That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!
That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.
For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
"Available viewing options may vary from title to title. The "Compatible with" section under Product Details on each video's product detail page will tell you which viewing options are available."
That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.
For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.
Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).
Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.
Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?
The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.
iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.
No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).
as soon as Apple's got it's full cloud service ready, people would be able to buy and store in the cloud and stream to Apple TV and idevices. I suspect live streaming will be coming soon too, and that the keynote live streaming was part of Apple's testing.
Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).
Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.
Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?
The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.
iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.
No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).
Like many people, I'm not interested in that stuff. despite what people think, devices like the Roku haven't sold all that well, far less than even the old aTv. I've got a top of the line Samsung Tv, and while it's very good as a monitor for Tv, the rest is junk.
That's what you don't get. There are a lot of things out there, but as far as products like this go, they sell poorly, at most, a million a year. estimates are that the aTv has been selling 3 million a year. Not great, but more than competitive.
As far as 1080p goes, read the discussion, your points there aren't useful. And as the hardware is capable of 1080p, it could be added at a later date with a software upgrade if needed.
These are interesting times (even pioneering) for tv and how content will be sold and delivered. The future seems obvious to me. How much media do you want to own when everything will be available whenever you want it, wherever you are? Me, I don't want to own any of it whether it lives locally or in the cloud. Hello! This stuff has no lasting value. Have you watched tv lately?
Besides, if it's on somebody's cloud, it will go away in due time. No company/service lasts forever. Local is even worse. Who wants to store and keep stuff compatible with new equipment/software going forward? That new show you paid 99 cents to watch twice, that'll be on netflix (or wherever) in a year, in case you want to see it again...and you already have a subscription to that. Even if you don't right now, you will. It's all about bundling and subscription. Must you make yourself believe you are watching your own "personal" copy on company XYZ's cloud?
The real fight is for who is going to deliver the best experience from a hardware/software perspective. Who is going to delight Mr. and Mrs. Couch Potato? It's not about who can become a loss leader with the cheapest per episode price. What the nerds here don't get is that it's not about nerds. Companies don't care about you. You are too small in number, too fickle, and too goddamn picky. Yeah, you like hooking up your MacBook to the tv with that 99 cent cable you scored on ebay but nobody cares. They want plug and play across all their devices and they'll pay.
Oh dear. I can't imagine Steve Jobs will be too pleased to hear that Disney and News Corp gave Amazon a better offer on their tv-shows. \
I think Rupert Murdoch and Bob Iger can expect a telephone call from 1 Infinite Loop real soon!
No better deal ? Amazon is subsidizing it.
For some of these folks, I think, it has become a matter of "Upping Apple"! They can't or choose not to come up with something better, so instead. they just "Up" Apples current best and deal with it.
What might it cost Amazon, to look better then Apple ? a few hundred thousand? A steal in their eyes I'm sure. And a hell of a lot less then Apple spends to that point.
For some, riding the shirttails of others, is not a bad thing.
For some, riding the shirttails of others, is not a bad thing.
You can say that about a lot of companies, but not really Amazon I think. They pioneered (large scale) selling books online, and the Kindle was around before the iPad. And Apple pays a royalty to Amazon for the right to one-click purchasing, which Amazon came up with first. It is logical, as the leader in selling physical media online, that they would try to move in to the digital products space. It is not because they are copying Apple, it is just a logical progression for them.
I don't understand how it's legal for the networks to do this. By deciding they are going to give Amazon this or Apple that, they are deciding the fate of those companies to a large extent (or trying to). This is like selling cars but charging fat people more than thin ones or giving a better deal to a certain race or ethnic group.
Basic fairness says that if they offer a product at a certain price to one company that all other things being equal, they should offer the same deal to another.
No way. Basic Americanism says that you can cut any deal you want with anyone you want. We don't need to expand the federal government to protect companies like Apple when they are unable to cut good deals.
And BTW, Apple has never been forced to sit in the back of the bus, nor has Apple been the subject of invidious discrimination.
Apple ain't an oppressed group. They are a huge merciless corporation.
If they need better businessmen in order to get better deals, then then so be it. But keep the law the same. That is how consumers prosper, rather than multinational conglomerates.
You mean the economic system where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth?
The one that's working so well right now?
