If you look at this report carefully, you'll notice that S Jobs hasn't been quoted as saying anything about Apple TV, aside from what he said last June. Bloomberg--and AppleInsider--are simply using "creative" journalism to put words into Jobs mouth.
Good observation, that seems to be the case. There is no indication as to whether or not Apple has reached a new agreement with the networks over pricing nor if they view the market differently now.
The very fact they are redesigning it and changing the price shows they have a new strategy. I would agree with what's implied that it's unlikely to be a huge revolutionary hit but I still think it's a great step in the right direction and will at the very least make for a great TV accessory.
With web access, it has the potential to be the ultimate video on demand service and $99 is pretty inexpensive. Combine it with Apple's UI and being able to stream a variety of formats from a PC, it should make some sort of dent on the WDTV style market.
Having web access is what can give it a leg up against TV content. I think if it complies with the rumours, this little box will be at least a lot more popular than its predecessor.
Why not just sell the iTV to the cable company? Comcast, Verizon, or whoever already give out junky set-top boxes that they bought from manufacturers; why not give out a quality one from Apple?
"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."
Why not just sell the iTV to the cable company? Comcast, Verizon, or whoever already give out junky set-top boxes that they bought from manufacturers; why not give out a quality one from Apple?
"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."
Google is probably already in meetings promising to copy whatever iTV is only months after iTV's release and sell them cheaper. Their's will be open source and able to be infected but will gather all the viewing data and send it to Google so they can target specific ads to each household.
The more iOS devices there are "out there" the more money apple and developers can make off of apps, content, and iAds
Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.
Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.
Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.
Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.
iAds, I thought, were interactive, so I am unsure if they would be useful in a TV environment. Unless of course iTV makes TV viewing an interactive experience!
Well, if SJ would add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV/iTV as some of us have been waiting years and years for, perhaps he'd sell a lot more of them. As it is, I'm recording my shows on a Windows 7 Media Center that needs rebooting every few days because it's so unstable. I'd punt it out the door in a heartbeat if Apple offered an off-the-shelf DVR solution. But Steve is being stubborn Steve and still won't provide what the customers want.
Who is being more stubborn here? Elgato has been offering EyeTV for many years which is a high quality, flexible DVR solution for the Mac. If Apple doesn't sell it, you won't buy it?
Admittedly I am not on the trailing edge of technophilia - perhaps not on the bleeding edge either - but I do have an iPhone 4 and a Mac Mini connected to my big screen already - so if I could stream content via the Mac Mini and iTunes - perhaps I would- I also have Netflix.
Cutting the cable - as it were - in my case would involve losing not only cable TV - but also PVR/DVR - as well as VoIP home phone and internet service - DSL sucks monkey balls in my area - and FIOS is not here yet - so I still need high speed internet connection - and I might be able to get by without home phone if AT&T reception was more solidly reliable where I live - and the way the cable co works - if I cut one of the three services I have then the others get more expensive as it is no longer a "bundle" - if I could cut down to just internet - then maybe it would save $ - but I might have to increase my cell phone plan and then pay for TV content - so would I really come out ahead?
Well, there is an app for that, although, not really the same as watching the actual race. I usually watch it on Speed, too (Except when they inconveniently move it to Fox in the middle of the season for several races. Much better when it broadcasts early in the morning or the middle of the night when I don't have other things to do. Who needs sleep?), but I'd guess you can find a streaming video source you could access.
The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross! ) as well.
I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.
BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!
As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...
I agree, losing money isn't in SJ's DNA. By leveraging a product they already make in a new way with an OS they own and running a chip they make, Apple do have certain cost advantages over most. I suspect he is downplaying this after the wild claims on certain blogs. This is one product Apple can let grow over time.
Probably should go without saying, but it's difficult to take this hearsay report as Steve lowering expectation about an unannounced and entirely rumored product.
I agree with you on Apple's technology leveraging ability, though. Apple is in a remarkable position to build on their hardware and software expertise. But they still have to choose their targets carefully. Taking a lesson from Napoleon, they have to avoid the temptation of invading Russia.
