I think Apple is on the right track with AppleTV. It works great for movie rentals. 720p content looks awesome on my 52" HDTV (as good as Blu-Ray in my opinion). It has a good interface and works better than the Xbox 360 and PS 3 for this purpose (I own both). It also make Netflix irrelevant.
I don't pay for TV service. So my main gripe with the AppleTV could be solved with a browser.
Buying TV shows can get expensive, especially if you are a TV junkie. This is why broadcast TV is still viable and the need for a DVR. I find myself watching new TV shows on my computer for free in low resolution quality with commercials just to see if I like them. I would like to see Apple offer this via the AppleTV. Watch TV shows free with commercials, buy the ones you want in HD. Even if this was accomplished through a browser by using the media company's web sites, I think it would work; but it would be better to have the media companies offer their content with commercials just like they do on the web, but in 720p, and stream it through the AppleTV.
Apple could bypass the broadcast companies and make DVR irrelevant if they promoted "channels" and encouraged HD content streamed via the AppleTV and bring the whole "watch what you want, when you want" ideal closer to reality. But all they really need to do is put a browser on the AppleTV since most of the content is available on the web.
Over on the apple.com support forum, the highly-rated members will waste no time to tell you that AppleTV is a low-end consumer device, incapable of anything approaching quality reproduction of the media it plays. Mediocrity rules.
Does Apple plan to change AppleTV's design goal of striving for mediocrity?
Do they have idiotic trolls like you on that forum as well?
Why would Apple even consider such a move? They provide their own movie/TV rental/purchase store. Why mess about with cable providers?
Maybe they should look at Netflix and provide a streaming subscription service but with Apples slick sales and hardware behind it.
e.g. Apple TV and iPhone/Touch streaming services etc.
-I agree. They need a Subscription-based plan. Something like a Netflix/Roku analogue. -AND they could have at least some kind of 2nd-mover-advantage by observing them.
I also agree with Lun_Esex -especially on the idea of a no-commercials Plus-Pass fee.
This article Does make me wonder how many they could sell if ATV were actually a more fleshed-out product with less impediments to success.
-Would the product sell because people were willing to have the Apple Expericence in the Living Room?
Me I have a home video problem, I don't know where to store it. Since I don't want anymoe of a physics support like a DVd or Blue RAy, I would like to store my iDVD project in the Apple TV.
Then I can have the beautiful menu and the chapter like a DVD but inside the Apple TV. That's mean, Apple just need to provide VOB support.
It will be fun having a stack of virtual DVD. No one can match that in the competition, Apple got all the puzzle to do that.
LaCie and some other support the DVD format but they do not offer any solution to create a DVD style project like iMovie and iDVD can provide.
At this time the Apple TV downgrade the size of my Home video taken with my HD camcorder, hope they will support a bigger resolution for all my home video and also get more storage or maybe open up the USB port to expand the storage.
I really want an Apple TV, but right now it's an add on, it doesn't replace anything. You still have a DVR, you still have a bluray/DVD, it's more clutter. I think Apple could make a killer DVR that I'd want to use. I agree, add apps and a browser.
I can think of about 10 different interesting additions to Apple's TV model, but none are as 'clean' as the current AppleTV. But the current AppleTV doesn't do enough to take off as Apple wants - partly because the infrastructure is still developing, partly because the contracts & TV industry behemoth are slow to change.
For example, I suspect Apple would like to rent HD TV shows for $1 each, or less. The networks can't do that because their local channels would complain -and besides it'd cost a bit for Apple's bandwidth and the ISPs probably aren't up to the throughput quite yet.
Worse... what Apple wants would seem to take the viewer ownership off the networks and put Apple in total control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz
Not going to happen.... ever!
Why would Apple even consider such a move? They provide their own movie/TV rental/purchase store. Why mess about with cable providers?
A few people are saying the AppleTV doesn't make the money, it's made in rental. If that was all there was to it, Apple would have tried to get TiVo to rent iTunes movies. I think Apple wants it all.... but perhaps they need to take a step away from that concept to get the new model off the ground, and in some ways this analyst is suggesting one way of doing that.
