Not if the internet providers have anything to do with it; Comcast is currently implementing 250GB caps, and other providers are expected to follow suit. That's only enough bandwidth for six Blu-Ray-quality movies. I rent no less than eight a month from Netflix.
I think those who like Blu-ray hope this will be the case.
I don't think we spoke about price justification; we discussed overpricing.
Sounds like your argument is solely based on the expectation that Apple should sell at a loss so that you can feel it's right-priced.
If you are buying a PS3 only for BD movies, you are getting a great product and nobody argues that point.
If you are using it for gaming as well as most people do, you are paying a whole lot more for your PS3, you just don't seem to know it.
There typically is no free lunch in retail...
OK, since my PS3 will do everything that the ATV will do (play videos, play music, stream music/videos off network, purchase videos), plus play games, plus play BD movies, and DVD's, and CD's, and will work as a DVR in some countries. And since the price is in the middle of the two ATV models, it is a lot better deal than a ATV. Regardless if Sony is selling it at a loss, I don't care, I know that I paid a certain price for it, and I was happy at that price.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
As for paying a whole lot more? That is crazy talk, you have to buy games for any platform, the PS3 has region code games, I can buy them from any country I like, and I don't pay retail prices for them.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
There's something to be said for making your money off other aspects - Sony makes its money from the games. Apple dropped the AppleTV price as soon as they released movie rentals in the US iirc. They did the same in Australia about 9 months later. I assume they still make some money on it, but shuffled where their priorities were.
Perhaps Apple will make enough money from apps and movies to lower the cost.... or maybe they can sell the AppleTV at the current price and give away $200 worth of rentals (or half price rentals for a year, up to $200 value... etc). It's not a way Apple seems to work normally though.
If anything, Apple's best bet may be to work out a deal to bundle Apple TV units with the HDTVs sold by manufacturers, or else striking deals with partners such as Best Buy to sell the unit as an accessory with the new HDTV units it sells.
I really can't imagine ANY electronics retailer partnering with Apple to bundle AppleTV's with HDTV's instead of a Blu-Ray player like they currently are doing. Selling a Blu-Ray player means they may get more business from that customer when they come back to buy movies for the player. The AppleTV is a dead end revenue wise for retailers unless Apple is going to give them a cut of iTunes movie sales.
OK, since my PS3 will do everything that the ATV will do (play videos, play music, stream music/videos off network, purchase videos), plus play games, plus play BD movies, and DVD's, and CD's, and will work as a DVR in some countries. And since the price is in the middle of the two ATV models, it is a lot better deal than a ATV. Regardless if Sony is selling it at a loss, I don't care, I know that I paid a certain price for it, and I was happy at that price.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
As for paying a whole lot more? That is crazy talk, you have to buy games for any platform, the PS3 has region code games, I can buy them from any country I like, and I don't pay retail prices for them.
Crazy talk? If you buy games for the PS3 you have paid Sony again, no matter how you slice it. In fact you and the game developer has... This is wether you pay retail or not. You can ignore that of course but should consider it in your price comparisons.
Same as indirect taxes; just because they aren't broken out doesn't mean they don't exit...
Btw. I do have a PS3 from the day it was launched and love it for BD movies & games. The remaining media UI is rather sad and unintuitive. I use AppleTV for that.
As we all know XBox, PS3, and Wii sell at a loss, below manufacturing and distribution costs. They make their money from games and game developers.
ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve.
For Nintendo, this is simply never been true. All of Nintendo's consoles have *never* sold at a loss for the company. It's a clear difference in philosophy over Sony & Microsoft.
However, Microsoft for the first time (earlier this year) posted a profit for the XBox 360 division. At this point (based on manufacturing/etc), I highly doubt MS is selling the 360 at a loss.
Until Apple comes up with an AppleTV that is a genuine hit there is no credibility to the notion it will start selling premium HDTV's with one built in. it would be a total flop.
and everyone agrees the AppleTV needs to do more than it does to become a real hit.
but there is no consensus at all about what that "more" should be. witness the many posts here.
my own pitch, which is rarely mentioned anyplace, is that it should become a "mirror" for using an iPhone/iPod touch wirelessly on the sofa, duplicating on your TV screen what you see and control on the your iPhone/touch. all the apps, games, surfing, media, etc. now that would be really something new and exciting.
Until Apple comes up with an AppleTV that is a genuine hit there is no credibility to the notion it will start selling premium HDTV's with one built in. it would be a total flop.
I don't understand why one would want it built in. The only possible conveniece it the use of having one remote to rule them all, but that can be done in other ways. Like using a USB port connected to any number of vendor TVs or all types and sizes to relay info to the AppleTV that will then send the appropriate audio and video signaling.
