He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you think that, then you aren't paying attention.
It's not what he does, but what he WOULD do.
Actually, pmjoe is 100% correct in his post.
I don't think you've understood anything that I have posted, since your replies to myself and others in this thread have been arrogant insults towards our television viewing habits. You even immaturely suggest that I might be spending hours in a stip club or a bar for no other reason than my world-view differs from yours.
Dropping shit over everybody in this thread the way you have been doing is inappropriate for a child, let alone someone of your purported age.
Don't bother EVER speaking for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
I'm actually still on the fence about getting the AppleTV. I'll probably wait to see what other iTunes announcements are made upon its release. I think the price is about $50 too steep, but that's Apple.
I also don't know how many price drops/additional features will happen. Will the AppleTV be modeled after the iPod, with frequent updates, or will it be more like the Airport Express which has had very few changes in features/price since it was released. My guess is the latter.
If Apple TV would allow me to subscribe to all my favorite sports teams, and watch all their games in 720p LIVE, along with things like SportsCenter LIVE, and IF they were have to all or most of my favorite cable shows, and IF they can do this for cheaper than it costs for me to pay for cable every year, then I will be a thrilled customer.
But I doubt it will ever happen with this incarnation. Does Apple TV have the capability to steam live content in HD resolutions? I would highly doubt it, due to the amount of bandwidth it would take. This is the deal breaker for Apple TV.
Yes, average. Some people watch as much as seven hours a day, though, to be fair, that could be more than one person in the household.
But for payment purposes, it's the same thing.
It's not much worse than spending the several hours a day on these things that we do.
So is it per person or per household? Household would be a lot more realistic.
I did run the numbers and I think the typical break even for buying iTunes rather than cable is averaging less than an hour a day, but that doesn't consider any value for ad-less TV, and doesn't consider any value for the subscriber to sample any show on any channel at any time, so those will be subjective.
I have EyeTV catch about two hours a day, and thankfully, I only spend $50 a year for my channels.
I also don't know how many price drops/additional features will happen. Will the AppleTV be modeled after the iPod, with frequent updates, or will it be more like the Airport Express which has had very few changes in features/price since it was released. My guess is the latter.
I would say it's update schedule will be closer to the iPods for the first 2 years as Apple changes the software/hardware to meet market demands where it falls short and adds new features where they think that they can add value to the product. There is a lot of room to grow with this device, as well as adding features to Apple's consumer computers to add value to the both products as they grow to work more in conjunction with each other.
In the hundreds of millions out there who watch video in the USA and Canada alone, your numbers are insignificent.
If you use worldwide numbers, it rises to billions. DivX is a mere dustmote in the air between the viewer and their content. Few people beyond those who are more techinicial even know about Divx.
You use video in a general sense and are only thinking of America. I'm refering to video on the Internet and in on a worldwide base, which is almost always adopted in the DivX/XviD codec. Any tv show/film is re-encoded in that codec. Not wmv, not h264, but DivX/XviD. Obviously the legalities of this conversation might upset people and if I'm breaking any rules I'll stop, but outside the states a lot of people keep up to date with American TV/Cinema through downloading online, not watching on their TV's 6 months after you guys get it. And the community is massive. When you take into account all the films and tv shows being shared, we are talking millions, and I suspect a lot of Americans do it to. It's quite obvious you don't file share, not that I'm holding that against you.
If I want to watch stuff on my tv, I download from a place like Rapidshare the moment it is aired, burn it to a RW and watch it on my HDTV. I can even download it in 720p, at 700mb including 5.1 sound. When will you be able to do that in iTunes? For me to fork out £200 for an iTV it has to play DivX. And if DivX is not so big, why has every DVD manufacturer gone out the way to include the codec on their product? Visit any dvd backup site on the net, doom9.org, for instance. All you will hear is DivX/XviD praise.
The iPod supported MP3 when it came out, knowing full well that was the codec of choice for pirates. To not do the same with video is double standards, and it's cost me the purchase this time.
