First things first. Here's hoping Apple TV updates its "wilderness of icons interface" into a device that is user programmable through iTunes. Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly. I've pretty much given up on using Siri anyway except to chuckle at how it bungles simple requests. It seems pretty obvious an updated Apple TV would stream in 4K but god help Apple if it doesn't. Standard HD is going the way of the dodo bird. I'm curious to see if Apple can turn this into a real product instead of a "hobby". A subscription service will come when Apple gets it out of the oven but the hardware and interface must be improved first.
I don't understand how "CBS, Fox, and NBC" could be an issue when these networks are already <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">available free, OTA.</span>
In many cases you're not dealing with CBS NBC ABC and Fox, you're dealing with companies that own these local affiliates. Just recently these local networks were taken off Dish because of a contract dispute with Sinclair brodcasting over carriage rights.
I don’t believe a word of any of this. First of all why would content creators/owners negotiate strictly with Apple when other players are just as capable of providing the service? Amazon, Google, Roku, Netflix for example come to mind. Second the content owners already have a good revenue stream with cable and satellite subscriptions. Why screw that up with lower prices for so-called cord cutters? Thirdly this whole cord cutting thing is suspect in my opinion. We hear all the blathering from faux techie wannabes in forums about how they can get all the content they want little cost. Put all those $10/month services like Netflix, Hulu+ and others together and price starts to add up.
I don’t know what Apple is going to announce in the way of a ‘new’ Apple TV but I think there’s been way too much wishful thinking and speculation and whatever is released will disappoint those same faux techie wannabes flapping their lips in the breeze about 4K and gaming consoles and App Stores and Browsers.
I don’t believe a word of any of this. First of all why would content creators/owners negotiate strictly with Apple when other players are just as capable of providing the service? Amazon, Google, Roku, Netflix for example come to mind. Second the content owners already have a good revenue stream with cable and satellite subscriptions. Why screw that up with lower prices for so-called cord cutters? Thirdly this whole cord cutting thing is suspect in my opinion. We hear all the blathering from faux techie wannabes in forums about how they can get all the content they want little cost. Put all those $10/month services like Netflix, Hulu+ and others together and price starts to add up.
I don’t know what Apple is going to announce in the way of a ‘new’ Apple TV but I think there’s been way too much wishful thinking and speculation and whatever is released will disappoint those same faux techie wannabes flapping their lips in the breeze about 4K and gaming consoles and App Stores and Browsers.
I have Netflix and OTA, it's more than enough. All for $9/month.
except if you watch sports. A ton of sports are no longer on broadcast.
This is why having options is exciting. The SlingTV interface kinda sucks, as I spend a lot of time "surfing." Consumption of content is a very personal thing, and the more options you have, the better for the consumer. Until recently, we have had *no* options.
I think back on how much money I spent on long distance phone calls, as recently as the mid 90s.
I don't understand how "CBS, Fox, and NBC" could be an issue when these networks are already <span style="line-height:22.399999618530273px;">available free, OTA.</span>
The affiliates of those stations have specific geographical footprints that they sell advertising for. When Aereo was up and running they made sure that you were within the footprint of the OTA broadcasts before you could receive the transmission via the Internet. All those issues need to be ironed out between Apple and the networks.
I'll believe they have something tangible on this front when they have ESPN -- which is owned by Disney, whose CEO sits on Apple's board -- signed on.
Until then, I see no reason why anyone else would sign on. It's a hill of beans. (Not that it bothers me anyway. I think Apple should simply get out of the content business altogether, including music, books, movies, TV etc.).
I have had many conversations over the years with cable and satalite companies where the position was always, "customers want channel packages. We tried alacarte and they did not buy." This is probably true as for the most part television is a passive activity. People plop down in front of the TV and surf around until something catches their interest. DVR's has changed this somewhaat to now poeple will at least take the time to program the DVR to get what they want. For a complete shift in how it all works will require people to become active not passive viewers. Alacarte works even if channels cost as much as HBO Now. It is the rare person who in one months time would watch everything on 30 or 40 channels that is of interest to them. The approach is subscribe to a few channels in a month, watch all you care to and the next month subscribe to a different group of channels. If the new Apple TV could make it very easy to subscribe and unsubscribe to channels the alacarte model could work very well both content and finacially for an active viewer.
This is needed sorely. I always hated to get screwed by having to buy albums for 1 or 2 songs. Apple fixed that and also made it attractive for the music industry whether they liked it or not. I now pay a crazy price for channel packages that contain hundreds of channels for a bloated price. I need to have a thin cost effective bundle and a new way to procure this content. I am confident Apple will make that happen.
Very interesting data...I am surprised it already is trending that quick. This should actually be a signal to current content providers that they need to reinvent themselves and what better way than to do it with Apple.
I would be more happy with a 5 dollar service that starts out with their own shows and gets some of the easier content that Netflix has. Then do some original programming and invest then force some of these studios to give in to the content. Everyone should make money. Someone here is trying to make a very large markup (i don't have any proof and I am completely suspecting).
Hardly surprising...whatever Apple is proposing that will result in less revenue will go nowhere. Increasing the price further into the $70-90 range would be bumping into existing basic packages already - so I don't know what savings anyone can expect from this service.
And remember that cable companies will boost the cost for data-only plans, so add internet: $60, HBO: $15, Apple Package $40, Netflix $7, and a few more, and you're back up into the $200 range.
I would be more happy with a 5 dollar service that starts out with their own shows and gets some of the easier content that Netflix has. Then do some original programming and invest then force some of these studios to give in to the content. Everyone should make money. Someone here is trying to make a very large markup (i don't have any proof and I am completely suspecting).
A $5 service if attainable would only work if it were cross platform. There currently aren't enough Apple TV owners to sustain that kind of model.