I'm wondering why they don't look to partner with one of the content providers and effectively make the set-top box for them. Dish Network would seem to be a useful company to work with, since they have relatively low market share, I would have thought that given the right deal, partnering with Apple to provide the system would draw users to their service. I would certainly consider switching away from Comcast to a service that has a well done Apple interface.
Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.
The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross! ) as well.
I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.
BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!
As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...
I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!
What they need is a solution whereby you can watch all the video on your iPad whenever you want, and have it sync with the other stuff they have. The MLB at Bat app is a good example of where I think they should be aiming.
Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.
I understand that, but it makes me wonder why exactly they need direct access to the content provider? As long as they can get the content onto their device, I would have thought that a big benefit to them, since it would make the device more attractive so they sell more of them, and it would allow them to make money off the supplementary stuff they sell, such as movies etc.
It all becomes irrelevant if they can strike a deal with all the content providers directly, so all the content is available on the device through Apple themselves, but I just find it hard to see how they can pull that off, at least in the near term.
The question of 720 vs 1080 is a minimal issue when the images are already being compressed to the point where artifacts are showing up in the images. Based on what I've seen, I'd rather have uncompressed 720p than compressed 1080p.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.
There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.
There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.
I know what you mean. To be honest, if the content is good enough, I don't find I even need 720. A truly great film draws you in with the story, such that the quality of the picture is less important. I feel the same way about the current determination to make movies 3D. TO me it feels like a gimmick to mask deficiencies in the plot.
I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!
Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)
But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.
Assuming any of this crap is true, why would Steve Jobs replace a hobby device with yet another device he deems won't be a big hit? How in the world does that add up to anything other than a bored Bloomberg writer short-selling his Apple stock owned by distant family member?
This guy needs to change the bearings on his Magic 8-Ball, and return to his ongoing Magic the Gathering game with his roommates.
This has very little, if anything to do with TV - its primarily a move to stop people moving to Android. Having an iOS device for your TV means that people can feel comfortable buying iPhone apps and iPad apps and getting their TV versions too. If people start buying Android apps for their TV and there is no iOS alternative, then that is going to pull people towards Android phones as well.
The biggest barrier to switching between Android and iOS (in either direction) is a person's investment in apps for that platform.
Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)
But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.
I don't know about the local SIM card thing - I'll have to check it out.
You are so right about the Speed TV coverage ending up delayed making it even worse. The ridiculous thing is listening to Steve Matchett and Bob Varsha (who I normally really like) bang on about how amazing the app was when it came out, without realising that their channel make it shite!
A lot of postings have stated that if the device is not 1080p, then they would not purchase the new device. My question is, what would the difference in bandwidth be between 720p and 1080p? I bet most internet providers' speeds would not be able to handle to 1080p bandwidth very well. If a lot of people all of a sudden started gobbling 16gb or more per movie, I get the feeling that internet providers would start implementing the caps that they were threatening us with recently. I believe the 720p movie would be a perfect compromise, but something tells me that internet rates, especially from cable companies will start to climb as cable services start to pull back. I have already canceled 2 of the premium services, keeping only HBO, as True Blood is something I watch weekly.
If True Blood were available soon after the broadcast date on iTunes, then I would cancel HBO altogether and buy/rent it a la carte.
Comments
If you look at this report carefully, you'll notice that S Jobs hasn't been quoted as saying anything about Apple TV, aside from what he said last June. Bloomberg--and AppleInsider--are simply using "creative" journalism to put words into Jobs mouth.
Good observation, that seems to be the case. There is no indication as to whether or not Apple has reached a new agreement with the networks over pricing nor if they view the market differently now.
The very fact they are redesigning it and changing the price shows they have a new strategy. I would agree with what's implied that it's unlikely to be a huge revolutionary hit but I still think it's a great step in the right direction and will at the very least make for a great TV accessory.
With web access, it has the potential to be the ultimate video on demand service and $99 is pretty inexpensive. Combine it with Apple's UI and being able to stream a variety of formats from a PC, it should make some sort of dent on the WDTV style market.