I'd personally rather see the other suggestion - open up the AppleTV to 3rd party developers in the same manner as iPhone apps. As part of that, provide a framework for others to securely supply video content. In some ways Apple then takes on a very powerful position of overseeing the evolution of TV while not specifically pushing it in their own direction.
ps. Forget everything else for a moment, as I create a different hybrid...
imagine if the Scifi channel cut a deal with Apple for $5/mth, all scifi channel content is available to download as it airs. How would that kind of offer change the appeal of the AppleTV? It would still adhere to a new way of providing TV wouldn't it? Is there room to put 2 or 3 commercials within each show?
As some people will often point out (especially when discussing the prospect of Apple licensing OS X to clones), Apple is a hardware company. Like pmjoe, I'd buy one. (I'd never buy Apple TV without BluRay and/or cable.)
Apple = hardware + software/services
If you have been following AAPL's financials you would notice that they are transforming from being primarily a hardware company. More and more revenue is coming from iTunes media and AppStore sales.
I think the logical move for Apple would be to offer a NetFlix like service, minus the expense of shuttling millions of physical discs in the mail. The problem is getting the media providers on board. NetFlix has an advantage in that they don't need to get any approval to rent out a physical DVD.
Me I have a home video problem, I don't know where to store it. Since I don't want anymoe of a physics support like a DVd or Blue RAy, I would like to store my iDVD project in the Apple TV.
Your AppleTV will run out of space quickly - especially if it's stored as a DVD rather than more highly compressed.
But yeah - storing on the home network makes sense.
Quote:
Then I can have the beautiful menu and the chapter like a DVD but inside the Apple TV.
Yeah I wonder why Apple hasn't made iDVD able to create a good looking AppleTV media file instead of a DVD. It could also make it in HD.
Quote:
At this time the Apple TV downgrade the size of my Home video taken with my HD camcorder, hope they will support a bigger resolution for all my home video and also get more storage or maybe open up the USB port to expand the storage.
HD at 720p25 is great for Internet downloads (for now), but I do think the first thing they'll need to do with the AppleTV is boost the graphics capabilities up to BluRay standards - it needs to handle the best quality home movies you can throw at it.
On a side note, we do desperately need a way of handling and sharing media between multiple machines. I imagine they're working on a media server - but even a better peer-to-peer management system would be good.
People want iPods; iPods contribute to Apple's business; nobody cares if their iPod has a radio or not.
People don't particularly want Apple TVs (much less want to pay for them); until that changes, Apple TV will remain a "hobby"; lots of people want BluRay/cable TV.
When you consider that Apple TV requires: a computer, a flat-screen TV, and WiFi...
and offers very little functionality...
I think a cable box is a great idea.
It would offer cable that works with any TV, opening up sales to a vast number of people. Consumers that already have a flat-screen and a computer would get to use Apple TV as originally envisioned. They wouldn't have to shell out extra bucks for a wireless router either (provided it's included in Apple TV).
It's worth remembering that a lot of would-be Apple consumers just can't afford it. With iPods, Apple started to change that. All the requirements of Apple TV are impediments to its success. I understand Apple wants to sell content in addition to hardware, but it will have to do it like they did with the iPod--by first making it ubiquitous, relatively cheap, and compatible with content appart from iTunes.
Bottomline: Apple has to add value (somehow) to Apple TV if they ever want it to sell.
Have you ever seen an AppleTV?
They don't require a computer and they don't require a wireless router. All they require is a wide screen TV which is incidentally all you can buy now.
AppleTV contributes to Apple's business in exactly the same way as an iPod. You buy content from Apple.
There will never be an optical drive or cable attachment for it.
As has been pointed out by another poster, sales have increased 3 fold over the last year. They don't need to change anything.