Crazy talk? If you buy games for the PS3 you have paid Sony again, no matter how you slice it. In fact you and the game developer has... This is wether you pay retail or not. You can ignore that of course but should consider it in your price comparisons.
No matter what you buy someone is getting money from it.
Apple is selling items to be placed on the ATV, they should be making some bit of money from this, so you can't make the comparision to Sony on that one.
There is no reason for the ATV to be so expensive, except for the fact it has an Apple logo on top
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfman
Btw. I do have a PS3 from the day it was launched and love it for BD movies & games. The remaining media UI is rather sad and unintuitive. I use AppleTV for that.
Is that right? I find the PS3 will play back media from my uPNP NAS a whole heap better than an ATV will
How did you deduce that? The ATV has massive potential.
Because you said...
"ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve."
Apple is in this game to make money, if they cannot make money from the device then why sell them.
The MacBook announcement is interesting for the AppleTV.
At present, the AppleTV has an older Intel chip with a separate GPU.
(The Mac Mini has a modern Intel chip with built-in GPU).
I imagine that the next AppleTV could easily use the same NVIDIA GPU and stick with the older Intel CPU. The 9400M GPU can handle 1080p... so maybe this is the direction we'll see next year? Or is the chip too expensive for the aTV?
Another alternative (as I said earlier) is that we see the AppleTV based on iPhone's ARM chip and a bump up on the iPhones GPU (the same GPU family as the iPhone uses now can also handle HDTV at the high end).
(I presume the iPhone's ARM processor can not work in tandem with the NVIDEA 9400M, which has a chipset designed for Intel chips... but I'm not sure about other NVIDEA options.)
The MacBook announcement is interesting for the AppleTV.
At present, the AppleTV has an older Intel chip with a separate GPU.
(The Mac Mini has a modern Intel chip with built-in GPU).
I imagine that the next AppleTV could easily use the same NVIDIA GPU and stick with the older Intel CPU. The 9400M GPU can handle 1080p... so maybe this is the direction we'll see next year? Or is the chip too expensive for the aTV?
Another alternative (as I said earlier) is that we see the AppleTV based on iPhone's ARM chip and a bump up on the iPhones GPU (the same GPU family as the iPhone uses now can also handle HDTV at the high end).
(I presume the iPhone's ARM processor can not work in tandem with the NVIDEA 9400M, which has a chipset designed for Intel chips... but I'm not sure about other NVIDEA options.)
That is a good question, but Intel GMA X4500HD can also do 1080p. We know Apple likes to use as much of the same HW as possible, but the AppleTV is the odd man out, and I'm not sure that the media extender needs the extra power of the 9400M, what the cost difference is, or if Apple even cares to make the AppleTV support 1080p natively when they don't offer 1080p videos in the iTS.
The iMac was updated this past April with a special Santa Rosa/Penryn package with Montevina aspects. Will Apple do a silent iMac update for the holidays or wait until MacWorld? I think it's the latter for the iMac, as well as all other Mac desktops. I think the Mac Mini will get a complete revamping, too, going more green, but won't see a price difference. Will the Mac Pro get Nehelam (at least to showcase the high end model) later this year or will we have to wait for MacWorld? Again, I think we'll have to wait until MacWorld.
Regarding the 1080p delivery argument over PS3 and BD players, note that at this time, there is almost ZERO content (aside from certain CG-generated console game content) that is actually ACQUIRED (photographed and recorded) in 1080p. As mentioned by AppleInsider previously, ABC and Fox currently acquire and broadcast in 720p, using 720p-native cameras (or 1080i cameras, utilizing a subsequent 720p downconvert). CBS and NBC acquire their HD content with (mostly) 1080i cameras, and broadcast it in 1080i. Except for certain specialized digital cinema camera systems (and P2-based Panasonic ENG/EFP cameras), 1080p acquisition is not employed in current TV production, and therefore, virtually no on-air programming has been ACQUIRED in 1080p. In digital motion picture production, however, this is quickly changing.
I would not be at all surprised to find Apple selling TV's. They now have the store fronts, they can insert the AppleTV into them, and they can market the first mass produced TV with a 6 button remote.
I would not be at all surprised to find Apple selling TV's. They now have the store fronts, they can insert the AppleTV into them, and they can market the first mass produced TV with a 6 button remote.
That's the idea! I don't buy this economic downturn bull. If this device, is simple enough, cool enough, powerful enough and integrates like magic with your devices and the internet; people will save to buy one. If Apple made a TV there's no doubt in my mind it would be a hit!
It would be sexy, networked, and run a variant of OS X like the Apple TV box. Why wouldn't you buy!? Seriously.
