Rumor: Apple television plans 'on hold,' company concentrating on wearable devices

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 72
    TV market is cut throat and offers very low margins so NOT a priority. Cant wait to see the iWatch but keeping my expectations within reason.
  • Reply 22 of 72
    Disney is the right play. It has a current market cap of 121 billion, which Apple could buy with spare cash on hand. The big prize is ESPN, which they could start to offer for free (for limited time) with any iOS device (AppleTV) and then double the rates to all non iOS customers.
  • Reply 23 of 72
    I don't see Apple entering the content creation space.. the opportunity here is to improve upon existing delivery, which is currently dependent on the cable/satellite companies. The fact that content providers won't budge the way that the music industry did is not surprising. While Apple could likely build some very impressive hardware, if it's dependent on a cable card or cable box, it's not going to be considered innovative.
  • Reply 24 of 72
    512ke512ke Posts: 782member

    Netflix has new series coming out, some of them with Marvel.

     

    Hulu has original content.

     

    Amazon has original content.

     

    Apple alone does not.

     

    Big mistake.  You need a reason for people to stream from YOUR service or platform.

     

    One other minor annoying point I'll make:

     

    Yet again AI chooses to lead with a negative about Apple (OMG PLANS ON HOLD!) rather than an obvious positive (YAY WEARABLE DEVICES FAST-TRACKED).

  • Reply 25 of 72
    Sony's studio and media content has been more of a distraction than a money maker.

    Apple needs to stick to their core competencies, which are hardware & software integration and marketing.

    I agree, I wasn't worried they'd ever consider it. Apple knows what they're doing. Amazon does it because they're always testing the waters.
  • Reply 26 of 72
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Sony's studio and media content has been more of a distraction than a money maker.

    Apple needs to stick to their core competencies, which are hardware & software integration and marketing.

    Sony destroyed their "brand value" (I know, bs term) with those content grabs.

    Plus, if you want to make it in entertainment, you have to traffic in some serious trash. Not really in Apple's culture, is it.
  • Reply 27 of 72
    Yeah, because a company as small as Apple couldn't possibly have enough people or cash to develop 2 new products at the same time /s
  • Reply 28 of 72
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,918member
    pazuzu wrote: »
    So was Steve bluffing? It certainly wouldn't take going on to 3 years to produce what was supposedly "cracked"?

    The solution may have been found, but the content owners may not like it.
    512ke wrote: »
    Netflix has new series coming out, some of them with Marvel.

    Hulu has original content.

    Amazon has original content.

    Apple alone does not.

    Big mistake.  You need a reason for people to stream from YOUR service or platform.

    One other minor annoying point I'll make:

    Yet again AI chooses to lead with a negative about Apple (OMG PLANS ON HOLD!) rather than an obvious positive (YAY WEARABLE DEVICES FAST-TRACKED).

    I don't think its a mistake (big or otherwise ). People aren't subscribing to those just for original content. Sure it's an added benefit, but it's not the sole reason.


    Analysts on reporting rumors:
    1. We are never wrong
    2. Use "delay/hold/scrapped at last minute" if our predictions were missed.
  • Reply 29 of 72
    Quote:

     

     

    One other minor annoying point I'll make:

     

    Yet again AI chooses to lead with a negative about Apple (OMG PLANS ON HOLD!) rather than an obvious positive (YAY WEARABLE DEVICES FAST-TRACKED).


     

    Agreed-  these stories are wholly unrelated.   Apple is large enough  to work on both projects at the same time.  

     

    That said,  Apple TV should not be released without a clear business model,  and right now, who knows what TV will be in 2 years (or 5)  No release,   makes sense to me.   Additionally,  IMO,  wearable  is the future,   and Apple can innovate, revolutionize and lead in this category.    

    We'll see....... 

