a time-shifting convenience - still doesn't require anything to do with the cable or dish companies.
It could be said that Apple needs a bridge to their vision of the future. Both to help consumers make the step, and to allow for existing systems that will take time to adapt. The 2 ways I'd like to see a bridge done are
Here's my prediction. Apple partners with a WiMax provider like Sprint. Integrates WiMax into their laptops or apple tv box. Uses Apple TV DVR type functionality to allow people to download all the tv and movies they want directly to their laptops circumventing the cable companies and watch it when they want (while also skipping commercials). Customers will pay only for the shows they want at $.30 to $.50 a show. Advertisers will love it because the end users can be targeted much more accurately based on their viewing habits, and when they reach the right audience, that audience can just jump over to their website. Viewers will love it because they can watch only the shows they want, they can watch them when they want, and they can pay less for all of it. Viewers should also have to watch less commercials, because let's face it, if i'm a 38 year old male why the heck would i want to watch a tampon commerical and why would some advertiser want to be paying for me to watch it. Via simply demographic capturing, that will be avoided. 10 years from now TV shows will be much more targeted to very specific segments based on this, so my tv viewing will be more rewarding and advertisers will be spending their money more wisely too. Personally i think apple could successfully launch a 42 inch lcd tv that's also a dvr and a computer, but they'll probably just make the Apple TV box an item that works with any other tv and stay out of that low margin business. It's all greenfield opportunity for Apple. I'd short the cable companies the day something like that launches, because it's what people want.
It could be said that Apple needs a bridge to their vision of the future. Both to help consumers make the step, and to allow for existing systems that will take time to adapt. The 2 ways I'd like to see a bridge done are
1) DVR
2) Support for older TVs
For the first, I'm partial to an EyeTV and HD antenna - why keep paying for cable as a feed when you don't have to? (Yeah, I know, not everyone can use an HD antenna, but they're getting a *lot* better and cheaper...) The only reason for a DVR is when you have a feed that isn't on-demand, but broadcast. If you ditch cable/dish, you don't have any real need for an integrated DVR... *IF* the on-demand content hits a critical mass, it simply won't be needed, period. The whole catalog is your personal DVR. (But you got that. )
Even as someone with a 1991 Trinitron CRT, and no AppleTV-capable unit in the house, I don't think offering a legacy port is the best approach.
I also don't believe that it would ever be allowed by the studios providing content for rental - note that this closes the analog hole.
Here's my prediction. Apple partners with a WiMax provider like Sprint. Integrates WiMax into their laptops or apple tv box. Uses Apple TV DVR type functionality to allow people to download all the tv and movies they want directly to their laptops circumventing the cable companies and watch it when they want (while also skipping commercials). Customers will pay only for the shows they want at $.30 to $.50 a show. Advertisers will love it because the end users can be targeted much more accurately based on their viewing habits, and when they reach the right audience, that audience can just jump over to their website. Viewers will love it because they can watch only the shows they want, they can watch them when they want, and they can pay less for all of it. Viewers should also have to watch less commercials, because let's face it, if i'm a 38 year old male why the heck would i want to watch a tampon commerical and why would some advertiser want to be paying for me to watch it. Via simply demographic capturing, that will be avoided. 10 years from now TV shows will be much more targeted to very specific segments based on this, so my tv viewing will be more rewarding and advertisers will be spending their money more wisely too. Personally i think apple could successfully launch a 42 inch lcd tv that's also a dvr and a computer, but they'll probably just make the Apple TV box an item that works with any other tv and stay out of that low margin business. It's all greenfield opportunity for Apple. I'd short the cable companies the day something like that launches, because it's what people want.
Whow!! Do you have any idea on the number of toes and vested interests you just stepped on? Remember, it not just the cable and satellite companies that are at steak. It is the full, complete entertainment industry that you are changing.