No, that's a snappy comeback for folks that seem to think that viewing lots of TV is some kind of virtue. Yes, you can waste your time doing something else as well.
Seems foolish to store a primary iTunes library (or any other data intended to be kept [semi-]permanently) on a device that can't be backed up. Right now Apple TV's HD only seems intended for temporarily caching iTunes library content.
OK, so I'll ask my follow-up question again: Why do you need 40GB for temporarily cache-ing stuff?
You use video in a general sense and are only thinking of America. I'm refering to video on the Internet and in on a worldwide base, which is almost always adopted in the DivX/XviD codec. Any tv show/film is re-encoded in that codec. Not wmv, not h264, but DivX/XviD. Obviously the legalities of this conversation might upset people and if I'm breaking any rules I'll stop, but outside the states a lot of people keep up to date with American TV/Cinema through downloading online, not watching on their TV's 6 months after you guys get it. And the community is massive. When you take into account all the films and tv shows being shared, we are talking millions, and I suspect a lot of Americans do it to. It's quite obvious you don't file share, not that I'm holding that against you.
Yup, what he said!
I watch CSI and Lost in 720p the day after they air in the States. The only way to do that is through torrent (using tvrss feeds in google reader gets new episodes in transmission in one click for those interested). This is perfectly legal where I live, btw.
This is the way most do it here and without the right codec-support (XVID/DIVX) the apple TV just won't catch on here in Europe.
When we are talking about an economic model, that's what we have to think about.
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
Hence no DVR capability in the aTV. Hence aTV not directly competing against cable but DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
However, if Apple offered original programming on iTunes then iTunes becomes a subscription model with a pay as you go option (or vice versa depending your point of view). This makes it the equivalent of a more expensive HBO.
I would say it's update schedule will be closer to the iPods for the first 2 years as Apple changes the software/hardware to meet market demands where it falls short and adds new features where they think that they can add value to the product. There is a lot of room to grow with this device, as well as adding features to Apple's consumer computers to add value to the both products as they grow to work more in conjunction with each other.
I would assume this is where the rumored H.264 encoder/decoder chips come in.
Honestly I can't see much in the way of hardware upgrades other than DVR functionality. But which kind of DVR would they actually add? I doubt OTA, since each "country" would need a different tuner card-- and a lot of people aren't privy to broadcast over an antenna. Cable DVR functionality doesn't make a lot of sense because the analog stuff will be phased out in a few years (AppleTV is designed for HDTV, remember). You already rent a digital cable box from the cable company, and each cable company uses different encryption/modulation standards...
The processor/memory are probably fine at this point, considering an iPod can decode 640x480 with no problems.
Perhaps once they start shipping, [random japanese site] will tear one open and find a "mystery port" inside the AppleTV appropriate for a scrapped tuner card.
I was a little curious about the 4.5 hours a week statistic. I don't know _ANYONE_ that watches that much television—none of my friends, not my parents or siblings, none of our family friends... That's probably about what people in my family watch in a week.
So I looked it up. Sure enough, the statistic comes from Neilsen.
In other words, a self-selected, self-reporting group of people, that have been known to actually over-report the amount of TV they watch, claimed that they watch 4 hours of television daily.
Not that I have any better information, but that 4 hours is almost certainly off.
JeffDM: It's officially 4+ hours per person a day, and 6 hours and 47 minutes per household.
These arguments over the logic behind the ATV are absolutely ridiculous. If you are in need of 4 hours of DVR programming on your TiVo to make you happy and fulfill your entertainment requirements for the day, then the Apple TV may not be for you.
<snip>
As far as Saturday morning cartoons, they come free of charge over broadcast TV.
Interesting points different people are making. I think it's clear that for most people, AppleTV can't replace your cableTV. That's not saying it's bad - just that it won't replace cableTV.
It'd be good to hear from all the DVD purchasers out there - the people who buy movies & tv series regularly. Are they happy to buy online instead?
If the answer to that is 'no', then Apple will either have a small niche, or have to change their product.