  • Reply 30 of 72
    I don't understand why Apple cannot upgrade its existing Apple TV with an A7 processor and third party apps while working on wearable devices? Apps for Apple TV are long overdue. Apple now has the SDK and specs for iOS game controllers so all the pieces are now in place for a fantastic TV experience with iOS.
  • Reply 31 of 72
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,379member
    jungmark wrote: »
    The solution may have been found, but the content owners may not like it.
    I don't think its a mistake (big or otherwise ). People aren't subscribing to those just for original content. Sure it's an added benefit, but it's not the sole reason.

    FWIW the sole reason I subscribe to HBO is the original content. Started with The Soprano's years ago and continues with Game of Thrones. Creatively entertaining TV doesn't get any better.
  • Reply 32 of 72
    I think all this talk about iWatches and iTVs is really a distraction for what Apple's REALLY working on.....
  • Reply 33 of 72
    Am I the only one here who is finding the mobile version of AppleInsider almost unusable? Massive lag just trying to scroll through content and text entry is a nightmare. Took 3-4 times longer creating this post versus the desktop. AI...big problems here.
  • Reply 34 of 72
    512ke wrote: »
    Netflix has new series coming out, some of them with Marvel.

    Hulu has original content.

    Amazon has original content.

    Apple alone does not.

    Big mistake.  You need a reason for people to stream from YOUR service or platform.

    One other minor annoying point I'll make:

    Yet again AI chooses to lead with a negative about Apple (OMG PLANS ON HOLD!) rather than an obvious positive (YAY WEARABLE DEVICES FAST-TRACKED).

    Apple would just do a deal with Disney for some exclusive content.
  • Reply 35 of 72
    Also 4k is still prohibitively expensive...
  • Reply 36 of 72
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Sources reportedly indicated that one of the "principle reasons" for the alleged delay is Apple's apparent inability to obtain "proprietary content not available on other devices." Such content would give Apple's platform the ability to stand out from competitors and find success in the cutthroat television set business.

     

    With content being equal then Apple won't stand out enough and consumers won't choose the Apple product?  I'm not sure I believe that.  I'd imagine there would be enough demand in the US for Apple to turn a profit without needing proprietary content.

  • Reply 37 of 72
    irelandireland Posts: 17,783member
    Apple doesn't want proprietary TV content, they want TV content, period. If they got that, which they haven't so far succeeded in doing, their TV would exist. Apple's advantaged is providing industry leading software, industrial design, ecosystem and support. TV shows are the missing component.
  • Reply 38 of 72
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    jungmark wrote: »
    I don't think its a mistake (big or otherwise ). People aren't subscribing to those just for original content. Sure it's an added benefit, but it's not the sole reason.

    gatorguy wrote: »
    FWIW the sole reason I subscribe to HBO is the original content. Started with The Soprano's years ago and continues with Game of Thrones. Creatively entertaining TV doesn't get any better.

    I'm with gator guy. People aren't subscribing to HBO to see iron man 3 months after it was released. They are subscribing for shows, documentaries, boxing, or a combination. Netflix didn't win much but made a huge wave in the Emmys with house of cards. Orange is the new black is an even smarter and better executed show than that. They are becoming a major player. HBO- I would assume- will eventually be a subscription model like Netflix. Netflix (and to a lesser extent amazon)- are trying to beat them to the punch. HBO is the curve- which is successful for them. Netflix is ahead of the curve- because they need to be. Apple hasn't started the car...
    I think apple getting into its own media creation is beyond dumb. And they're not that successful at it to be completely honest. iTunes movies aren't even the best option anymore and have little studio support in comparison to other options- Vudu clearly is at this point (although I personally use iTunes). iTunes Radio is nice but also a niche. Media creation needs a large audience- and apple doesn't need that. Just give me the device and leave the content to 3rd party folks.
  • Reply 39 of 72
    Didn't realize this was the MacRumors website.
  • Reply 40 of 72
    The iPad Air that blew up in Australia...wasn't an iPad Air: http://mashable.com/2013/11/10/apple-ipad-explosion-not-an-ipad-air-says-vodafone/
Sign In or Register to comment.