Here's my prediction. Apple partners with a WiMax provider like Sprint. Integrates WiMax into their laptops or apple tv box. Uses Apple TV DVR type functionality to allow people to download all the tv and movies they want directly to their laptops circumventing the cable companies and watch it when they want (while also skipping commercials). Customers will pay only for the shows they want at $.30 to $.50 a show. Advertisers will love it because the end users can be targeted much more accurately based on their viewing habits, and when they reach the right audience, that audience can just jump over to their website. Viewers will love it because they can watch only the shows they want, they can watch them when they want, and they can pay less for all of it. Viewers should also have to watch less commercials, because let's face it, if i'm a 38 year old male why the heck would i want to watch a tampon commerical and why would some advertiser want to be paying for me to watch it. Via simply demographic capturing, that will be avoided. 10 years from now TV shows will be much more targeted to very specific segments based on this, so my tv viewing will be more rewarding and advertisers will be spending their money more wisely too. Personally i think apple could successfully launch a 42 inch lcd tv that's also a dvr and a computer, but they'll probably just make the Apple TV box an item that works with any other tv and stay out of that low margin business. It's all greenfield opportunity for Apple. I'd short the cable companies the day something like that launches, because it's what people want.
Out of curiosity, a lot of the audience likes to channel surf: skip around for up to (according to the latest Nielsens) seven shows in an hour, especially during new seasons/new show kick-offs. (I know I'll skip between at least three shows an hour, especially if sports are on.) So, your $.30 to $.50 could add up to $2.50 to $3.50 an hour. Say you do that for only 2 hours a day. That's $7 plus another few hours of viewing. So an easy $10 a day, possibly, probably more on weekends. In one week, you're piling up quite the bill. If you know exactly what you want, it might be a savings, but if you aren't sure, and tune into a bad movie here, a good game there, some news, a sit-com... it can add up. Also, I know a lot of freelance people who work from home and keep the TV's on in the backgrounds. That could add up for them, as well.
For the first, I'm partial to an EyeTV and HD antenna - why keep paying for cable as a feed when you don't have to?
Actually I did mean DVR for FTA (ie requires receiver plus HD antenna). I don't think the cable is needed as a stepping stone enough to warrant the issues with cable card etc.
Quote:
Even as someone with a 1991 Trinitron CRT, and no AppleTV-capable unit in the house, I don't think offering a legacy port is the best approach.
I also don't believe that it would ever be allowed by the studios providing content for rental - note that this closes the analog hole.
The studios don't care about the analog hole if it's in Standard Definition, do they? They allow SD rentals on computers... and the old TVs won't have HD anyway (mostly).
Apart from that, can you elaborate on why don't you like the legacy support?
I use FrontRow from my MBP on an old TV now - nowhere NEAR as good looking as AppleTV on a 50" plasma but still useful.
The studios don't care about the analog hole if it's in Standard Definition, do they? They allow SD rentals on computers... and the old TVs won't have HD anyway (mostly).
Oh, they care about it, they care very much about it. But they know there isn't much they can do about it so they don't talk about it very much. On they other hand, because of that hole, they are pulling out all the stops to completely lock down digital copying. Just wait for the howls from this pro-DVR crowd when the networks turn on the anti-copying bit that they forced into the digital standards.
I know for a fact certain parties in Apple are now invested enough in the idea of "fixing" television and video that they are dealing with large cable providers. I know that Apple has played around with building support for a "new" standard and software based cable card on motherboard. The idea has been called geoport (by some) as a joke to the days of Apple's software modem.
Apple is torn between keeping it's product "pure" or having to make small sacrifices to improve the overall experience of television. You will first see some ad supported content through appletv style device including the ability to select the shows you like, and get the time-shifted version of the device. The last time I was aware, the "box" i saw didn't actually go onto live tv, but would work to let you pick shows you wanted with a tv-guide, and would download them from storage on servers about hour after they were shown on "live" tv. Since it's too easy to fast forward through commercials, there has to be some sort of compromise.