Personally, if the AppleTV could be a PVR from FTA, and sold me series, that would be enough for me to replace my cable. Alternatively, if they rented movies and series I could replace cable. I watch alot of series but they're mostly on FTA. And I won't buy movies that I only watch once (or pay for the storage space to keep it).
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
Hence no DVR capability in the aTV. Hence aTV not directly competing against cable but DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
However, if Apple offered original programming on iTunes then iTunes becomes a subscription model with a pay as you go option (or vice versa depending your point of view). This makes it the equivalent of a more expensive HBO.
Vinea
Great post.
The the biggest problem Apple will have with this approach is getting original programming to sell. Right now iTunes has older television series, new series that people (like me) can't get OTA, and the Sundance short films, but not much else.
I suppose they could go the iTunes originals route with video-- additional shows for exisiting television series that you can only get on iTunes. I can't see that many original series unless Apple is willing to front some major cash...
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
As I mentioned before, a series 2 Tivo is free with a year's subscription, far from $300-$1000 (not sure where you got the number from. Maybe the series 3? that's a true HD DVR, far superior to what the iTMS has to offer on quality if that's what you need).
When I mentioned the cable/DVR support part, of course the coolest option would be to have a cablecard slot. But like you mentioned, they're still pretty -iffy and non standard. An extremely cheap 2nd option would have been for Apple to just add a simple Video/Audio in (even composite RCA, hell just something), and an IR wand, just like a basic Tivo does.
No cablecard, no tuner, no nothing of that sort. Just an A/V input and some way for it to control a separate cable box provided by your cable company. This would cost near to nothing, and would only require them to a) license a guide or such from Tivo, or b) use one of the open source-ish guides like (I think) Elgato uses.
So all the iTV would be doing is recording the A/V coming into the box to the HD. The normal cable box provided by your cable company would do all the actual receiving work. This method has been used for years by various devices. Remember back in the VCR+ days - it controlled your vcr just the same. Tried and true approach.
Cost wise, those of you that ONLY want to buy from the iTMS would loose nothing. Those of us who want more cable are free to get any service we want and use that tuner. The iTV only handles the recording. We gain a ton with very little effort on Apple's part.
As I mentioned before, a series 2 Tivo is free with a year's subscription, far from $300-$1000 (not sure where you got the number from. Maybe the series 3? that's a true HD DVR, far superior to what the iTMS has to offer on quality if that's what you need).
$99.99 + 1 yrs prepaid plan according to Tivo's site for an 80hr TiVO Series 2 DT.
$278 total 1 year for a SD Tivo vs $120 total 1 year for a comcast HD-DVR. Oooh...after a year you own a Series 2 DVR that makes surfing even MORE painful than just using a cable box and still doesn't do HD or handle encrypted digital channels.
But yes, I was thinking of the Series 3 when I was writing that. $978.99 1st year costs + cable card rental.
Quote:
No cablecard, no tuner, no nothing of that sort. Just an A/V input and some way for it to control a separate cable box provided by your cable company.
Slow, prone to error with some cable/sat boxes, poor integration with VOD services, yet another remote, etc. I have a series 1 TiVo that's just sitting around gathering dust. Why do I want a DVR that is not integrated with PPV/VOD and other advanced cable and sat services?
Versus just getting the "free" one from the cable or sat company for lower monthly service rates?
Does Apple really want to do an IR blaster solution? I don't think so when the final user experience is worse than that offered by sat and cable companies.
Quote:
So all the iTV would be doing is recording the A/V coming into the box to the HD. The normal cable box provided by your cable company would do all the actual receiving work. This method has been used for years by various devices. Remember back in the VCR+ days - it controlled your vcr just the same. Tried and true approach.
Tired and true suck approach that makes your TV experience even more sluggish.
Again, why bother when a HD-DVR from comcast is $0, cost $10/month and offers better user experience because it understands VOD, PPV, etc?
Quote:
Cost wise, those of you that ONLY want to buy from the iTMS would loose nothing. Those of us who want more cable are free to get any service we want and use that tuner. The iTV only handles the recording. We gain a ton with very little effort on Apple's part.