As for already supporting Flickr and YouTube? They're no threat, and they in fact help draw people away from content that's available thru...wait for it...cable companies!
if they were to add support for tv.com and hulu.com streaming video that would kill the cable services to an even greater degree. Heck I dropped my tv service now that I can get everything through those two and the iTunes store.
the only other thing I wish was to not have stuff I bought through the Apple TV sync back to my computer. I would love to not have my media on my computer taking up space. that's why I love the idea of a home server system. I might have to look into that HP one after it has had a few weeks to work out the kinks
I also do not know 1 single person who has cable TV anymore.
I would say the people I know breakdown like this.
60% DirecTv
20% Dish Network
20% No satellite/cable at all
I know about 30 people with Roku players. I know tons of people with Xbox 360's but am only sure of 6 people who use Netflix through their Xbox.
I do not know anyone with an Apple Tv.
Cable isn't dying. A former co-worker of mine switched from DirectTV to Bright House (basically Time Warner). Yes it does happen. But I'm not crazy either. I don't like renting my Bright House HD DVR for $9.95 a month! But right now it is the best option for the amount and variety of TV shows. For the AppleTV to succeed, Apple needs to do something. Adding a DVR and tru2way capabilities to the AppleTV would certainly entice me to continue purchasing AppleTVs just as I have with iPods.
If this latest recession has taught me anything it is to take a close look at my monthly expenditures and assess what these services offer me.
I and my gf have come to the conclusion that Comcast simply isn't worth near $1000 per annum.
As I've mentioned in these forums several times in the past, this is exactly why I justified the purchase of my Apple TV. I've been paying $14/month to Comcast for barebones cable for years. Last year I purchased a HDTV. Then I looked at adding HD content (and the HD DVR) from Comcast. My cable bill was set to go up to over $100/month. That's $1100 per year!
Like you, there are only a handful of shows I watch, and I hate channel surfing. If I'm flipping through channels trying to find something to entertain me, then I probably should be doing something better (like reading a book, or interacting with my family). Even if iTunes charges $60 per show per season for HD series, that $1100 per year would buy me 18 shows. 18 shows that don't include commercials, and 18 series that I own and can re-watch whenever I want to. 18 shows that I can watch at my own convenience. 18 series that I can drop onto my iPod and watch when I travel, commute, lay in bed, wherever.
The reality is, I subscribe to about three shows that I paid less than $60 for, so my net savings over Comcast is about $800/year. That sold me on the Apple TV.
Then I discovered a fair amount of free content available via podcast, much of which is in HD (the NASA content is amazing, and I enjoyed the HD City-By-City series available via podcast from ON Networks). Add in the ability to stream hundreds of gigs of music and video that I've ripped from my Mini upstairs. Then a simple hack to add Hulu, CBS, Comedy Central, and soon ABC via Boxee. The only thing missing is Netflix streaming. I have also rented several HD movies (I just wish the studios would allow more than 24 hours to view).
I love my Apple TV. It seriously is the best purchase I've made for my entertainment centre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIJG
Plus, how do you change channels when you're talking to someone on your phone?
Generally speaking, when I'm talking to someone on the phone, I hope they're not watching TV!
I can only dream of the god-awful Comcast boxes and their pathetic attempt at software to dying the painful death they deserve, to be replaced by AppleTVs running menues, scheduling and DVR functions with actual of intelligence and taste.
Apple could do for cable companies what they did for the phone experience. (visual voicemail, intuitive phonebook integration, etc etc.)
The DVR interface for Comcast is the most unusable crap ever devised, and they should jump at the chance to let Apple provide the interface.
But then again, they've had an agreement with Tivo for over 2 years now (maybe 3?) and all they've done is show a demo that got some press over a year ago.
Talk about a case of monopoly not giving a crap because of lack of competition.
I'd personally beat my Comcast box to death with a hammer if AppleTV could replace it (which it easily could, and by light years.)
I also do not know 1 single person who has cable TV anymore.
I would say the people I know breakdown like this.
60% DirecTv
20% Dish Network
20% No satellite/cable at all
I know about 30 people with Roku players. I know tons of people with Xbox 360's but am only sure of 6 people who use Netflix through their Xbox.
I do not know anyone with an Apple Tv.
