I wouldn't pay an extra £100 for an Apple logo. What's stopping you dumping your Apple TV in the bin now? I personally only require YouTube/Netflix/AirPlay. My biggest gripe with Apple TV is not apps or UI, but the crappy IR remote. Typing and Bluetooth are two areas I'd like to see Apple address with the new Apple TV. And no, a Bluetooth Apple keyboard on my coffee table is definitely not what I mean, nor the crumby remote app. I need custom dedicated hardware from Apple for this. Rest assured I still sleep at night, but Apple would do well to fix these issues.
I'm going to throw out this glass of beer because the glass is half empty.
Apple TV is easily the superior streaming box so I wonder if Amazon will offer anything new and different or just another Roku-like device. If anything, they'd be crazy not to include some sort of Kindle airplay like functionality. It'll probably be dirt cheap too.
Apple's remote isn't bluetooth and makes typing inconvenient, but that's my fault, right?
I only said so because I'm a glass is half empty guy. You're not making any point.
No. I find it interesting that you take comments about beer so personally.
It's a response to all the posts that say "I'm gonna dump my (insert Apple product here) unless the next version has (insert pet feature here)". If the AppleTV contained enough features or value to get one to buy it in the first place, why it so horrible now?
Yawn - they are not competing with Apple, but with Roku.
People buy the AppleTV to steam iTunes and/or Netflix, they buy the Roku to stream Netflix and/or Amazon prime. The overlap of a new Amazon box will mainly be with the Roku.
Bur Roku doesn't generate page views like Apple does so of course this mythical product is an Apple TV killer.
Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
Bear in mind that you are talking from an American perspective, many countries do not have this issue, i.e. the BBC in the UK.
Amazon is 'evil' and should be avoided. I never use Amazon and I survive just fine. There has been much written about this so its and easy search. Here's just one of countless articles...
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
It would still be legal for a cable company to offer there services through an Apple TV box app or an Apple TV set app without the need for a customer to used the cable set-top box. For live feeds, if cable still offers its regular packages without any Apple interference, there is no need to re-negociate with content providers.
The negociations left to do with Apple and the cable company would be over on demand content, something Apple already does with itunes. There could also be negociations over the app interface.
For Apple, making content is NOT the way to go, they would then simply become another content provider. I dont see people dropping there cable packages because Apple produce a few shows... Making a few shows would make them another Netflix. This is getting ludicrous, most people wont commit to one content provider because most people like shows from a variety of content providers.
1. If they actually launch and not announce for 'later this year' like most of these products that appear in the midst of Apple rumors I will be impressed
2. This isn't really a competitor to the Apple TV if it can only access Amazon stuff. Which has been kept from the Apple TV for ages (likely cause neither side really wants it).
My only real issue is that these deals are allowed that make items exclusive to one service. That is the kind of thing the DOJ needs to look at if they really are 'protecting the consumers' and not just whether Apple was the ringleader to the publishers collusion. End the systems that take away choice by allowing Amazon to demand exclusive rights to books, movies, shows and cutting them off of other services. Or limit the exclusive access to only the first 30-90 days of the items original launch but no backtracking of previous titles, seasons etc. So if they want, for example, exclusive streaming access to Downton Abbey Season 5 they can have it. For 30 days. And then Hulu, Netflix etc can also have it if they set up contracts for it. Nothing in Amazons contract can block it. Same with older seasons. Same with cutting off iTunes purchasing or 'in the cloud'. And while they are doing that the DOJ can deal with e oligopoly of cable TV and Internet which is extremely anti consumer.
Other than for reasons #7 and #9, the rest look like a personal rant.
Some of it, perhaps, but you don't have to look far to learn unsavoury truths about Amazon. I have nothing against Apple competitors but I have a lot against what I consider unethical business practices. I am sure Apple is not entirely squeaky clean but I keep being impressed by the way Apple appear to run their business, and seemingly attempt to do the right thing. You rarely read anything good about the way Amazons runs its business. On the contrary.
Amazon is thought to have delayed the device's launch until this spring after Amazon senior management was "underwhelmed" with the product's direction and market fit.
But then the Amazon senior management heard that Apple were going to release one so decided "sod it", release it anyway.
I am sure Apple is not entirely squeaky clean but I keep being impressed by the way Apple appear to run their business, and seemingly attempt to do the right thing. You rarely read anything good about the way Amazons runs its business. On the contrary.
If Amazon features UltraViolet and Apple does not- I will go with Amazon.
Even though they both have their own own stores Aamazon does't seem obsessed with making one only buy or rent from their own store.
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft; they all have a "walled garden" some just have better gardeners.
Exactly. Roku already has Amazon streaming so the only way the Amazon box will be successful is if it has something major that Roku and Apple TV does not.
That isn't how Amazon works - they will drive Roku out of business by pricing their box at zero margin, and Roku will lose money at that price point because Amazon will have greater clout with manufacturers and eventually higher volume.
Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision.
Guess you missed the part where Apple doesn't own the content rights. They have to have permission and sometimes those folks don't want to play ball. So apple can't do something if they have no rights to the items
Comments
I'm going to throw out this glass of beer because the glass is half empty.
Apple TV is easily the superior streaming box so I wonder if Amazon will offer anything new and different or just another Roku-like device. If anything, they'd be crazy not to include some sort of Kindle airplay like functionality. It'll probably be dirt cheap too.
I'm going to throw out this glass of beer because the glass is half empty.
Apple's remote isn't bluetooth and makes typing inconvenient, but that's my fault, right?
I only said so because I'm a glass is half empty guy. You're not making any point.
My Logitech Harmony One controls my Apple TV just fine.