Hey - like everything else, capitalism has good points and bad points. It seems to be superior as a system that creates the greatest overall wealth. But it is inferior as a system that distributes that wealth in any kind of a fair manner.
Everything has strengths and weaknesses. Including CE products.
Amazon are looking like a hardball competitor in this space. I have to admit, I have purchased more books in the Kindle App on my iPad than in iBooks.
Same. If Apple would have offered iBooks on the Mac as well, and had the same selection as Amazon, I would go with iBooks. Alas my iPad stays at home and I use my MacBook Pro and MacPro desktops everywhere else.
Comments
"FOX and ABC shows"
That's NOT Cable!!!! If they had episodes of CABLE shows I would be impressed!!
That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.
For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.
This is from the interface of a video they gave me....
"Available viewing options may vary from title to title. The "Compatible with" section under Product Details on each video's product detail page will tell you which viewing options are available."
And it''s a Flash video, isn't it?
That's just part of it. they now have Netflix as well. No doubt, as other companies are persuaded to come on board, we will get more networks and channels. I don't think they can hold out forever. Jobs seemed to think that others would come on board soon. Maybe negotiations are coming to a close for more companies.
For me, it's worth it if I can get shows that I missed, and don't want to bother getting from the broadcasters site.
Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).
Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.
Samsung's list of Apps completely demolishes what the Apple TV has to offer. These Apps are available built into their (extremely popular) TVs or in their Blu-ray players (WARNING PDF LINK) It's not a huge amount, but it's still incredibly impressive compared to the Apple TV.
Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?
The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.
iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.
No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).
Okay, just part of it. Netflix isn't very impressive...every device has Netflix capability. Wii, PS3, TVs, Blu-ray players, and the $69 Roku box (which includes access to Amazon's cheaper video on demand service).
Roku has more "channels" to choose from than Apple TV. I can't judge Apple completely on its day 1 media deals, but I can judge Apple for not being able to secure anything impressive. YouTube, Flickr, MobileMe, and Netflix. FOX and ABC (which is a given since it's Disney...so effectively Apple was only able to convince ONE broadcast TV channel). That's It? Four services and two broadcast TV channels you can get over the air for free.
Samsung's list of Apps completely demolishes what the Apple TV has to offer. These Apps are available built into their (extremely popular) TVs or in their Blu-ray players (WARNING PDF LINK) It's not a huge amount, but it's still incredibly impressive compared to the Apple TV.
Even Samsung, with no experience, has more apps than Apple on their internet TV device? For real?
The fact remains that the iPhone/iPod touch have WAY more media options than an Apple TV. Rumors suggested that the Apple TV would have an adaptation of the App store, and Apple has disappointed.
iPhone/iPod touch are market leaders. This Apple TV is a follower. It does everything that previous devices have done only in many ways it does it worse. The only way that Apple can break into the video streaming space is if they exceed what their predecessors have already done, and they have failed so far. They need to have exactly what the iPhone has on the Apple TV - an App store where any media company can design an App and put their content - whether it be a social media, TV, movie, or game App - on the Apple TV.
No 1080p, either I don't really care much for it, but this isn't about being future proof anymore. My grandfather bought a 1080p TV over a 720p TV. It wasn't very expensive. His computer is 7 years old...what does this tell you about Apple's exclusion of 1080p capability? Last I checked I could watch 1080p videos on Youtube (but not on an Apple TV...on my computer or PS3).
Like many people, I'm not interested in that stuff. despite what people think, devices like the Roku haven't sold all that well, far less than even the old aTv. I've got a top of the line Samsung Tv, and while it's very good as a monitor for Tv, the rest is junk.
That's what you don't get. There are a lot of things out there, but as far as products like this go, they sell poorly, at most, a million a year. estimates are that the aTv has been selling 3 million a year. Not great, but more than competitive.
As far as 1080p goes, read the discussion, your points there aren't useful. And as the hardware is capable of 1080p, it could be added at a later date with a software upgrade if needed.
Besides, if it's on somebody's cloud, it will go away in due time. No company/service lasts forever. Local is even worse. Who wants to store and keep stuff compatible with new equipment/software going forward? That new show you paid 99 cents to watch twice, that'll be on netflix (or wherever) in a year, in case you want to see it again...and you already have a subscription to that. Even if you don't right now, you will. It's all about bundling and subscription. Must you make yourself believe you are watching your own "personal" copy on company XYZ's cloud?
