Excellent point. I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple. Bundling is such a 20th century racket. I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.
Sure, we've all grown up with 30-, 40-, 50-, and 60+ button remotes. But if you look at the current television viewing experience objectively, it's clear that decades of lazy decisions have clumped together into a logjam of terrible design. It's a big ugly mess, but because it became big and ugly so gradually, we just shrugged and accepted each new bit of terribleness. And some of us actually like the fact that it's confusing, so we can be "smarter" than our parents, or something like that. A quick example: channel numbers. It would be vastly easier to remember to just type E, S, P, and N on your remote control than it would be to type 208. And you might not even need to type that last N (or even the P) if the TV supported predictive typing. But no, our receivers are shipped with massive charts, on paper, of channel numbers next to channel names. Ridiculous.
Apple has already proven that they can do these three things conveniently and efficiently: 1. sell content, 2. rent content, and 3. stream live content. The iTunes Festival events are proof that Apple has the ability to do it all. Live streaming, pre-recorded streaming, been there, done that. And all that viewing and listening is conceptually contained in the iTunes Festival app. In general, there wouldn't be any need to need to remember what show is on what network, then remembering what that network's channel number is, then programming your DVR to record it. Apple has, to a great extent, app-ified web viewing on iOS. TV is ripe for app-ification too.
Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'
I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.
I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.
Stall and delay after stall and delay. Rumors of no sapphire on iPhone 6, late arrival of iwatch and now ATV. Depressing week for those of us excited about this years releases...if of course the rumors are to be believed.
That’s why you don’t listen to the FUD in the first place.
Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'
I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.
I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.
Agree. Instead of trying to destroy the cable / satellite companies, it's probably more likely that Apple will want to attract them to something better than the status quo. Better cable company profitability, end-user experience, and all that good stuff. This has worked spectacularly for Apple with iPhone. It's the device everyone wants and thus the device that all carriers want to sell. (At least in the US, Japan, etc.) Apple didn't and probably will never try to destroy or buy a cell carrier.
So maybe the next-gen Apple TV really will be the "better mouse trap" of the cable box universe. It could work with any and all cable / satellite feeds. It could finally clean up decades of lazy UI design and ancient sedimentary layers of feature-creep. If users like it as much as they love iPhone, all the cable / satellite incumbents would want to feature it. (And they could stop wasting all that time, money, customer good will, and carbon footprint designing and building those horrid set-top DVRs.)
Of course, the cable / satellite providers would need to build out server farms for storing and playing back prerecorded content on-demand. Sure, they could continue with their old-school daily programming schedule. That would be streamed "live." Anything not first-run would be streamed on-demand. Live news and sports would also be streamed live. Exactly like iTunes Festival. Zero end-user recording.
Oh, and I too think Apple should probably not get too deeply into creating their own content. Content creation is like panning for gold. Very hit and miss, never know what river bend will make you rich. The way to get rich in a gold rush is to sell goods to the miners. Like Levi Strauss did. There are many streets and buildings in downtown SF named after merchants, bankers, and manufacturers. All of whom got fantastically rich during the gold rush. Few if any streets there are named after any miners who got rich.
They do not need to accede control to Apple. Content sells itself. As long as there are viewer apps for Apple devices then that famous Apple control is negated.
I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.
Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.
Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.
peace.
How do you propose Apple do this? If a la carte was economically feasible cable companies would already be doing it. People look at what Apple did with music and iTunes and think they should be able to disrupt TV too but the situations are completely different. Nothing comparable to Napster in the TV space.
I've heard good things about Roku and Amazon's Fire TV looks promising (like that they have voice capabilities). Heck right now I'd take my DirecTV interface over ATV. I mostly use ATV for AirPlay functionality.
You've hit the nail on the head. The best UI is no UI. Apple should create one iPad-based App to deliver all content via AirPlay. It could use extensions but I'd rather have one, simple manager for all content.
You've hit the nail on the head. The best UI is no UI. Apple should create one iPad-based App to deliver all content via AirPlay. It could use extensions but I'd rather have one, simple manager for all content.
McD
So what's a household with multiple ATVs, and one iPad to do?
I've worked since late 2005 in the area of media rights management. Many of the cable networks as well as other organizations are clients of the enterprise software we produce to manage this.
The ISPs themselves, like Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, etc. actually have quite limited options in terms of what they can offer as they don't own the content (although their parent companies do in some cases).
Even the cable channels themselves don't have 100% of the rights and can't necessarily offer Apple rights even if they wanted to. That's not true in all cases, but it's true in many cases. In addition, they are currently getting big dollars from the major ISPs and they're not going to endanger that, although there's not much the ISPs can do about it if they did. The cable networks actually do have the upper hand as we've seen in recent contractual disputes.