Cost wise you have to add a tuner, additional connectors increasing size and possibly beef up the hardware (probably okay since the XBox can manage as a DVR) or add encoding hardware for a very small number of folks that don't use a DVR provided by their cable or sat company.
Tivo is only in the black in because they successfully sued EchoStar (under appeal but I would expect TiVO to win). Presumably they'll get more licencing fees in the future from everyone else.
Which would include Apple if they include DVR capability in the aTV...for $1 a month/aTV using the DirecTV model. That's not "loose nothing" for me.
The the biggest problem Apple will have with this approach is getting original programming to sell. Right now iTunes has older television series, new series that people (like me) can't get OTA, and the Sundance short films, but not much else.
I suppose they could go the iTunes originals route with video-- additional shows for exisiting television series that you can only get on iTunes. I can't see that many original series unless Apple is willing to front some major cash...
Agreed. I don't see Apple fronting money for this kind of thing but independents now have another viable path to the market and niche markets can be somewhat served efficiently.
I would pay $49.99 for a half season of FireFly. With a HHR equivalent of 1.0 that would be enough to cover the $2M average production costs and profit. BSG with ever slipping ratings might end up in the same boat of needing another venue.
Appleinsider had an article that discussed Apple Hi-Fi being one of the most profitable iPod gadgets. Also everyone who uses an Apple Hi-Fi has an iPod. Sounds like a win-win for Apple to me.
There must be some reason why my local Apple Store hasn't stopped selling competitors to Apple Hi-Fi. Perhaps it is because they are cheaper and many of them have more features?
There must be some reason why my local Apple Store hasn't stopped selling competitors to Apple Hi-Fi. Perhaps it is because they are cheaper and many of them have more features?
That doesn't mean the Hi-Fi isn't itself profitable. It would be stupid for Apple to not sell other iPod gadgets. To use them you need an iPod which benefits Apple either way.
What features are you talking about? A clock radio? The Hi-Fi sounds better than most of the other stereos.
Comments
He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
If you think that, then you aren't paying attention.
It's not what he does, but what he WOULD do.
Actually, pmjoe is 100% correct in his post.
I don't think you've understood anything that I have posted, since your replies to myself and others in this thread have been arrogant insults towards our television viewing habits. You even immaturely suggest that I might be spending hours in a stip club or a bar for no other reason than my world-view differs from yours.
Dropping shit over everybody in this thread the way you have been doing is inappropriate for a child, let alone someone of your purported age.
Don't bother EVER speaking for me.
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
I'm actually still on the fence about getting the AppleTV. I'll probably wait to see what other iTunes announcements are made upon its release. I think the price is about $50 too steep, but that's Apple.
I also don't know how many price drops/additional features will happen. Will the AppleTV be modeled after the iPod, with frequent updates, or will it be more like the Airport Express which has had very few changes in features/price since it was released. My guess is the latter.
But I doubt it will ever happen with this incarnation. Does Apple TV have the capability to steam live content in HD resolutions? I would highly doubt it, due to the amount of bandwidth it would take. This is the deal breaker for Apple TV.
Yes, average. Some people watch as much as seven hours a day, though, to be fair, that could be more than one person in the household.
But for payment purposes, it's the same thing.
It's not much worse than spending the several hours a day on these things that we do.
So is it per person or per household? Household would be a lot more realistic.
I did run the numbers and I think the typical break even for buying iTunes rather than cable is averaging less than an hour a day, but that doesn't consider any value for ad-less TV, and doesn't consider any value for the subscriber to sample any show on any channel at any time, so those will be subjective.
I have EyeTV catch about two hours a day, and thankfully, I only spend $50 a year for my channels.
I also don't know how many price drops/additional features will happen. Will the AppleTV be modeled after the iPod, with frequent updates, or will it be more like the Airport Express which has had very few changes in features/price since it was released. My guess is the latter.