You must live in Alaska on in some other boonies where satellite makes sense. I see the occasional dish in the Bay Area, but I don't know anyone without cable. I do know that once AT&T gets their act together with FIOS here (starting to roll out) we might have a semblance of competition. I'll personally start ping-ponging them to death once a year to get switching specials.
You must live in Alaska on in some other boonies where satellite makes sense. I see the occasional dish in the Bay Area, but I don't know anyone without cable. I do know that once AT&T gets their act together with FIOS here (starting to roll out) we might have a semblance of competition. I'll personally start ping-ponging them to death once a year to get switching specials.
I'm guessing you mean Verizon FiOS... To be fair, I do work for AT&T, but everything I read about U-Verse has me kinda excited about it. If we ever deploy in the Seattle area, I may give cable another consideration.
In the midst of a recession there are some things content producers should be aware of, in my opinion.
The public for the TV shows they produce is far greater than the US alone. And the only way to effectively deliever and sell content fast all over the world would be to allow AppleTV iTunes Store to sell videos worldwide.
Why? Well TV shows come here about a couple of seasons too late. So the shows they are actually producing in the and airing in the US don't generate revenues for a couple of years...
I imagine a worldwide Video, movies and TV shows store in english. Leaving non-english speakers able to watch the "delayed" dubbed versions of the shows on regular TV.
The TV landscape in Europe is much different than in the US. HD TV here is still in it's infancy. There are however a lot of HD TVs installed.
HD channels are rare and scarce and most of the new offerings are no longer included in the "regular channel offering". I think AppleTV, of course with a store that actually has something to offer, would really be huge in Europe. And could allow content producers, mostly US based, to have immediate and immensely bigger revenues.
In Europe (in general):
Population: 731 Million people
Hulu: N/A
Netflix: N/A
iTunes Video: N/A
So... If you ask me, the first who enters is going to make a huge profit!!!
Furthermore I would like to tell the analysts to look abroad as well... After all Apple's growth last quarter was almost entirely due to overseas markets.
AppleTV is fine as it is, no need to integrate further hardware such as cable.
But:
- deliever content in Europe
- create an App Store like market for add on contents (widgets, games, other stuff)
And you will have a winner, or at least a device with a significant market.
Key to success is to get Hollywood to take their heads out their... well you understand!
If they integrated BBC iPlayer, Channel 4od, and the new ITV on demand service into the device, I would consider it, especially if it supported HD versions of the above and automatically downloading series linked shows, etc.
I don't watch TV a lot, and scheduling is a big problem if I'm out. The iPlayer service on my cable TV box doesn't work (it crashes the box 95 times out of 100, thanks Virgin Media), and it sucks to watch it on the computer. I did get it working on the PS3 recently, but it's not the best interface ever (web browser), nor is the quality (flash). I'd love to be able to download the HD Match of the Day football highlights.
Best would be to allow TV companies to provide their own player, or interface to a single unified player. That would allow other channels to also provide content, thus satisfying the competition watchdog in the UK.
I see a lot of value in an updated Apple TV, and if it offered the above then I would get one.
You have to rent it from the Cable Co. - set up an appointment for them to install it. You don't know if it will work for awhile so the tech leaves. Then you find out he did something wrong (it's much more involved than simply plugging it in). So you run around with them on the phone and set up another appointment. And MAYBE it will work next time. Trying to replace that STB (set top box) is a major pain. Jobs would have to get the tuner built in to avoid the CableCARD. It wasn't explained in the article how Tru2Way does away with the tuner.
There is definitely a market for providing the long anticipated "Convergence Technology". Nobody knows how to do it. There is MythTV and such, but you still need the damn CableCARD for a monthly fee, etc.
AT&T U-verse uses IPTV. I could see Jobs warming up to that. Apple already has a relationship with AT&T and they certainly trust his vision and business model. If the AppleTV ever competes with the much beloved Tivo, it would be through a partnership with AT&T U-Verse.