The contractual rights to the programs are not simple - they're actually quite complex and since Apple is not an ISP, every contract will have to be renegotiated for AppleTV unless Apple offers it in conjunction with an ISP (except where the cable network owns 100% of the rights in all media, in all territories, in perpetuity) and the problem the cable networks have with that is that it opens up the entire contract for renegotiation with the content providers, so they avoid that at all costs. For them to think that's worth it, Apple would have to prove that they're going to dominate the market. So far, they haven't done that.
This isn't just a matter of cable companies not understanding the future or otherwise being obnoxious.
Not to trump you, but I have working the computer and digital video industry since the 1980 and specially digital video equipment since the mid 90's and currently work for the largest company who provides all the video devices to most of the MSO world wide. I am very familiar with how this industries work.
I agree with you that this is complex issue, and it is only complex because the industry has purposely set it up that way. Even today the MSO are doing everything they can to make sure they maintain control over ever aspect of your viewing experience. The only way this will stop is it will end up in court and the MSO will be in the loosing side. DirecTV has to sue to be allow to broadcast local channels since the MSO claimed at one time they had the sole rights to transmit local channels in their area. Hell, when I first got DirecTV in 97, I was lucky I did not live a few miles north of where I was since there was Broadcast Coop which control all content distribution in that area and DirecTV as banned from selling it services there.
You know 10 yrs ago the government forces the MSO to stop requiring customers from renting/buy the STB, and they were order to change how they do business. Today we all should be able to buy our own STB at any store with its own features and then plug it into your cable and subscribe to the content you want. Well the MSO have successfully grind progress to a standstill and they use the whole DRM and Content ownership as the reason not to allow users to buy their own equipment.
The only this I am surprise is no one has brought a class action lawsuit against the MSO and content owners to create a more free market around how you buy and consume content. I still think it is coming, and suspect that Apple will have lots to say about the Comcast and TW merger since it will put an end to the conversations Apple was having with TW.
I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.
Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.
Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.
peace.
Unfortunately, there is no way they are going to offer you 6 channels for $12.99 or 12 channels for $24.99. They don't own the content (for the most part), so it is the content owners that will set the price you pay. Every contract would have to be renegotiated with the content owners. I would imagine that just ESPN would cost $10-12 per month. If you want ESPN2, then that's another $8-10 per month. It will NOT be cheap! If anyone thinks that going a la carte will save you money, that will only be true if you only opt for a very small number of channels. If you watch 20 or more channels now, your bill will likely be a lot higher than the 300-400 channels you get now. Oh, and local channels are not really free. They just bundle the cost into your monthly bill nowadays instead of a separate line item. It costs them money to rebroadcast the signal, and that cost is passed on to everyone.
Maybe Apple can get a few content deals worked out and then just launch, leaving the holdouts in the cold until they come around like they did with NBC. They don't have to get all content available at launch, they just need to get enough to promote widespread abandonment of cable subscriptions. That movement is already started thanks to Netflix, Hulu, and iTunes. If Apple can get a deal with ESPN or someone with good sports coverage cable's days will be over.
I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple. Bundling is such a 20th century racket. I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.
Most people seem to misunderstand how cable companies price their products. You seem to think that you're being forced to pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want, in order to get the handful of channels that you do want. Therefore, you reason, if you were simply allowed to pick and choose your channels you would pay less while receiving only what you want.
In reality, the cable companies GET PAID to push the crappy channels to your home. The crappy channels subsidize the cost of the good channels. Taking them out would increase the cost of the good channels, to a point where few people would pay for them. To cable companies, you are both a consumer and the product being sold. Similar to the reason why Google and Facebook are "free."
Oh please. We have been hearing 'new Apple TV' then 'oh wait it's delayed' rumors for the past four years. Only difference to time is that it's not Gene saying it.
It's CYA. Someone is nervous they takes too soon so they are trumping up a rumor of a delay so they don't look dumb. If the delay doesn't happen they will be all "well we out the heat on them so they got the issue worked out. Aren't we awesome".
Disagree on some points. Apple believes that for the best user experience you need to control the product creation from start to finish.
A hybrid cable content model just to placate the aging current cable model will create a bad user exp. Apple needs to usher in a new model like they did w the phone.
Only then will cable cos change their behavior. Otherwise apples solution will be tainted w a legacy model based on greed and company, not customer, centric wants
Think back to the iPhone release. iPhone was first released on just one carrier: AT&T. It had a novel Visual Voice Mail system that no other device had, which required AT&T to do some work on their end. AT&T gained subscribers, mindshare, and prestige by selling iPhone. Other cell carriers, even one or two who originally rejected Apple's deal (Verizon) signed up later.
