Steve Jobs was 'excited' about an Apple HDTV, but content deals are needed

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 96
    Hollywood is a fucked up place. I am pretty sure suits sit around their big mahogany desks in their Aeron chairs to figure out ways to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to consume their content.



    If they provide it, I will pay. As it is, however, they don't provide it, so I BitTorrent.



    I am the typical demographic: professional husband and father with nary a second in the day to brush my teeth, let alone go to the movies. I would kill to be able to pay, let's say, $20 to watch the latest blockbuster in the privacy of my home. Why do I need to go to the theaters to give you my money? I'll give it to you from the comfort of my couch. But you won't let me!



    And guess what? After a week or so, I will have forgotten about your stupid movie. And I will especially overlook it when it finally comes out on Blu-Ray because it's no longer a blockbuster. And there you go: You have just devised an ingenious method to not accept my money.



    And in comes BitTorrent. And a big Fuck You to your mesozoic ways.
  • Reply 22 of 96
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Apple single-handedly saved the Magazine industry? Apple single-handedly saved the movie industry?



    Lay off the juice.



    Number one rule around here should be, don't relply to anything from ComradeJoe because, as he says, he gets paid by his original post and by the number of replies that he manages to hook.
  • Reply 23 of 96
    Apple should buy Verizon and NBC. Make 4G LTE unlimited for 30$ and add it to all their products then make NBC content available a la cart. AT&T & the other content creators will have to compete or die....
  • Reply 24 of 96
    hexxhexx Posts: 40member
    all we need is ISPs nothing else for all services, voice, data, tv, whatever. c'mon, it's 21st century, everything is data these days we don't need a company for phone, we don't need a company for tv and a company which sells us internet connection. we just need one internet access provider, that's it.
  • Reply 25 of 96
    If it doesn't have an HD tuner in it for over-the-air broadcasts, I'm not interested.
  • Reply 25 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post


    Hollywood is a fucked up place. I am pretty sure suits sit around their big mahogany desks in their Aeron chairs to figure out ways to make it as difficult as possible for law-abiding citizens to consume their content.



    If they provide it, I will pay. As it is, however, they don't provide it, so I BitTorrent.



    I am the typical demographic: professional husband and father with nary a second in the day to brush my teeth, let alone go to the movies. I would kill to be able to pay, let's say, $20 to watch the latest blockbuster in the privacy of my home. Why do I need to go to the theaters to give you my money? I'll give it to you from the comfort of my couch. But you won't let me!



    And guess what? After a week or so, I will have forgotten about your stupid movie. And I will especially overlook it when it finally comes out on Blu-Ray because it's no longer a blockbuster. And there you go: You have just devised an ingenious method to not accept my money.



    And in comes BitTorrent. And a big Fuck You to your mesozoic ways.



    It's always nice to see someone write a big long explanation of why they feel it's okay to steal something they didn't pay for. Let's see, the standard method to see a first-run movie is and has been for decades to go see it at a movie theater. The movie execs didn't really have to spend much time thinking that up since it's been like that since movies first started being made.



    You're the typical demographic? Really? Did you do a survey? There's more to going to the movies than just seeing the movie. There's the size of the screen and the sound system which I know I can't match at home.



    So it's a stupid movie? Then why did you want to go see it in the first place? I kind of only want to go see movies that look good. But hey, I'm not the typical demographic I guess.
  • Reply 27 of 96
    Wouldn't it make sense for Apple to continue producing Apple TVs alongside any HDTV? I say this because any content deals could always be signed with respect to the Apple TV and then adding a monitor to that wouldn't change anything to the contracts. It seems like there's nothing holding up Apple's TV initiative, they are already in the living room. I do understand that 'another' box to plug in is bad for a number of reasons.
  • Reply 28 of 96
    irelandireland Posts: 17,785member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Wouldn't it make sense for Apple to continue producing Apple TVs alongside any HDTV?



    Welcome to the party.
  • Reply 29 of 96
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    Apple revolutionized the music industry, but not until the record labels were on their knees from rampant MP3 ripping and file sharing. The same thing is happening in publishing now, with Apple and Amazon on the verge of replacing paper media with digital.



    It'll take a long time before we'll be telling Siri + iCloud + iTunes to show us our favorite movies and TV shows. But it'll happen eventually. As soon as the studios realize that it's inevitable.
  • Reply 30 of 96
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    The problem has never been UI. It's been content. If it was just UI, the tv makers could have fixed it (albeit less elegantly), and Apple TV and Google TV would have become ubiquitous by now. They haven't because there's not enough content to support them. Apple TV is nice and cheap for netflix and iTunes. But it's not going to replace a cable box for most people. Google TV took a real shot at changing the UX of watching TV. The networks felt so threatened they cut-off content.



    And then there's the issue of bandwith if you go to a full IPTV solution. The networks may just slap on restritctive bandwith caps if you can get TV channels through iTunes. Up here in Canada, the major ISPs nearly cut their monthly bandwith caps in half (for the same price) when Netflix arrived.
  • Reply 31 of 96
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dgrayson98 View Post


    $85B in cash will make these negotiations go much easier. Netflix doesn't have this luxury. Apple doesn't need to make money on the content as long as they get to sell $2000 TVs.





    Apple will lose plenty of money trying to sell $2000 TVs.
  • Reply 32 of 96
    ssquirrelssquirrel Posts: 1,196member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    Apple single-handedly saved the movie industry?



    trailers.apple.com is pretty great. Oh, not what he meant
  • Reply 33 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    I think the issue really is the content guys more than the pipe guys. Comcast will get its money one way or another.