One question comes immediately to mind: How many subscribers does AT&T have and what is their potential growth rate? It has to reach a tipping point for Jobs to launch. I believe I read that they have about 1 million subscribers. What's the magic number for Jobs?
But does Jobs want to use the AppleTV to deliver content that doesn't come from iTunes? I doubt it. AppleTV is an iTunes delivery system. Selling the hardware is not the goal. The goal as stated by them has been, 'If it's on iTunes, it's on your TV".
Comments
I don't pay for TV service. So my main gripe with the AppleTV could be solved with a browser.
Buying TV shows can get expensive, especially if you are a TV junkie. This is why broadcast TV is still viable and the need for a DVR. I find myself watching new TV shows on my computer for free in low resolution quality with commercials just to see if I like them. I would like to see Apple offer this via the AppleTV. Watch TV shows free with commercials, buy the ones you want in HD. Even if this was accomplished through a browser by using the media company's web sites, I think it would work; but it would be better to have the media companies offer their content with commercials just like they do on the web, but in 720p, and stream it through the AppleTV.
Apple could bypass the broadcast companies and make DVR irrelevant if they promoted "channels" and encouraged HD content streamed via the AppleTV and bring the whole "watch what you want, when you want" ideal closer to reality. But all they really need to do is put a browser on the AppleTV since most of the content is available on the web.
I know this is something you USA-ians hardly ever think about, but this is US only technology AFAIK.
Apple is now a global company (or at least it's trying to be).
What's the point of getting behind a regional standard when it won't work in half your markets?
Over on the apple.com support forum, the highly-rated members will waste no time to tell you that AppleTV is a low-end consumer device, incapable of anything approaching quality reproduction of the media it plays. Mediocrity rules.
Does Apple plan to change AppleTV's design goal of striving for mediocrity?
Do they have idiotic trolls like you on that forum as well?
Not going to happen.... ever!
Why would Apple even consider such a move? They provide their own movie/TV rental/purchase store. Why mess about with cable providers?
Maybe they should look at Netflix and provide a streaming subscription service but with Apples slick sales and hardware behind it.
e.g. Apple TV and iPhone/Touch streaming services etc.
-I agree. They need a Subscription-based plan. Something like a Netflix/Roku analogue. -AND they could have at least some kind of 2nd-mover-advantage by observing them.
I also agree with Lun_Esex -especially on the idea of a no-commercials Plus-Pass fee.
This article Does make me wonder how many they could sell if ATV were actually a more fleshed-out product with less impediments to success.
-Would the product sell because people were willing to have the Apple Expericence in the Living Room?
Apple should probably buy ElGato.
Then I can have the beautiful menu and the chapter like a DVD but inside the Apple TV. That's mean, Apple just need to provide VOB support.
It will be fun having a stack of virtual DVD. No one can match that in the competition, Apple got all the puzzle to do that.
LaCie and some other support the DVD format but they do not offer any solution to create a DVD style project like iMovie and iDVD can provide.
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/ne...ia-drive.phtml
At this time the Apple TV downgrade the size of my Home video taken with my HD camcorder, hope they will support a bigger resolution for all my home video and also get more storage or maybe open up the USB port to expand the storage.
For example, I suspect Apple would like to rent HD TV shows for $1 each, or less. The networks can't do that because their local channels would complain -and besides it'd cost a bit for Apple's bandwidth and the ISPs probably aren't up to the throughput quite yet.
Worse... what Apple wants would seem to take the viewer ownership off the networks and put Apple in total control.
Not going to happen.... ever!
Why would Apple even consider such a move? They provide their own movie/TV rental/purchase store. Why mess about with cable providers?
A few people are saying the AppleTV doesn't make the money, it's made in rental. If that was all there was to it, Apple would have tried to get TiVo to rent iTunes movies. I think Apple wants it all.... but perhaps they need to take a step away from that concept to get the new model off the ground, and in some ways this analyst is suggesting one way of doing that.