...If Apple made a TV there's no doubt in my mind it would be a hit!
Is there really any doubt that sooner or later we'll see a tv? I bet they're sifting through the hacked Apple TV stuff and deciding what to include right now. Even while we're sleeping.
Comments
And FYI, the 360 has been making dough for quite awhile now
The word is they are no longer losing money per unit sale, but they are still in the hole by several billion.
Not if the internet providers have anything to do with it; Comcast is currently implementing 250GB caps, and other providers are expected to follow suit. That's only enough bandwidth for six Blu-Ray-quality movies. I rent no less than eight a month from Netflix.
I think those who like Blu-ray hope this will be the case.
I don't think we spoke about price justification; we discussed overpricing.
Sounds like your argument is solely based on the expectation that Apple should sell at a loss so that you can feel it's right-priced.
If you are buying a PS3 only for BD movies, you are getting a great product and nobody argues that point.
If you are using it for gaming as well as most people do, you are paying a whole lot more for your PS3, you just don't seem to know it.
There typically is no free lunch in retail...
OK, since my PS3 will do everything that the ATV will do (play videos, play music, stream music/videos off network, purchase videos), plus play games, plus play BD movies, and DVD's, and CD's, and will work as a DVR in some countries. And since the price is in the middle of the two ATV models, it is a lot better deal than a ATV. Regardless if Sony is selling it at a loss, I don't care, I know that I paid a certain price for it, and I was happy at that price.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
As for paying a whole lot more? That is crazy talk, you have to buy games for any platform, the PS3 has region code games, I can buy them from any country I like, and I don't pay retail prices for them.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
There's something to be said for making your money off other aspects - Sony makes its money from the games. Apple dropped the AppleTV price as soon as they released movie rentals in the US iirc. They did the same in Australia about 9 months later. I assume they still make some money on it, but shuffled where their priorities were.
Perhaps Apple will make enough money from apps and movies to lower the cost.... or maybe they can sell the AppleTV at the current price and give away $200 worth of rentals (or half price rentals for a year, up to $200 value... etc). It's not a way Apple seems to work normally though.
If anything, Apple's best bet may be to work out a deal to bundle Apple TV units with the HDTVs sold by manufacturers, or else striking deals with partners such as Best Buy to sell the unit as an accessory with the new HDTV units it sells.
I really can't imagine ANY electronics retailer partnering with Apple to bundle AppleTV's with HDTV's instead of a Blu-Ray player like they currently are doing. Selling a Blu-Ray player means they may get more business from that customer when they come back to buy movies for the player. The AppleTV is a dead end revenue wise for retailers unless Apple is going to give them a cut of iTunes movie sales.
OK, since my PS3 will do everything that the ATV will do (play videos, play music, stream music/videos off network, purchase videos), plus play games, plus play BD movies, and DVD's, and CD's, and will work as a DVR in some countries. And since the price is in the middle of the two ATV models, it is a lot better deal than a ATV. Regardless if Sony is selling it at a loss, I don't care, I know that I paid a certain price for it, and I was happy at that price.
I look at the ATV, see the price Apple is charging for it, do I think about buying a ATV? No, I would rather get a second PS3.
As for paying a whole lot more? That is crazy talk, you have to buy games for any platform, the PS3 has region code games, I can buy them from any country I like, and I don't pay retail prices for them.
Crazy talk? If you buy games for the PS3 you have paid Sony again, no matter how you slice it. In fact you and the game developer has... This is wether you pay retail or not. You can ignore that of course but should consider it in your price comparisons.
Same as indirect taxes; just because they aren't broken out doesn't mean they don't exit...
Btw. I do have a PS3 from the day it was launched and love it for BD movies & games. The remaining media UI is rather sad and unintuitive. I use AppleTV for that.
So what you are saying is, Apple is selling a dead end product, and really should kill it now?
How did you deduce that? The ATV has massive potential.
As we all know XBox, PS3, and Wii sell at a loss, below manufacturing and distribution costs. They make their money from games and game developers.
ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve.
For Nintendo, this is simply never been true. All of Nintendo's consoles have *never* sold at a loss for the company. It's a clear difference in philosophy over Sony & Microsoft.
However, Microsoft for the first time (earlier this year) posted a profit for the XBox 360 division. At this point (based on manufacturing/etc), I highly doubt MS is selling the 360 at a loss.
and everyone agrees the AppleTV needs to do more than it does to become a real hit.
but there is no consensus at all about what that "more" should be. witness the many posts here.
my own pitch, which is rarely mentioned anyplace, is that it should become a "mirror" for using an iPhone/iPod touch wirelessly on the sofa, duplicating on your TV screen what you see and control on the your iPhone/touch. all the apps, games, surfing, media, etc. now that would be really something new and exciting.