Current cable standards suck, and block out comcast from things like ondemand, and other services. So either Apple's going to let other people into it's box, or they just will have to cut out regular live tv.
You're saying Apple has a box which is kind of like a DVR in that it can play a show that was on TV an hour ago, but to do that they download the show off servers rather than record FTA. Then they have ads added?
Comments
When iPod first exploded, what was the free and legal way to get music on there?
iTunes.
If you mean the iTunes store, that was not available for nearly two years.
Yes in fact I do. Most of my friends own the CD's their music came from. Myself and my friends are in our early to mid-30's. We are more from the CD age and do not regularly use peer to peer file sharing.
iTunes.
I don't see that. If anything it has only gotten easier and more convenient. Ripping a CD takes 5 minutes, iTunes automatically loads all of the album information and cover art. You barely have to do anything.
I am in my mid-30's as well. I have hundreds on CD's. I have ripped maybe a couple dozen over the years. Easier to just download, legal or otherwise, songs I have.
The file size is the problem. Video files takes a long time to download and multiple numbers of video files take up a lot of hard drive space. There is no easy software infrastructure like iTunes set up to download, manage, and store illegal video files. There currently is no easy to use hardware infrastructure for viewing illegal video files. All of this will change eventually.
Not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes the files are bigger. That doesn't make them harder to manage, just much more bandwidth and time to deliver....obviously.
I doubt that's true. I'm sure Apple's R&D budget for the iPod+ iTunes completely eclipse that of TiVO.
umm....yes, that is pretty obvously true. Apple probably puts more R&D into every product they make than TiVo's does. How completely irrelevant.
If you look at just the basic functions, DVR vs Music player, believe me, DVR is more complex. Why? because by definition it needs to play and record video, have schedules, manage tuners, etc. By definition, a music player needs to play music. Once you add additional functionality, yes Apple's implementation of iPod is more complex than TiVo's DVR. They would add the same level of effort to a DVR, which of course would mean additional functionality, i.e. what ATV does now, plus DVR, plus whatever else they might add that is unexpected.
For a market to be fragmented does not mean everyone has to be using the same product. It generally implies there are many suppliers who split the needs and requirements of a market instead of creating a homogeneous one. DRM would be an example of a fragmented market.
fragmented market mean can mean a lot of things. it might mean no defacto standards. It could mean multiple competing, incompatible implementations. The DVR market is very similar to the MP3 player market of the late 90s early 2000's. At that time, if you asked people in their 50s or 60s what a MP3 player was, there was a good chance the would have no idea. Ask them today what an iPod or PMP or Tivo or DVR and which ones do you think they would know?
The primary function of Apple TV is to stream movies, TV, and music from iTunes. Providing the user with the instant gratification of having content without the need to leave home or wait for the mail.
Apple could add a DVR. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I just don't see DVR being a killer feature because for many people it would be redundant.
And here we agree. I do think DVR, while not the killer feature to get ATV into living rooms, would be a big help. I personally would not buy an ATV until it had DVR functionality. I would gladly get rid of my TiVo. While it may be the best DVR in the market, that is not saying much, given the state of the DVR market.
Although, it it did DVR with CableCard2 (or Tru2way or whatever) then it doesn't become redundant, it becomes the replacement for the STB/DVR.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Give me a fat pipe and a 500GB drive, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about keeping cable. In fact, we're in the process of doing exactly that wiping of the hands. it's amazing how much plasma screen the monthly savings will pay for.
I'm baffled why anyone thinks that Apple needs to court or cater to the cable/dish companies, when the real market-breaker is going directly to the show producers and channels. Screw the CableCARD fiasco, screw the insanity of zomg, which hardware works with which hardware.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Give me a fat pipe and a 500GB drive, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about keeping cable. In fact, we're in the process of doing exactly that wiping of the hands. it's amazing how much plasma screen the monthly savings will pay for.
You my friend get the big picture of what Apple wants to do.
I'm baffled why anyone thinks that Apple needs to court or cater to the cable/dish companies, .