Apple could follow the same approach with cable / satellite providers. Just work with one of them at first, roll out an advanced Apple TV set-top box, let the mindshare build, poach subscribers from all other cable / satellite providers, then start working with all other cable / satellite providers a year later. Apple needs partners, not enemies.
Oh, and as for the "new model," who knows what Apple has come up with? I'm sure there are at least 2,418 ways to improve the current TV experience, from improving content delivery network speed to simplifying searching to eliminating channel numbers to eliminating the remote control. Maybe Apple's TV-related patents will give us some hints. (PatentlyApple has posted quite a few, by the way.)
Most people seem to misunderstand how cable companies price their products. You seem to think that you're being forced to pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want, in order to get the handful of channels that you do want. Therefore, you reason, if you were simply allowed to pick and choose your channels you would pay less while receiving only what you want.
In reality, the cable companies GET PAID to push the crappy channels to your home. The crappy channels subsidize the cost of the good channels. Taking them out would increase the cost of the good channels, to a point where few people would pay for them. To cable companies, you are both a consumer and the product being sold. Similar to the reason why Google and Facebook are "free."
I don't care whether I pay for 200 extra crappy channels or whether those 200 extra crappy channels are free. I would prefer that they all just go away, one way or another. Just to eliminate clutter.
Oh, and I said that I'd gladly pay *more* for just the specific shows I want. Not less. But only if the experience of searching for, paying for, and watching those shows were vastly better than what we have now. That's how Apple gets away with charging more than your average corner-cutting commodity device vendor. Better experience. Apple is an experience company. It's no secret.
The networks want control. We are blessed to have Sky here in NZ, who in a country of around 4.5 million have their subscription based boxes in 1 million households. They are the only player here yet the free networks have come out in support of them.
The people accessing Netflix obviously want more choice or aren't satisfied with the same old drivel dished up every night by Sky et al - that's a bad thing /s
Of course the industry is worried, Look what Apple did to the music Industry. Apple is a technological innovator and disrupter. There is no company like it in the world. Why do you think there is so much negative press about any tech they introduce? To try to poo poo it and lessen its impact. Why do you think they killed Jobs - oh just kiddin! Of course Apple has a new interface ready to go, they won't introduce it until they have content to make it really useful. I imagine the industry is really concerned because some of these companies they negotiated with have seen a demo of the new interface and are frightened/ relaize it will take huge market share because it is 10 years ahead of anything they have and they don't have the programmers capable of anything close. They sighed NDA's to get a demo and of course they know that Apple will sue them if they even attempt to copy it. That's the whole reason behind the lawsuits with Scamsung, it's not to get Scamsung really but the main intent is the scare the crap out of everyone else if they attempt to copy any of Apple's IP or at least not make a blatant copy
Comments
Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'
I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.
I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.
That’s why you don’t listen to the FUD in the first place.
Getting warmer you are. Apple's recent acquisitions are a clue that they plan a giant interface one-stop shopping for everything from books to radio to TV. Sure the cable cos are nervous now, but I say this thing comes sooner than many here think. I am betting that Apple will create a win-win situation that makes the cable networks reconsider their profit model. As in: 'we'd be crazy to not do that!'
I doubt Apple really wants to get into content creation. They'd need to make a whole other division or company for that and it would be a bit out of their zone, and it would take even longer than content deals just to get a few shows going. I simply think they have already offered a helluva deal to the content owners and it is just taking time for them to consider it. Here's to hoping they send the lawyers out for coffee while they decide if they really want to do it. If Apple has a way of greatly increasing the content owners' profit while freeing them from a lot of hassles they may well decide to do it.
I think the new interface is probably well along, they are just plugging in a few more modules of content .
It will get released when they think they have enough. When is that? Ah well, timing is the impossible thing to predict.
Agree. Instead of trying to destroy the cable / satellite companies, it's probably more likely that Apple will want to attract them to something better than the status quo. Better cable company profitability, end-user experience, and all that good stuff. This has worked spectacularly for Apple with iPhone. It's the device everyone wants and thus the device that all carriers want to sell. (At least in the US, Japan, etc.) Apple didn't and probably will never try to destroy or buy a cell carrier.
So maybe the next-gen Apple TV really will be the "better mouse trap" of the cable box universe. It could work with any and all cable / satellite feeds. It could finally clean up decades of lazy UI design and ancient sedimentary layers of feature-creep. If users like it as much as they love iPhone, all the cable / satellite incumbents would want to feature it. (And they could stop wasting all that time, money, customer good will, and carbon footprint designing and building those horrid set-top DVRs.)