Until Apple comes up with an AppleTV that is a genuine hit there is no credibility to the notion it will start selling premium HDTV's with one built in. it would be a total flop.
I don't understand why one would want it built in. The only possible conveniece it the use of having one remote to rule them all, but that can be done in other ways. Like using a USB port connected to any number of vendor TVs or all types and sizes to relay info to the AppleTV that will then send the appropriate audio and video signaling.
Sorry, why is the iPhone connecting to the TV did you say?
a remote, etc.
Crazy talk? If you buy games for the PS3 you have paid Sony again, no matter how you slice it. In fact you and the game developer has... This is wether you pay retail or not. You can ignore that of course but should consider it in your price comparisons.
No matter what you buy someone is getting money from it.
Apple is selling items to be placed on the ATV, they should be making some bit of money from this, so you can't make the comparision to Sony on that one.
There is no reason for the ATV to be so expensive, except for the fact it has an Apple logo on top
Btw. I do have a PS3 from the day it was launched and love it for BD movies & games. The remaining media UI is rather sad and unintuitive. I use AppleTV for that.
Is that right? I find the PS3 will play back media from my uPNP NAS a whole heap better than an ATV will
How did you deduce that? The ATV has massive potential.
Because you said...
"ATV makes little to no money from YouTube, Podcasts, TV shows, and Movies. Add-up the hosting, infrastructure, bandwidth, and IT services and you're left with zilch if not -ve."
Apple is in this game to make money, if they cannot make money from the device then why sell them.
a remote, etc.
What's etc.? What other reasons would you need, considering the UI is on the TV.
At present, the AppleTV has an older Intel chip with a separate GPU.
(The Mac Mini has a modern Intel chip with built-in GPU).
I imagine that the next AppleTV could easily use the same NVIDIA GPU and stick with the older Intel CPU. The 9400M GPU can handle 1080p... so maybe this is the direction we'll see next year? Or is the chip too expensive for the aTV?
Another alternative (as I said earlier) is that we see the AppleTV based on iPhone's ARM chip and a bump up on the iPhones GPU (the same GPU family as the iPhone uses now can also handle HDTV at the high end).
(I presume the iPhone's ARM processor can not work in tandem with the NVIDEA 9400M, which has a chipset designed for Intel chips... but I'm not sure about other NVIDEA options.)
The MacBook announcement is interesting for the AppleTV.
At present, the AppleTV has an older Intel chip with a separate GPU.
(The Mac Mini has a modern Intel chip with built-in GPU).
I imagine that the next AppleTV could easily use the same NVIDIA GPU and stick with the older Intel CPU. The 9400M GPU can handle 1080p... so maybe this is the direction we'll see next year? Or is the chip too expensive for the aTV?
Another alternative (as I said earlier) is that we see the AppleTV based on iPhone's ARM chip and a bump up on the iPhones GPU (the same GPU family as the iPhone uses now can also handle HDTV at the high end).
(I presume the iPhone's ARM processor can not work in tandem with the NVIDEA 9400M, which has a chipset designed for Intel chips... but I'm not sure about other NVIDEA options.)
That is a good question, but Intel GMA X4500HD can also do 1080p. We know Apple likes to use as much of the same HW as possible, but the AppleTV is the odd man out, and I'm not sure that the media extender needs the extra power of the 9400M, what the cost difference is, or if Apple even cares to make the AppleTV support 1080p natively when they don't offer 1080p videos in the iTS.
The iMac was updated this past April with a special Santa Rosa/Penryn package with Montevina aspects. Will Apple do a silent iMac update for the holidays or wait until MacWorld? I think it's the latter for the iMac, as well as all other Mac desktops. I think the Mac Mini will get a complete revamping, too, going more green, but won't see a price difference. Will the Mac Pro get Nehelam (at least to showcase the high end model) later this year or will we have to wait for MacWorld? Again, I think we'll have to wait until MacWorld.
I would not be at all surprised to find Apple selling TV's. They now have the store fronts, they can insert the AppleTV into them, and they can market the first mass produced TV with a 6 button remote.
That's the idea! I don't buy this economic downturn bull. If this device, is simple enough, cool enough, powerful enough and integrates like magic with your devices and the internet; people will save to buy one. If Apple made a TV there's no doubt in my mind it would be a hit!
It would be sexy, networked, and run a variant of OS X like the Apple TV box. Why wouldn't you buy!? Seriously.
...If Apple made a TV there's no doubt in my mind it would be a hit!
Is there really any doubt that sooner or later we'll see a tv? I bet they're sifting through the hacked Apple TV stuff and deciding what to include right now. Even while we're sleeping.