I would say it's update schedule will be closer to the iPods for the first 2 years as Apple changes the software/hardware to meet market demands where it falls short and adds new features where they think that they can add value to the product. There is a lot of room to grow with this device, as well as adding features to Apple's consumer computers to add value to the both products as they grow to work more in conjunction with each other.
No, few people watch DivX, Dude.
In the hundreds of millions out there who watch video in the USA and Canada alone, your numbers are insignificent.
If you use worldwide numbers, it rises to billions. DivX is a mere dustmote in the air between the viewer and their content. Few people beyond those who are more techinicial even know about Divx.
You use video in a general sense and are only thinking of America. I'm refering to video on the Internet and in on a worldwide base, which is almost always adopted in the DivX/XviD codec. Any tv show/film is re-encoded in that codec. Not wmv, not h264, but DivX/XviD. Obviously the legalities of this conversation might upset people and if I'm breaking any rules I'll stop, but outside the states a lot of people keep up to date with American TV/Cinema through downloading online, not watching on their TV's 6 months after you guys get it. And the community is massive. When you take into account all the films and tv shows being shared, we are talking millions, and I suspect a lot of Americans do it to. It's quite obvious you don't file share, not that I'm holding that against you.
If I want to watch stuff on my tv, I download from a place like Rapidshare the moment it is aired, burn it to a RW and watch it on my HDTV. I can even download it in 720p, at 700mb including 5.1 sound. When will you be able to do that in iTunes? For me to fork out £200 for an iTV it has to play DivX. And if DivX is not so big, why has every DVD manufacturer gone out the way to include the codec on their product? Visit any dvd backup site on the net, doom9.org, for instance. All you will hear is DivX/XviD praise.
The iPod supported MP3 when it came out, knowing full well that was the codec of choice for pirates. To not do the same with video is double standards, and it's cost me the purchase this time.
That's an assumption.
No, that's a snappy comeback for folks that seem to think that viewing lots of TV is some kind of virtue. Yes, you can waste your time doing something else as well.
Vinea
Seems foolish to store a primary iTunes library (or any other data intended to be kept [semi-]permanently) on a device that can't be backed up. Right now Apple TV's HD only seems intended for temporarily caching iTunes library content.
OK, so I'll ask my follow-up question again: Why do you need 40GB for temporarily cache-ing stuff?
You use video in a general sense and are only thinking of America. I'm refering to video on the Internet and in on a worldwide base, which is almost always adopted in the DivX/XviD codec. Any tv show/film is re-encoded in that codec. Not wmv, not h264, but DivX/XviD. Obviously the legalities of this conversation might upset people and if I'm breaking any rules I'll stop, but outside the states a lot of people keep up to date with American TV/Cinema through downloading online, not watching on their TV's 6 months after you guys get it. And the community is massive. When you take into account all the films and tv shows being shared, we are talking millions, and I suspect a lot of Americans do it to. It's quite obvious you don't file share, not that I'm holding that against you.
Yup, what he said!
I watch CSI and Lost in 720p the day after they air in the States. The only way to do that is through torrent (using tvrss feeds in google reader gets new episodes in transmission in one click for those interested). This is perfectly legal where I live, btw.
This is the way most do it here and without the right codec-support (XVID/DIVX) the apple TV just won't catch on here in Europe.
When we are talking about an economic model, that's what we have to think about.
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
Hence no DVR capability in the aTV. Hence aTV not directly competing against cable but DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
However, if Apple offered original programming on iTunes then iTunes becomes a subscription model with a pay as you go option (or vice versa depending your point of view). This makes it the equivalent of a more expensive HBO.
Vinea
I would say it's update schedule will be closer to the iPods for the first 2 years as Apple changes the software/hardware to meet market demands where it falls short and adds new features where they think that they can add value to the product. There is a lot of room to grow with this device, as well as adding features to Apple's consumer computers to add value to the both products as they grow to work more in conjunction with each other.
I would assume this is where the rumored H.264 encoder/decoder chips come in.