Having web access is what can give it a leg up against TV content. I think if it complies with the rumours, this little box will be at least a lot more popular than its predecessor.
"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."
Why not just sell the iTV to the cable company? Comcast, Verizon, or whoever already give out junky set-top boxes that they bought from manufacturers; why not give out a quality one from Apple?
"For $3more/month on your Comcast bill, the apple stb will _________, _______ and _______ your _________, and it will look incredibly stylish doing so."
Google is probably already in meetings promising to copy whatever iTV is only months after iTV's release and sell them cheaper. Their's will be open source and able to be infected but will gather all the viewing data and send it to Google so they can target specific ads to each household.
The more iOS devices there are "out there" the more money apple and developers can make off of apps, content, and iAds
Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.
Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.
Good point. I haven't heard much discussion about the importance of iAds. Apple could embed them in movies in an "opt in" way. So you don't have to sit through them - or take some other more engaging approach especially since iOS and apps are part of the mix.
Edit - oh by the way, then they could make the show free or much less expensive.
iAds, I thought, were interactive, so I am unsure if they would be useful in a TV environment. Unless of course iTV makes TV viewing an interactive experience!
Well, if SJ would add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV/iTV as some of us have been waiting years and years for, perhaps he'd sell a lot more of them. As it is, I'm recording my shows on a Windows 7 Media Center that needs rebooting every few days because it's so unstable. I'd punt it out the door in a heartbeat if Apple offered an off-the-shelf DVR solution. But Steve is being stubborn Steve and still won't provide what the customers want.
Who is being more stubborn here? Elgato has been offering EyeTV for many years which is a high quality, flexible DVR solution for the Mac. If Apple doesn't sell it, you won't buy it?
Cutting the cable - as it were - in my case would involve losing not only cable TV - but also PVR/DVR - as well as VoIP home phone and internet service - DSL sucks monkey balls in my area - and FIOS is not here yet - so I still need high speed internet connection - and I might be able to get by without home phone if AT&T reception was more solidly reliable where I live - and the way the cable co works - if I cut one of the three services I have then the others get more expensive as it is no longer a "bundle" - if I could cut down to just internet - then maybe it would save $ - but I might have to increase my cell phone plan and then pay for TV content - so would I really come out ahead?
Well, there is an app for that, although, not really the same as watching the actual race. I usually watch it on Speed, too (Except when they inconveniently move it to Fox in the middle of the season for several races. Much better when it broadcasts early in the morning or the middle of the night when I don't have other things to do. Who needs sleep?), but I'd guess you can find a streaming video source you could access.
The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross!
I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.
BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!
As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...
I agree, losing money isn't in SJ's DNA. By leveraging a product they already make in a new way with an OS they own and running a chip they make, Apple do have certain cost advantages over most. I suspect he is downplaying this after the wild claims on certain blogs. This is one product Apple can let grow over time.
Probably should go without saying, but it's difficult to take this hearsay report as Steve lowering expectation about an unannounced and entirely rumored product.
I agree with you on Apple's technology leveraging ability, though. Apple is in a remarkable position to build on their hardware and software expertise. But they still have to choose their targets carefully. Taking a lesson from Napoleon, they have to avoid the temptation of invading Russia.
I'm wondering why they don't look to partner with one of the content providers and effectively make the set-top box for them. Dish Network would seem to be a useful company to work with, since they have relatively low market share, I would have thought that given the right deal, partnering with Apple to provide the system would draw users to their service. I would certainly consider switching away from Comcast to a service that has a well done Apple interface.
Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.
The F1 app seems like it would be great to supplement the coverage watching live, but I almost never do. Has anyone used it while watching delayed coverage? The majority of the races are in the middle of the night in the US, so I DVR them. FOX coverage is broadcast delayed, so even watching "live" isn't. I frequently have conflicts (autocross!
I hate getting spoilers, so I'd want to be able to synchronize the app with the playback, without any risk of seeing the final results or even skipping ahead a lap or two. This should keep in sync even if I pause and rewind to analyze a bit of footage. I really enjoy doing that, so the app or magazines aren't the same.