    The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.



    Nah, firing up BT won't really change the television content market.



    The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.



    The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.



    It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.



    It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.



    If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.
  • Reply 34 of 96
    s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Nah, firing up BT won't really change the television content market.



    The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.



    The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.



    It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.



    It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.



    If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.



    i watched all the baseball games i was interested in on my MLB.com subscription via my Apple TV 2....
  • Reply 35 of 96
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    It's always nice to see someone write a big long explanation of why they feel it's okay to steal something they didn't pay for. Let's see, the standard method to see a first-run movie is and has been for decades to go see it at a movie theater. The movie execs didn't really have to spend much time thinking that up since it's been like that since movies first started being made.



    You're the typical demographic? Really? Did you do a survey? There's more to going to the movies than just seeing the movie. There's the size of the screen and the sound system which I know I can't match at home.



    So it's a stupid movie? Then why did you want to go see it in the first place? I kind of only want to go see movies that look good. But hey, I'm not the typical demographic I guess.



    i went to a movie for the first time in years a few months back. took my son to see cars 2. first there are the pre-previews you have to sit through or not get a good seat



    then there was 30 minutes of previews and other ads. my 4 year old was sick of it before the real movie came on. same on adult movies. and this costs $10 or more per person plus overpriced junk food



    no thanks, i'll take my blu rays
  • Reply 36 of 96
    conradjoeconradjoe Posts: 1,887member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    Number one rule around here should be, don't relply to anything from ComradeJoe because, as he says, he gets paid by his original post and by the number of replies that he manages to hook.



    No, no, no.



    That's not how it works. Google pays me over $100,000.00 per year just to spend a few minutes a day on AI. Kind of like a retainer. Some posters net me a bonus if they respond.



    Posts from you do nothing to put money into my pocket.



    But there is one thing you might be interested in - I happen to have the exclusive right to install tollbooths on the Brooklyn Bridge. I've been looking for a Buyer. Any interest? If not, I have some great building lots in the Everglades, right next to the National Park. Can you imagine how much you could make if you controlled a big block of them? Cheap?





    Oh - and if you're interested, my Master is always looking for good employees. Go to http://shills.google.com\\ComradeJoe.html for information on how you can buy into this exciting opportunity. I'll give you a great deal!
  • Reply 37 of 96
    al_bundyal_bundy Posts: 1,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Nah, firing up BT won't really change the television content market.



    The reason? Live sporting events. That's where the big bucks are and where the key content deals reside.



    The music and book industries are relatively simple, with few major players. Even the movie industry is fairly straightforward which is why you can rent/stream movies via iTunes/Netflix/whoever.



    It's when you get into sports that the content ownership situation gets far more complicated. Something like NCAA football is a morass of athletic conferences, television networks, cable operators, satellite companies, etc. combined with local broadcasters, blackouts, exclusivity, etc.



    It's one thing to watch NCIS online. It's something totally different to watch SEC football online.



    If you don't address live sporting events, you are not facing the biggest pile of money in the television business.



    apple has experimented with MLB subs on their devices. IP's are geographic so it's not a big deal to put restrictions in place.



    i think apple will just release a regular TV with a few HDMI ports and itunes built in with support for all current apps via air mirror. probably add some other features. ipad wasn't anything out of this world, just the new form factor enabled a lot of new things. it's still a big ipod touch. same with apple TV.



    samsung and others are putting apps into TV's and the experience is horrific. apple will make it better, not invent anything new



    very few people will buy these if they don't have HDMI for their x-boxes, blu ray and other boxes
  • Reply 38 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post


    Even more important than deals with the content providers are the ISPs. Internet TV will be at the mercy of the ISPs who will tax away whatever profits Apple might expect from selling TVs and content. To eliminate this long term threat, I don't see any other option than for Apple to build/buy its own nationwide transmission network. What does 82 billion net of taxes buy you?



    It can buy the big three: Comcast, Time Warner and XX (I forget the name) with $10s of billions left over after they sell off the extraneous bits (AOL, etc).



    Apple likely does not want to go through the AT&T experience again. When it comes to the pipe, Apple will want to be in control this time.
  • Reply 39 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


    Number one rule around here should be, don't relply to anything from ComradeJoe because, as he says, he gets paid by his original post and by the number of replies that he manages to hook.





    There is a term, "whinger"



    whinge |(h)winj | Brit. verb

    complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:

    noun

    an act of complaining in such a way.

    whingeingly adverb ,

    whinger noun ,

    whingy |-jē | adjective





    I couldn't find an antonym, so I coined the word, "loseger"





    losege |(h)lose | verb



    Pronunciation: lose-ge | luz-j



    offer false praise persistently and in a peevish or irritating way:



    Several recent joiners and frequent posters to AI forums are easily recognized "losegers"



  • Reply 40 of 96
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by s4mb4 View Post


    i watched all the baseball games i was interested in on my MLB.com subscription via my Apple TV 2....



    That's just one sport, a nice start, but not enough to get America to cancel their cable and satellite subscriptions.



    For Apple (or anyone else) to make a dent in online sports content distribution, they really need to cover the major professional sports (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, NASCAR, PGA/LPGA, ATP/WTA, etc.), major collegiate sports (football, basketball), and the larger events (Olympics, World Cup).
Sign In or Register to comment.