Because they have content and Apple doesn't. Well, very little IMO.
Because they have content and Apple doesn't. Well, very little IMO.
Do cable/satellite providers actually own any content or do they subscribe to it as well?
Where I live, Timer Warner killed access to the NFL Network because they said it was too costly.
Do cable/satellite providers actually own any content or do they subscribe to it as well?
Where I live, Timer Warner killed access to the NFL Network because they said it was too costly.
Not that I'm aware of. But they still have access to more.
It seems like it is easy for the studios to deny content to Apple. I guessing that would be difficult for them to do to the cable providers, NFL network notwithstanding.
Now, *how* many links in there could Apple step into and divert the shows directly to the consumer?
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
A good point - and this is where AppleTV tried to jump straight to last year. This year with Rental it's closer to a possibility - but it's happening just as the cable companies are thinking about controlling quota. Also, the majority of internet connections are via those same cable companies who may not want to play nicely with Apple.
So your point about Apple's vision for the future is good - as is your comparison to the music industry, since the existing players may not want to change the status quo.
Of course, I'm still planning on getting an EyeTV and HD OTA antenna...
It could be said that Apple needs a bridge to their vision of the future. Both to help consumers make the step, and to allow for existing systems that will take time to adapt. The 2 ways I'd like to see a bridge done are
1) DVR
2) Support for older TVs
Yes iTunes before the store. It was the original software with the iPod for ripping CD's.
Wow... pinstripes and brushed aluminum... it seems so long ago!
It could be said that Apple needs a bridge to their vision of the future. Both to help consumers make the step, and to allow for existing systems that will take time to adapt. The 2 ways I'd like to see a bridge done are
1) DVR
2) Support for older TVs
For the first, I'm partial to an EyeTV and HD antenna - why keep paying for cable as a feed when you don't have to? (Yeah, I know, not everyone can use an HD antenna, but they're getting a *lot* better and cheaper...) The only reason for a DVR is when you have a feed that isn't on-demand, but broadcast. If you ditch cable/dish, you don't have any real need for an integrated DVR... *IF* the on-demand content hits a critical mass, it simply won't be needed, period. The whole catalog is your personal DVR. (But you got that.
Even as someone with a 1991 Trinitron CRT, and no AppleTV-capable unit in the house, I don't think offering a legacy port is the best approach.
I also don't believe that it would ever be allowed by the studios providing content for rental - note that this closes the analog hole.
Here's my prediction. Apple partners with a WiMax provider like Sprint. Integrates WiMax into their laptops or apple tv box. Uses Apple TV DVR type functionality to allow people to download all the tv and movies they want directly to their laptops circumventing the cable companies and watch it when they want (while also skipping commercials). Customers will pay only for the shows they want at $.30 to $.50 a show. Advertisers will love it because the end users can be targeted much more accurately based on their viewing habits, and when they reach the right audience, that audience can just jump over to their website. Viewers will love it because they can watch only the shows they want, they can watch them when they want, and they can pay less for all of it. Viewers should also have to watch less commercials, because let's face it, if i'm a 38 year old male why the heck would i want to watch a tampon commerical and why would some advertiser want to be paying for me to watch it. Via simply demographic capturing, that will be avoided. 10 years from now TV shows will be much more targeted to very specific segments based on this, so my tv viewing will be more rewarding and advertisers will be spending their money more wisely too. Personally i think apple could successfully launch a 42 inch lcd tv that's also a dvr and a computer, but they'll probably just make the Apple TV box an item that works with any other tv and stay out of that low margin business. It's all greenfield opportunity for Apple. I'd short the cable companies the day something like that launches, because it's what people want.
Whow!! Do you have any idea on the number of toes and vested interests you just stepped on? Remember, it not just the cable and satellite companies that are at steak. It is the full, complete entertainment industry that you are changing.