BTW, this would be a fantastic AppleTV app! Apple has already demonstrated the capability in the iPhone at WWDC with a Tour de France app, that syncronized stats with the video. It would be great to peruse the lap timing/pit stop data syncronized with but independent of the coverage, either on the TV or using in iPhone/iPad/MacBook as a second screen!
As far as other sources of video - I have not found any online sources that are legally available in the US. I'm sure there are torrents, bit I don't want to go there...
I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!
What they need is a solution whereby you can watch all the video on your iPad whenever you want, and have it sync with the other stuff they have. The MLB at Bat app is a good example of where I think they should be aiming.
Dish Network is not a content provider; that's the problem. Apple could design a UI for Dish and brand Dish's PPV product as iTunes, but that does not gain Apple access to the actual content providers -- NBCU, Disney/ABC, Warner Brothers, Paramount, etc., who own the shows and control the distribution.
I understand that, but it makes me wonder why exactly they need direct access to the content provider? As long as they can get the content onto their device, I would have thought that a big benefit to them, since it would make the device more attractive so they sell more of them, and it would allow them to make money off the supplementary stuff they sell, such as movies etc.
It all becomes irrelevant if they can strike a deal with all the content providers directly, so all the content is available on the device through Apple themselves, but I just find it hard to see how they can pull that off, at least in the near term.
The question of 720 vs 1080 is a minimal issue when the images are already being compressed to the point where artifacts are showing up in the images. Based on what I've seen, I'd rather have uncompressed 720p than compressed 1080p.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.
There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.
Agreed. Unfortunately, there's just no reasoning with the masses who already "know" that 1080 is more than 720.
There's not much reason to prefer a 32" 1080 set over 720 for TV viewing--you practically have to sit on it o see the difference--yet many people think the price premium is worth it. Try telling that group they wasted their money.
I know what you mean. To be honest, if the content is good enough, I don't find I even need 720. A truly great film draws you in with the story, such that the quality of the picture is less important. I feel the same way about the current determination to make movies 3D. TO me it feels like a gimmick to mask deficiencies in the plot.
I totally agree with you - the F1 app is pretty much pointless unless you are watching live, and living in the US I watch close to zero of the results live, so it's a waste of time. It would be pretty cool to use at a live race I guess, though when I goto Singapore in a few weeks time for the race, I won't be able to use the 3G on my iPad because roaming is so expensive!
Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)
But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.
Assuming any of this crap is true, why would Steve Jobs replace a hobby device with yet another device he deems won't be a big hit? How in the world does that add up to anything other than a bored Bloomberg writer short-selling his Apple stock owned by distant family member?
This guy needs to change the bearings on his Magic 8-Ball, and return to his ongoing Magic the Gathering game with his roommates.
This has very little, if anything to do with TV - its primarily a move to stop people moving to Android. Having an iOS device for your TV means that people can feel comfortable buying iPhone apps and iPad apps and getting their TV versions too. If people start buying Android apps for their TV and there is no iOS alternative, then that is going to pull people towards Android phones as well.
The biggest barrier to switching between Android and iOS (in either direction) is a person's investment in apps for that platform.
Since the iPad is unlocked, can't you just get a local SIM card for this? (Maybe not.)
But, yeah, that's why I haven't bought the F1 app, because, from what reviewers have said, it seems that the "live" broadcast on Speed ends up so delayed (I forget how much it's off by, but I think was at least 15 minutes or more) by the end of the race, that the two are not in sync for most (or maybe not any) of the time.
I don't know about the local SIM card thing - I'll have to check it out.
You are so right about the Speed TV coverage ending up delayed making it even worse. The ridiculous thing is listening to Steve Matchett and Bob Varsha (who I normally really like) bang on about how amazing the app was when it came out, without realising that their channel make it shite!
If True Blood were available soon after the broadcast date on iTunes, then I would cancel HBO altogether and buy/rent it a la carte.
While observing Apple for 32 years, I have never seen them offer any product at a loss... just not in their DNA.
.
One word: Newton.
They lost a half a billion dollars on that product.