I'd personally rather see the other suggestion - open up the AppleTV to 3rd party developers in the same manner as iPhone apps. As part of that, provide a framework for others to securely supply video content. In some ways Apple then takes on a very powerful position of overseeing the evolution of TV while not specifically pushing it in their own direction.
ps. Forget everything else for a moment, as I create a different hybrid...
imagine if the Scifi channel cut a deal with Apple for $5/mth, all scifi channel content is available to download as it airs. How would that kind of offer change the appeal of the AppleTV? It would still adhere to a new way of providing TV wouldn't it? Is there room to put 2 or 3 commercials within each show?
I would say the people I know breakdown like this.
60% DirecTv
20% Dish Network
20% No satellite/cable at all
I know about 30 people with Roku players. I know tons of people with Xbox 360's but am only sure of 6 people who use Netflix through their Xbox.
I do not know anyone with an Apple Tv.
As some people will often point out (especially when discussing the prospect of Apple licensing OS X to clones), Apple is a hardware company. Like pmjoe, I'd buy one. (I'd never buy Apple TV without BluRay and/or cable.)
Apple = hardware + software/services
If you have been following AAPL's financials you would notice that they are transforming from being primarily a hardware company. More and more revenue is coming from iTunes media and AppStore sales.
I think the logical move for Apple would be to offer a NetFlix like service, minus the expense of shuttling millions of physical discs in the mail. The problem is getting the media providers on board. NetFlix has an advantage in that they don't need to get any approval to rent out a physical DVD.
Me I have a home video problem, I don't know where to store it. Since I don't want anymoe of a physics support like a DVd or Blue RAy, I would like to store my iDVD project in the Apple TV.
Your AppleTV will run out of space quickly - especially if it's stored as a DVD rather than more highly compressed.
But yeah - storing on the home network makes sense.
Then I can have the beautiful menu and the chapter like a DVD but inside the Apple TV.
Yeah I wonder why Apple hasn't made iDVD able to create a good looking AppleTV media file instead of a DVD. It could also make it in HD.
At this time the Apple TV downgrade the size of my Home video taken with my HD camcorder, hope they will support a bigger resolution for all my home video and also get more storage or maybe open up the USB port to expand the storage.
HD at 720p25 is great for Internet downloads (for now), but I do think the first thing they'll need to do with the AppleTV is boost the graphics capabilities up to BluRay standards - it needs to handle the best quality home movies you can throw at it.
On a side note, we do desperately need a way of handling and sharing media between multiple machines. I imagine they're working on a media server - but even a better peer-to-peer management system would be good.
The difference is:
People want iPods; iPods contribute to Apple's business; nobody cares if their iPod has a radio or not.
People don't particularly want Apple TVs (much less want to pay for them); until that changes, Apple TV will remain a "hobby"; lots of people want BluRay/cable TV.
When you consider that Apple TV requires: a computer, a flat-screen TV, and WiFi...
and offers very little functionality...
I think a cable box is a great idea.
It would offer cable that works with any TV, opening up sales to a vast number of people. Consumers that already have a flat-screen and a computer would get to use Apple TV as originally envisioned. They wouldn't have to shell out extra bucks for a wireless router either (provided it's included in Apple TV).
It's worth remembering that a lot of would-be Apple consumers just can't afford it. With iPods, Apple started to change that. All the requirements of Apple TV are impediments to its success. I understand Apple wants to sell content in addition to hardware, but it will have to do it like they did with the iPod--by first making it ubiquitous, relatively cheap, and compatible with content appart from iTunes.
Bottomline: Apple has to add value (somehow) to Apple TV if they ever want it to sell.
Have you ever seen an AppleTV?
They don't require a computer and they don't require a wireless router. All they require is a wide screen TV which is incidentally all you can buy now.
AppleTV contributes to Apple's business in exactly the same way as an iPod. You buy content from Apple.
There will never be an optical drive or cable attachment for it.
As has been pointed out by another poster, sales have increased 3 fold over the last year. They don't need to change anything.