Here's my prediction. Apple partners with a WiMax provider like Sprint. Integrates WiMax into their laptops or apple tv box. Uses Apple TV DVR type functionality to allow people to download all the tv and movies they want directly to their laptops circumventing the cable companies and watch it when they want (while also skipping commercials). Customers will pay only for the shows they want at $.30 to $.50 a show. Advertisers will love it because the end users can be targeted much more accurately based on their viewing habits, and when they reach the right audience, that audience can just jump over to their website. Viewers will love it because they can watch only the shows they want, they can watch them when they want, and they can pay less for all of it. Viewers should also have to watch less commercials, because let's face it, if i'm a 38 year old male why the heck would i want to watch a tampon commerical and why would some advertiser want to be paying for me to watch it. Via simply demographic capturing, that will be avoided. 10 years from now TV shows will be much more targeted to very specific segments based on this, so my tv viewing will be more rewarding and advertisers will be spending their money more wisely too. Personally i think apple could successfully launch a 42 inch lcd tv that's also a dvr and a computer, but they'll probably just make the Apple TV box an item that works with any other tv and stay out of that low margin business. It's all greenfield opportunity for Apple. I'd short the cable companies the day something like that launches, because it's what people want.
Out of curiosity, a lot of the audience likes to channel surf: skip around for up to (according to the latest Nielsens) seven shows in an hour, especially during new seasons/new show kick-offs. (I know I'll skip between at least three shows an hour, especially if sports are on.) So, your $.30 to $.50 could add up to $2.50 to $3.50 an hour. Say you do that for only 2 hours a day. That's $7 plus another few hours of viewing. So an easy $10 a day, possibly, probably more on weekends. In one week, you're piling up quite the bill. If you know exactly what you want, it might be a savings, but if you aren't sure, and tune into a bad movie here, a good game there, some news, a sit-com... it can add up. Also, I know a lot of freelance people who work from home and keep the TV's on in the backgrounds. That could add up for them, as well.
For the first, I'm partial to an EyeTV and HD antenna - why keep paying for cable as a feed when you don't have to?
Actually I did mean DVR for FTA (ie requires receiver plus HD antenna). I don't think the cable is needed as a stepping stone enough to warrant the issues with cable card etc.
Even as someone with a 1991 Trinitron CRT, and no AppleTV-capable unit in the house, I don't think offering a legacy port is the best approach.
I also don't believe that it would ever be allowed by the studios providing content for rental - note that this closes the analog hole.
The studios don't care about the analog hole if it's in Standard Definition, do they? They allow SD rentals on computers... and the old TVs won't have HD anyway (mostly).
Apart from that, can you elaborate on why don't you like the legacy support?
I use FrontRow from my MBP on an old TV now - nowhere NEAR as good looking as AppleTV on a 50" plasma
The studios don't care about the analog hole if it's in Standard Definition, do they? They allow SD rentals on computers... and the old TVs won't have HD anyway (mostly).
Oh, they care about it, they care very much about it. But they know there isn't much they can do about it so they don't talk about it very much. On they other hand, because of that hole, they are pulling out all the stops to completely lock down digital copying. Just wait for the howls from this pro-DVR crowd when the networks turn on the anti-copying bit that they forced into the digital standards.
Apple is torn between keeping it's product "pure" or having to make small sacrifices to improve the overall experience of television. You will first see some ad supported content through appletv style device including the ability to select the shows you like, and get the time-shifted version of the device. The last time I was aware, the "box" i saw didn't actually go onto live tv, but would work to let you pick shows you wanted with a tv-guide, and would download them from storage on servers about hour after they were shown on "live" tv. Since it's too easy to fast forward through commercials, there has to be some sort of compromise.
Current cable standards suck, and block out comcast from things like ondemand, and other services. So either Apple's going to let other people into it's box, or they just will have to cut out regular live tv.
You're saying Apple has a box which is kind of like a DVR in that it can play a show that was on TV an hour ago, but to do that they download the show off servers rather than record FTA. Then they have ads added?