The real fight is for who is going to deliver the best experience from a hardware/software perspective. Who is going to delight Mr. and Mrs. Couch Potato? It's not about who can become a loss leader with the cheapest per episode price. What the nerds here don't get is that it's not about nerds. Companies don't care about you. You are too small in number, too fickle, and too goddamn picky. Yeah, you like hooking up your MacBook to the tv with that 99 cent cable you scored on ebay but nobody cares. They want plug and play across all their devices and they'll pay.
Oh dear. I can't imagine Steve Jobs will be too pleased to hear that Disney and News Corp gave Amazon a better offer on their tv-shows.
I think Rupert Murdoch and Bob Iger can expect a telephone call from 1 Infinite Loop real soon!
No better deal ? Amazon is subsidizing it.
For some of these folks, I think, it has become a matter of "Upping Apple"! They can't or choose not to come up with something better, so instead. they just "Up" Apples current best and deal with it.
What might it cost Amazon, to look better then Apple ? a few hundred thousand? A steal in their eyes I'm sure. And a hell of a lot less then Apple spends to that point.
For some, riding the shirttails of others, is not a bad thing.
Skip
For some, riding the shirttails of others, is not a bad thing.
You can say that about a lot of companies, but not really Amazon I think. They pioneered (large scale) selling books online, and the Kindle was around before the iPad. And Apple pays a royalty to Amazon for the right to one-click purchasing, which Amazon came up with first. It is logical, as the leader in selling physical media online, that they would try to move in to the digital products space. It is not because they are copying Apple, it is just a logical progression for them.
I am gonna get rich in this counrty...
You have no idea how capitalism works, do you?
Did you happen to vote for the current president?
Capitalism?
You mean the economic system where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth?
The one that's working so well right now?
I don't understand how it's legal for the networks to do this. By deciding they are going to give Amazon this or Apple that, they are deciding the fate of those companies to a large extent (or trying to). This is like selling cars but charging fat people more than thin ones or giving a better deal to a certain race or ethnic group.
Basic fairness says that if they offer a product at a certain price to one company that all other things being equal, they should offer the same deal to another.
No way. Basic Americanism says that you can cut any deal you want with anyone you want. We don't need to expand the federal government to protect companies like Apple when they are unable to cut good deals.
And BTW, Apple has never been forced to sit in the back of the bus, nor has Apple been the subject of invidious discrimination.
Apple ain't an oppressed group. They are a huge merciless corporation.
If they need better businessmen in order to get better deals, then then so be it. But keep the law the same. That is how consumers prosper, rather than multinational conglomerates.
I for one would rather pay $2 to Apple or Rent for $1 because of the ease of use of the AppleTV or my Mac or MobileMe cloud.
.
This is good evidence for my viewpoint that the customers Apple wishes to profit from are the people who value convenience over price or quality.
Because the current president is very much against a capitalist system.
You are delusional if you think Obama is anything other than the head capitalist of the entire world.
You really think he'd be allowed to be president if he were dedicated to reducing the wealth and power of the ruling class? Get real.
Wait! They think there are people who are stupid enough to pay for television shows?
I am gonna get rich in this counrty...
Typical Apple customers pay huge prices for convenience. They could make better coffee at home, for example, but instead they buy $4 coffee to go.
There's nothing wrong with that, and Apple knows how to extract the cash from those folk's credit cards. Just like Starbucks or Club Med.
Capitalism?
You mean the economic system where 5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth?
The one that's working so well right now?
Hey - like everything else, capitalism has good points and bad points. It seems to be superior as a system that creates the greatest overall wealth. But it is inferior as a system that distributes that wealth in any kind of a fair manner.
Everything has strengths and weaknesses. Including CE products.
Amazon are looking like a hardball competitor in this space. I have to admit, I have purchased more books in the Kindle App on my iPad than in iBooks.
Same. If Apple would have offered iBooks on the Mac as well, and had the same selection as Amazon, I would go with iBooks. Alas my iPad stays at home and I use my MacBook Pro and MacPro desktops everywhere else.
You really think he'd be allowed to be president if he were dedicated to reducing the wealth and power of the ruling class? Get real.
Isn't this Marxism?
But it is inferior as a system that distributes that wealth in any kind of a fair manner
So the wealth should be spread amongst everyone regardless of who earned/deserves it?