And my iPad when I want to type searches.
Nice!
No. I find it interesting that you take comments about beer so personally.
It's a response to all the posts that say "I'm gonna dump my (insert Apple product here) unless the next version has (insert pet feature here)". If the AppleTV contained enough features or value to get one to buy it in the first place, why it so horrible now?
Totally agree. A sizeable market was virtually handed to Apple, but they did nothing. Missed out on a big opportunity. It was a no-brainer decision.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
Bear in mind that you are talking from an American perspective, many countries do not have this issue, i.e. the BBC in the UK.
Amazon is 'evil' and should be avoided. I never use Amazon and I survive just fine. There has been much written about this so its and easy search. Here's just one of countless articles...
http://blog.seattlepi.com/trevorgriffey/2011/04/03/top-10-reasons-to-avoid-amazon-com/
Other than for reasons #7 and #9, the rest look like a personal rant.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. The cable channels cannot easily do deals with Apple for two reasons: either they don't have full rights to the content that they're licensing from a producer -or- their deals with the MSOs (the cable companies) prevent them from doing such a deal. Furthermore, the MSOs (like Time-Warner Cable) can't do a deal either because they don't have full rights to the content. Their rights, if they have any non-cable rights at all, are for a few episodes on their VOD and/or websites.
That's why I never believed the Apple/Time-Warner rumor. At best, all Time-Warner Cable could do is have the Apple device (or any device) support HBO GO, where you still have to have a cable subscription to HBO in order to view it on another device. Do you think the MSOs are just going to let the cable channels compete with them and do whatever they want? They have contracts and $billions of revenue is at stake.
I have first hand knowledge of this as I help produce rights management enterprise software that is used by the major cable channels. Rights are extremely complicated. The contract for every single program would have to be reviewed by a team of lawyers before they could do any deal. And they generally won't go back to the content producer (if it's not them) to ask for more rights because it opens up the entire contract to renegotiation.
If it were easy, there would have already been many black boxes that would carry all the cable channels. Steve Jobs talked about this back in the day. He said it was a nightmare because there were two many parties to negotiate with.
The only way I see this happening for Apple, aside from mediocre programming that no one cares about, is if Apple starts co-funding the programming. As part of the co-funding, they get to use the program on Apple TV. This would be similar to the way that Amazon co-funded "The Dome", for which they got exclusive online rights for. The show would not have been produced without Amazon's participation because CBS had doubts as to whether it was going to be a hit. In the end, it was a big hit.
It would still be legal for a cable company to offer there services through an Apple TV box app or an Apple TV set app without the need for a customer to used the cable set-top box. For live feeds, if cable still offers its regular packages without any Apple interference, there is no need to re-negociate with content providers.
The negociations left to do with Apple and the cable company would be over on demand content, something Apple already does with itunes. There could also be negociations over the app interface.
For Apple, making content is NOT the way to go, they would then simply become another content provider. I dont see people dropping there cable packages because Apple produce a few shows... Making a few shows would make them another Netflix. This is getting ludicrous, most people wont commit to one content provider because most people like shows from a variety of content providers.
The biggest differentiating for me with @TV is Airplay.
How is this Amazon thing going to do that for me? No platform-independent (read: OSX/iOS-compatible) Airplay substitute, zero interest.
2. This isn't really a competitor to the Apple TV if it can only access Amazon stuff. Which has been kept from the Apple TV for ages (likely cause neither side really wants it).
My only real issue is that these deals are allowed that make items exclusive to one service. That is the kind of thing the DOJ needs to look at if they really are 'protecting the consumers' and not just whether Apple was the ringleader to the publishers collusion. End the systems that take away choice by allowing Amazon to demand exclusive rights to books, movies, shows and cutting them off of other services. Or limit the exclusive access to only the first 30-90 days of the items original launch but no backtracking of previous titles, seasons etc. So if they want, for example, exclusive streaming access to Downton Abbey Season 5 they can have it. For 30 days. And then Hulu, Netflix etc can also have it if they set up contracts for it. Nothing in Amazons contract can block it. Same with older seasons. Same with cutting off iTunes purchasing or 'in the cloud'. And while they are doing that the DOJ can deal with e oligopoly of cable TV and Internet which is extremely anti consumer.
If Amazon features UltraViolet and Apple does not- I will go with Amazon.
Even though they both have their own own stores Aamazon does't seem obsessed with making one only buy or rent from their own store.
Other than for reasons #7 and #9, the rest look like a personal rant.
Some of it, perhaps, but you don't have to look far to learn unsavoury truths about Amazon. I have nothing against Apple competitors but I have a lot against what I consider unethical business practices. I am sure Apple is not entirely squeaky clean but I keep being impressed by the way Apple appear to run their business, and seemingly attempt to do the right thing. You rarely read anything good about the way Amazons runs its business. On the contrary.
Amazon is thought to have delayed the device's launch until this spring after Amazon senior management was "underwhelmed" with the product's direction and market fit.
But then the Amazon senior management heard that Apple were going to release one so decided "sod it", release it anyway.
Spot on.
Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft; they all have a "walled garden" some just have better gardeners.
Exactly. Roku already has Amazon streaming so the only way the Amazon box will be successful is if it has something major that Roku and Apple TV does not.
That isn't how Amazon works - they will drive Roku out of business by pricing their box at zero margin, and Roku will lose money at that price point because Amazon will have greater clout with manufacturers and eventually higher volume.
But they are no threat to AppleTV at all.
Guess you missed the part where Apple doesn't own the content rights. They have to have permission and sometimes those folks don't want to play ball. So apple can't do something if they have no rights to the items