Of course, the cable / satellite providers would need to build out server farms for storing and playing back prerecorded content on-demand. Sure, they could continue with their old-school daily programming schedule. That would be streamed "live." Anything not first-run would be streamed on-demand. Live news and sports would also be streamed live. Exactly like iTunes Festival. Zero end-user recording.
Oh, and I too think Apple should probably not get too deeply into creating their own content. Content creation is like panning for gold. Very hit and miss, never know what river bend will make you rich. The way to get rich in a gold rush is to sell goods to the miners. Like Levi Strauss did. There are many streets and buildings in downtown SF named after merchants, bankers, and manufacturers. All of whom got fantastically rich during the gold rush. Few if any streets there are named after any miners who got rich.
"Content is king. Distribution is King Kong."
- Old Hollywood saying
They do not need to accede control to Apple. Content sells itself.
As long as there are viewer apps for Apple devices then that famous Apple control is negated.
You've hit the nail on the head. The best UI is no UI. Apple should create one iPad-based App to deliver all content via AirPlay. It could use extensions but I'd rather have one, simple manager for all content.
McD
So what's a household with multiple ATVs, and one iPad to do?
I've worked since late 2005 in the area of media rights management. Many of the cable networks as well as other organizations are clients of the enterprise software we produce to manage this.
The ISPs themselves, like Time-Warner, Comcast, RCN, etc. actually have quite limited options in terms of what they can offer as they don't own the content (although their parent companies do in some cases).
Even the cable channels themselves don't have 100% of the rights and can't necessarily offer Apple rights even if they wanted to. That's not true in all cases, but it's true in many cases. In addition, they are currently getting big dollars from the major ISPs and they're not going to endanger that, although there's not much the ISPs can do about it if they did. The cable networks actually do have the upper hand as we've seen in recent contractual disputes.
The contractual rights to the programs are not simple - they're actually quite complex and since Apple is not an ISP, every contract will have to be renegotiated for AppleTV unless Apple offers it in conjunction with an ISP (except where the cable network owns 100% of the rights in all media, in all territories, in perpetuity) and the problem the cable networks have with that is that it opens up the entire contract for renegotiation with the content providers, so they avoid that at all costs. For them to think that's worth it, Apple would have to prove that they're going to dominate the market. So far, they haven't done that.
This isn't just a matter of cable companies not understanding the future or otherwise being obnoxious.
Not to trump you, but I have working the computer and digital video industry since the 1980 and specially digital video equipment since the mid 90's and currently work for the largest company who provides all the video devices to most of the MSO world wide. I am very familiar with how this industries work.
I agree with you that this is complex issue, and it is only complex because the industry has purposely set it up that way. Even today the MSO are doing everything they can to make sure they maintain control over ever aspect of your viewing experience. The only way this will stop is it will end up in court and the MSO will be in the loosing side. DirecTV has to sue to be allow to broadcast local channels since the MSO claimed at one time they had the sole rights to transmit local channels in their area. Hell, when I first got DirecTV in 97, I was lucky I did not live a few miles north of where I was since there was Broadcast Coop which control all content distribution in that area and DirecTV as banned from selling it services there.
You know 10 yrs ago the government forces the MSO to stop requiring customers from renting/buy the STB, and they were order to change how they do business. Today we all should be able to buy our own STB at any store with its own features and then plug it into your cable and subscribe to the content you want. Well the MSO have successfully grind progress to a standstill and they use the whole DRM and Content ownership as the reason not to allow users to buy their own equipment.
The only this I am surprise is no one has brought a class action lawsuit against the MSO and content owners to create a more free market around how you buy and consume content. I still think it is coming, and suspect that Apple will have lots to say about the Comcast and TW merger since it will put an end to the conversations Apple was having with TW.
I just hope that Apple brings true 'A La Carte' channel selecting to the table. That's what people want. Give me a selection of ALL the Channels.stations that exist and develop a pay structure based around each type of channel or category of channel. Local channels should remain free (since you can RF/UHF/VHF them anyway) and then perhaps charge for specific packages. 6 channels for @12.99, 12 channels for $24.99.. et cetera. Then, make a "Channel Store" designed after the App Store were you can DL and subscribe to more 'stations' as time goes one.
Society is done taking it up the rear for things they don't need under the guise of 'its just the package we offer BS'. The cable companies business model is antiquated.
Eff' Comcast and Time Warner. Payback is truly a bitch. The clock is ticking.
peace.