As for already supporting Flickr and YouTube? They're no threat, and they in fact help draw people away from content that's available thru...wait for it...cable companies!
if they were to add support for tv.com and hulu.com streaming video that would kill the cable services to an even greater degree. Heck I dropped my tv service now that I can get everything through those two and the iTunes store.
the only other thing I wish was to not have stuff I bought through the Apple TV sync back to my computer. I would love to not have my media on my computer taking up space. that's why I love the idea of a home server system. I might have to look into that HP one after it has had a few weeks to work out the kinks
I also do not know 1 single person who has cable TV anymore.
I would say the people I know breakdown like this.
60% DirecTv
20% Dish Network
20% No satellite/cable at all
I know about 30 people with Roku players. I know tons of people with Xbox 360's but am only sure of 6 people who use Netflix through their Xbox.
I do not know anyone with an Apple Tv.
Cable isn't dying. A former co-worker of mine switched from DirectTV to Bright House (basically Time Warner). Yes it does happen. But I'm not crazy either. I don't like renting my Bright House HD DVR for $9.95 a month! But right now it is the best option for the amount and variety of TV shows. For the AppleTV to succeed, Apple needs to do something. Adding a DVR and tru2way capabilities to the AppleTV would certainly entice me to continue purchasing AppleTVs just as I have with iPods.
If this latest recession has taught me anything it is to take a close look at my monthly expenditures and assess what these services offer me.
I and my gf have come to the conclusion that Comcast simply isn't worth near $1000 per annum.
As I've mentioned in these forums several times in the past, this is exactly why I justified the purchase of my Apple TV. I've been paying $14/month to Comcast for barebones cable for years. Last year I purchased a HDTV. Then I looked at adding HD content (and the HD DVR) from Comcast. My cable bill was set to go up to over $100/month. That's $1100 per year!
Like you, there are only a handful of shows I watch, and I hate channel surfing. If I'm flipping through channels trying to find something to entertain me, then I probably should be doing something better (like reading a book, or interacting with my family). Even if iTunes charges $60 per show per season for HD series, that $1100 per year would buy me 18 shows. 18 shows that don't include commercials, and 18 series that I own and can re-watch whenever I want to. 18 shows that I can watch at my own convenience. 18 series that I can drop onto my iPod and watch when I travel, commute, lay in bed, wherever.
The reality is, I subscribe to about three shows that I paid less than $60 for, so my net savings over Comcast is about $800/year. That sold me on the Apple TV.
Then I discovered a fair amount of free content available via podcast, much of which is in HD (the NASA content is amazing, and I enjoyed the HD City-By-City series available via podcast from ON Networks). Add in the ability to stream hundreds of gigs of music and video that I've ripped from my Mini upstairs. Then a simple hack to add Hulu, CBS, Comedy Central, and soon ABC via Boxee. The only thing missing is Netflix streaming. I have also rented several HD movies (I just wish the studios would allow more than 24 hours to view).
I love my Apple TV. It seriously is the best purchase I've made for my entertainment centre.
Plus, how do you change channels when you're talking to someone on your phone?
Generally speaking, when I'm talking to someone on the phone, I hope they're not watching TV!
Apple could do for cable companies what they did for the phone experience. (visual voicemail, intuitive phonebook integration, etc etc.)
The DVR interface for Comcast is the most unusable crap ever devised, and they should jump at the chance to let Apple provide the interface.
But then again, they've had an agreement with Tivo for over 2 years now (maybe 3?) and all they've done is show a demo that got some press over a year ago.
Talk about a case of monopoly not giving a crap because of lack of competition.
I'd personally beat my Comcast box to death with a hammer if AppleTV could replace it (which it easily could, and by light years.)
I also do not know 1 single person who has cable TV anymore.
I would say the people I know breakdown like this.
60% DirecTv
20% Dish Network
20% No satellite/cable at all
I know about 30 people with Roku players. I know tons of people with Xbox 360's but am only sure of 6 people who use Netflix through their Xbox.
I do not know anyone with an Apple Tv.
You must live in Alaska on in some other boonies where satellite makes sense. I see the occasional dish in the Bay Area, but I don't know anyone without cable. I do know that once AT&T gets their act together with FIOS here (starting to roll out) we might have a semblance of competition. I'll personally start ping-ponging them to death once a year to get switching specials.