Honestly I can't see much in the way of hardware upgrades other than DVR functionality. But which kind of DVR would they actually add? I doubt OTA, since each "country" would need a different tuner card-- and a lot of people aren't privy to broadcast over an antenna. Cable DVR functionality doesn't make a lot of sense because the analog stuff will be phased out in a few years (AppleTV is designed for HDTV, remember). You already rent a digital cable box from the cable company, and each cable company uses different encryption/modulation standards...
The processor/memory are probably fine at this point, considering an iPod can decode 640x480 with no problems.
Perhaps once they start shipping, [random japanese site] will tear one open and find a "mystery port" inside the AppleTV appropriate for a scrapped tuner card.
So I looked it up. Sure enough, the statistic comes from Neilsen.
In other words, a self-selected, self-reporting group of people, that have been known to actually over-report the amount of TV they watch, claimed that they watch 4 hours of television daily.
Not that I have any better information, but that 4 hours is almost certainly off.
JeffDM: It's officially 4+ hours per person a day, and 6 hours and 47 minutes per household.
These arguments over the logic behind the ATV are absolutely ridiculous. If you are in need of 4 hours of DVR programming on your TiVo to make you happy and fulfill your entertainment requirements for the day, then the Apple TV may not be for you.
<snip>
As far as Saturday morning cartoons, they come free of charge over broadcast TV.
Interesting points different people are making. I think it's clear that for most people, AppleTV can't replace your cableTV. That's not saying it's bad - just that it won't replace cableTV.
It'd be good to hear from all the DVD purchasers out there - the people who buy movies & tv series regularly. Are they happy to buy online instead?
If the answer to that is 'no', then Apple will either have a small niche, or have to change their product.
Personally, if the AppleTV could be a PVR from FTA, and sold me series, that would be enough for me to replace my cable. Alternatively, if they rented movies and series I could replace cable. I watch alot of series but they're mostly on FTA. And I won't buy movies that I only watch once (or pay for the storage space to keep it).
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
Hence no DVR capability in the aTV. Hence aTV not directly competing against cable but DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.
However, if Apple offered original programming on iTunes then iTunes becomes a subscription model with a pay as you go option (or vice versa depending your point of view). This makes it the equivalent of a more expensive HBO.
Vinea
Great post.
The the biggest problem Apple will have with this approach is getting original programming to sell. Right now iTunes has older television series, new series that people (like me) can't get OTA, and the Sundance short films, but not much else.
I suppose they could go the iTunes originals route with video-- additional shows for exisiting television series that you can only get on iTunes. I can't see that many original series unless Apple is willing to front some major cash...
The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".
As I mentioned before, a series 2 Tivo is free with a year's subscription, far from $300-$1000 (not sure where you got the number from. Maybe the series 3? that's a true HD DVR, far superior to what the iTMS has to offer on quality if that's what you need).
When I mentioned the cable/DVR support part, of course the coolest option would be to have a cablecard slot. But like you mentioned, they're still pretty -iffy and non standard. An extremely cheap 2nd option would have been for Apple to just add a simple Video/Audio in (even composite RCA, hell just something), and an IR wand, just like a basic Tivo does.
No cablecard, no tuner, no nothing of that sort. Just an A/V input and some way for it to control a separate cable box provided by your cable company. This would cost near to nothing, and would only require them to a) license a guide or such from Tivo, or b) use one of the open source-ish guides like (I think) Elgato uses.
So all the iTV would be doing is recording the A/V coming into the box to the HD. The normal cable box provided by your cable company would do all the actual receiving work. This method has been used for years by various devices. Remember back in the VCR+ days - it controlled your vcr just the same. Tried and true approach.
Cost wise, those of you that ONLY want to buy from the iTMS would loose nothing. Those of us who want more cable are free to get any service we want and use that tuner. The iTV only handles the recording. We gain a ton with very little effort on Apple's part.
OK, so I'll ask my follow-up question again: Why do you need 40GB for temporarily cache-ing stuff?
For storing synched content, basically explained in Apple TV - Sync with iTunes.