Unfortunately, there is no way they are going to offer you 6 channels for $12.99 or 12 channels for $24.99. They don't own the content (for the most part), so it is the content owners that will set the price you pay. Every contract would have to be renegotiated with the content owners. I would imagine that just ESPN would cost $10-12 per month. If you want ESPN2, then that's another $8-10 per month. It will NOT be cheap! If anyone thinks that going a la carte will save you money, that will only be true if you only opt for a very small number of channels. If you watch 20 or more channels now, your bill will likely be a lot higher than the 300-400 channels you get now. Oh, and local channels are not really free. They just bundle the cost into your monthly bill nowadays instead of a separate line item. It costs them money to rebroadcast the signal, and that cost is passed on to everyone.
.
I'd gladly dump DirecTV (and pay a little more) for an ad-hoc pay-by-show solution from Apple. Bundling is such a 20th century racket. I don't need that "200 channels of crap," I'm not going to channel-surf through that 200 channels of crap looking for interesting crap, and I'd rather not be forced to search for what I am interested in ("The Great Martian War") using that horrendous on-screen keyboard.
Most people seem to misunderstand how cable companies price their products. You seem to think that you're being forced to pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want, in order to get the handful of channels that you do want. Therefore, you reason, if you were simply allowed to pick and choose your channels you would pay less while receiving only what you want.
In reality, the cable companies GET PAID to push the crappy channels to your home. The crappy channels subsidize the cost of the good channels. Taking them out would increase the cost of the good channels, to a point where few people would pay for them. To cable companies, you are both a consumer and the product being sold. Similar to the reason why Google and Facebook are "free."
It's CYA. Someone is nervous they takes too soon so they are trumping up a rumor of a delay so they don't look dumb. If the delay doesn't happen they will be all "well we out the heat on them so they got the issue worked out. Aren't we awesome".
Disagree on some points. Apple believes that for the best user experience you need to control the product creation from start to finish.
A hybrid cable content model just to placate the aging current cable model will create a bad user exp. Apple needs to usher in a new model like they did w the phone.
Only then will cable cos change their behavior. Otherwise apples solution will be tainted w a legacy model based on greed and company, not customer, centric wants
Think back to the iPhone release. iPhone was first released on just one carrier: AT&T. It had a novel Visual Voice Mail system that no other device had, which required AT&T to do some work on their end. AT&T gained subscribers, mindshare, and prestige by selling iPhone. Other cell carriers, even one or two who originally rejected Apple's deal (Verizon) signed up later.
Apple could follow the same approach with cable / satellite providers. Just work with one of them at first, roll out an advanced Apple TV set-top box, let the mindshare build, poach subscribers from all other cable / satellite providers, then start working with all other cable / satellite providers a year later. Apple needs partners, not enemies.
Oh, and as for the "new model," who knows what Apple has come up with? I'm sure there are at least 2,418 ways to improve the current TV experience, from improving content delivery network speed to simplifying searching to eliminating channel numbers to eliminating the remote control. Maybe Apple's TV-related patents will give us some hints. (PatentlyApple has posted quite a few, by the way.)
Most people seem to misunderstand how cable companies price their products. You seem to think that you're being forced to pay for hundreds of crappy channels you don't want, in order to get the handful of channels that you do want. Therefore, you reason, if you were simply allowed to pick and choose your channels you would pay less while receiving only what you want.
In reality, the cable companies GET PAID to push the crappy channels to your home. The crappy channels subsidize the cost of the good channels. Taking them out would increase the cost of the good channels, to a point where few people would pay for them. To cable companies, you are both a consumer and the product being sold. Similar to the reason why Google and Facebook are "free."
I don't care whether I pay for 200 extra crappy channels or whether those 200 extra crappy channels are free. I would prefer that they all just go away, one way or another. Just to eliminate clutter.
Oh, and I said that I'd gladly pay *more* for just the specific shows I want. Not less. But only if the experience of searching for, paying for, and watching those shows were vastly better than what we have now. That's how Apple gets away with charging more than your average corner-cutting commodity device vendor. Better experience. Apple is an experience company. It's no secret.
Or, maybe what what he described is exactly what Apple had planned, but negotiations didn't go the way they expected. We'll never know.
or maybe he's god? we'll never know...
And how exactly are they supposed to be that?
Select the ATV you want to AirPlay to.
The networks want control.
We are blessed to have Sky here in NZ, who in a country of around 4.5 million have their subscription based boxes in 1 million households. They are the only player here yet the free networks have come out in support of them.
The people accessing Netflix obviously want more choice or aren't satisfied with the same old drivel dished up every night by Sky et al - that's a bad thing /s