You must live in Alaska on in some other boonies where satellite makes sense. I see the occasional dish in the Bay Area, but I don't know anyone without cable. I do know that once AT&T gets their act together with FIOS here (starting to roll out) we might have a semblance of competition. I'll personally start ping-ponging them to death once a year to get switching specials.
I'm guessing you mean Verizon FiOS... To be fair, I do work for AT&T, but everything I read about U-Verse has me kinda excited about it. If we ever deploy in the Seattle area, I may give cable another consideration.
The public for the TV shows they produce is far greater than the US alone. And the only way to effectively deliever and sell content fast all over the world would be to allow AppleTV iTunes Store to sell videos worldwide.
Why? Well TV shows come here about a couple of seasons too late. So the shows they are actually producing in the and airing in the US don't generate revenues for a couple of years...
I imagine a worldwide Video, movies and TV shows store in english. Leaving non-english speakers able to watch the "delayed" dubbed versions of the shows on regular TV.
The TV landscape in Europe is much different than in the US. HD TV here is still in it's infancy. There are however a lot of HD TVs installed.
HD channels are rare and scarce and most of the new offerings are no longer included in the "regular channel offering". I think AppleTV, of course with a store that actually has something to offer, would really be huge in Europe. And could allow content producers, mostly US based, to have immediate and immensely bigger revenues.
In Europe (in general):
Population: 731 Million people
Hulu: N/A
Netflix: N/A
iTunes Video: N/A
So... If you ask me, the first who enters is going to make a huge profit!!!
Furthermore I would like to tell the analysts to look abroad as well... After all Apple's growth last quarter was almost entirely due to overseas markets.
AppleTV is fine as it is, no need to integrate further hardware such as cable.
But:
- deliever content in Europe
- create an App Store like market for add on contents (widgets, games, other stuff)
And you will have a winner, or at least a device with a significant market.
Key to success is to get Hollywood to take their heads out their... well you understand!
I don't watch TV a lot, and scheduling is a big problem if I'm out. The iPlayer service on my cable TV box doesn't work (it crashes the box 95 times out of 100, thanks Virgin Media), and it sucks to watch it on the computer. I did get it working on the PS3 recently, but it's not the best interface ever (web browser), nor is the quality (flash). I'd love to be able to download the HD Match of the Day football highlights.
Best would be to allow TV companies to provide their own player, or interface to a single unified player. That would allow other channels to also provide content, thus satisfying the competition watchdog in the UK.
I see a lot of value in an updated Apple TV, and if it offered the above then I would get one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
You have to rent it from the Cable Co. - set up an appointment for them to install it. You don't know if it will work for awhile so the tech leaves. Then you find out he did something wrong (it's much more involved than simply plugging it in). So you run around with them on the phone and set up another appointment. And MAYBE it will work next time. Trying to replace that STB (set top box) is a major pain. Jobs would have to get the tuner built in to avoid the CableCARD. It wasn't explained in the article how Tru2Way does away with the tuner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tru2way
Tivo DVR requires the CableCARD.
There is definitely a market for providing the long anticipated "Convergence Technology". Nobody knows how to do it. There is MythTV and such, but you still need the damn CableCARD for a monthly fee, etc.
AT&T U-verse uses IPTV. I could see Jobs warming up to that. Apple already has a relationship with AT&T and they certainly trust his vision and business model. If the AppleTV ever competes with the much beloved Tivo, it would be through a partnership with AT&T U-Verse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_U-verse
One question comes immediately to mind: How many subscribers does AT&T have and what is their potential growth rate? It has to reach a tipping point for Jobs to launch. I believe I read that they have about 1 million subscribers. What's the magic number for Jobs?
But does Jobs want to use the AppleTV to deliver content that doesn't come from iTunes? I doubt it. AppleTV is an iTunes delivery system. Selling the hardware is not the goal. The goal as stated by them has been, 'If it's on iTunes, it's on your TV".