As I mentioned before, a series 2 Tivo is free with a year's subscription, far from $300-$1000 (not sure where you got the number from. Maybe the series 3? that's a true HD DVR, far superior to what the iTMS has to offer on quality if that's what you need).
$99.99 + 1 yrs prepaid plan according to Tivo's site for an 80hr TiVO Series 2 DT.
$278 total 1 year for a SD Tivo vs $120 total 1 year for a comcast HD-DVR. Oooh...after a year you own a Series 2 DVR that makes surfing even MORE painful than just using a cable box and still doesn't do HD or handle encrypted digital channels.
But yes, I was thinking of the Series 3 when I was writing that. $978.99 1st year costs + cable card rental.
No cablecard, no tuner, no nothing of that sort. Just an A/V input and some way for it to control a separate cable box provided by your cable company.
Slow, prone to error with some cable/sat boxes, poor integration with VOD services, yet another remote, etc. I have a series 1 TiVo that's just sitting around gathering dust. Why do I want a DVR that is not integrated with PPV/VOD and other advanced cable and sat services?
Versus just getting the "free" one from the cable or sat company for lower monthly service rates?
Does Apple really want to do an IR blaster solution? I don't think so when the final user experience is worse than that offered by sat and cable companies.
So all the iTV would be doing is recording the A/V coming into the box to the HD. The normal cable box provided by your cable company would do all the actual receiving work. This method has been used for years by various devices. Remember back in the VCR+ days - it controlled your vcr just the same. Tried and true approach.
Tired and true suck approach that makes your TV experience even more sluggish.
Again, why bother when a HD-DVR from comcast is $0, cost $10/month and offers better user experience because it understands VOD, PPV, etc?
Cost wise, those of you that ONLY want to buy from the iTMS would loose nothing. Those of us who want more cable are free to get any service we want and use that tuner. The iTV only handles the recording. We gain a ton with very little effort on Apple's part.
Cost wise you have to add a tuner, additional connectors increasing size and possibly beef up the hardware (probably okay since the XBox can manage as a DVR) or add encoding hardware for a very small number of folks that don't use a DVR provided by their cable or sat company.
Tivo is only in the black in because they successfully sued EchoStar (under appeal but I would expect TiVO to win). Presumably they'll get more licencing fees in the future from everyone else.
Which would include Apple if they include DVR capability in the aTV...for $1 a month/aTV using the DirecTV model. That's not "loose nothing" for me.
Vinea
Great post.
The the biggest problem Apple will have with this approach is getting original programming to sell. Right now iTunes has older television series, new series that people (like me) can't get OTA, and the Sundance short films, but not much else.
I suppose they could go the iTunes originals route with video-- additional shows for exisiting television series that you can only get on iTunes. I can't see that many original series unless Apple is willing to front some major cash...
Agreed. I don't see Apple fronting money for this kind of thing but independents now have another viable path to the market and niche markets can be somewhat served efficiently.
I would pay $49.99 for a half season of FireFly. With a HHR equivalent of 1.0 that would be enough to cover the $2M average production costs and profit. BSG with ever slipping ratings might end up in the same boat of needing another venue.
Vinea
Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up
Vinea
That could be an understatement.
What's your definition of a flop?
Appleinsider had an article that discussed Apple Hi-Fi being one of the most profitable iPod gadgets. Also everyone who uses an Apple Hi-Fi has an iPod. Sounds like a win-win for Apple to me.
There must be some reason why my local Apple Store hasn't stopped selling competitors to Apple Hi-Fi. Perhaps it is because they are cheaper and many of them have more features?
There must be some reason why my local Apple Store hasn't stopped selling competitors to Apple Hi-Fi. Perhaps it is because they are cheaper and many of them have more features?
That doesn't mean the Hi-Fi isn't itself profitable. It would be stupid for Apple to not sell other iPod gadgets. To use them you need an iPod which benefits Apple either way.
What features are you talking about? A clock radio? The Hi-Fi sounds better than most of the other stereos.