I wouldn't pay even $40 for such a service. They'd have to go $30 or less before even piquing my interest when I can just a la carte whatever I want for much cheaper.
This is needed sorely. I always hated to get screwed by having to buy albums for 1 or 2 songs. Apple fixed that and also made it attractive for the music industry whether they liked it or not. I now pay a crazy price for channel packages that contain hundreds of channels for a bloated price. I need to have a thin cost effective bundle and a new way to procure this content. I am confident Apple will make that happen.
You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.
Comments
First things first. Here's hoping Apple TV updates its "wilderness of icons interface" into a device that is user programmable through iTunes. Siri, meh! I never use the voice control on my Samsung 4K because its laser pointing remote is so user friendly. I've pretty much given up on using Siri anyway except to chuckle at how it bungles simple requests. It seems pretty obvious an updated Apple TV would stream in 4K but god help Apple if it doesn't. Standard HD is going the way of the dodo bird. I'm curious to see if Apple can turn this into a real product instead of a "hobby". A subscription service will come when Apple gets it out of the oven but the hardware and interface must be improved first.
In many cases you're not dealing with CBS NBC ABC and Fox, you're dealing with companies that own these local affiliates. Just recently these local networks were taken off Dish because of a contract dispute with Sinclair brodcasting over carriage rights.
I don’t believe a word of any of this. First of all why would content creators/owners negotiate strictly with Apple when other players are just as capable of providing the service? Amazon, Google, Roku, Netflix for example come to mind. Second the content owners already have a good revenue stream with cable and satellite subscriptions. Why screw that up with lower prices for so-called cord cutters? Thirdly this whole cord cutting thing is suspect in my opinion. We hear all the blathering from faux techie wannabes in forums about how they can get all the content they want little cost. Put all those $10/month services like Netflix, Hulu+ and others together and price starts to add up.
I don’t know what Apple is going to announce in the way of a ‘new’ Apple TV but I think there’s been way too much wishful thinking and speculation and whatever is released will disappoint those same faux techie wannabes flapping their lips in the breeze about 4K and gaming consoles and App Stores and Browsers.
I have Netflix and OTA, it's more than enough. All for $9/month.
except if you watch sports. A ton of sports are no longer on broadcast.
This is why having options is exciting. The SlingTV interface kinda sucks, as I spend a lot of time "surfing." Consumption of content is a very personal thing, and the more options you have, the better for the consumer. Until recently, we have had *no* options.
I think back on how much money I spent on long distance phone calls, as recently as the mid 90s.
Can get a TiVo Roamio (either cable version or OTA version) for $49, and then $250 for lifetime service.
Best deal out there for me. (If only I didn't already have a lifetime Premier that was still doing fine)
I still keep hoping Apple will buy-up TiVo.
The affiliates of those stations have specific geographical footprints that they sell advertising for. When Aereo was up and running they made sure that you were within the footprint of the OTA broadcasts before you could receive the transmission via the Internet. All those issues need to be ironed out between Apple and the networks.
I'm betting Disney is locked in.
I'll believe they have something tangible on this front when they have ESPN -- which is owned by Disney, whose CEO sits on Apple's board -- signed on.
Until then, I see no reason why anyone else would sign on. It's a hill of beans. (Not that it bothers me anyway. I think Apple should simply get out of the content business altogether, including music, books, movies, TV etc.).
I have had many conversations over the years with cable and satalite companies where the position was always, "customers want channel packages. We tried alacarte and they did not buy." This is probably true as for the most part television is a passive activity. People plop down in front of the TV and surf around until something catches their interest. DVR's has changed this somewhaat to now poeple will at least take the time to program the DVR to get what they want. For a complete shift in how it all works will require people to become active not passive viewers. Alacarte works even if channels cost as much as HBO Now. It is the rare person who in one months time would watch everything on 30 or 40 channels that is of interest to them. The approach is subscribe to a few channels in a month, watch all you care to and the next month subscribe to a different group of channels. If the new Apple TV could make it very easy to subscribe and unsubscribe to channels the alacarte model could work very well both content and finacially for an active viewer.
Well also BitTorrent.
More proof cable is hurting
http://www.businessinsider.com/cord-cutters-and-the-death-of-tv-2013-11
Very interesting data...I am surprised it already is trending that quick. This should actually be a signal to current content providers that they need to reinvent themselves and what better way than to do it with Apple.
Rather than destroying cable, the biggest story is the threat to the gaming console market, and game sales...
The Apple TV won't dent the console market.
Hardly surprising...whatever Apple is proposing that will result in less revenue will go nowhere. Increasing the price further into the $70-90 range would be bumping into existing basic packages already - so I don't know what savings anyone can expect from this service.
And remember that cable companies will boost the cost for data-only plans, so add internet: $60, HBO: $15, Apple Package $40, Netflix $7, and a few more, and you're back up into the $200 range.
Got us coming and going.
A $5 service if attainable would only work if it were cross platform. There currently aren't enough Apple TV owners to sustain that kind of model.
The Apple TV won't dent the console market.
It'll do worse than a dent. Look at what the wii did. Im a hard core gamer and I can see this coming... think about it.
I don't understand the incessant need to destroy markets.
€15 would be the maximum in Europe I guess.
You might wanna check with your cable company to see what packages they have.
I would actually be shocked if "hundreds of channels" was to only package they offered. Most cable companies have 20 channel packages, 75 channels, 200 channels and so on.
But if you're so worried about paying for stuff you don't want... channels will never be the cure.
Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work.
Even if you could choose the channels you want... you're still paying for content you simply cannot watch. That's the whole problem, right?
I say... skip the channels altogether and just buy the shows you want. That way you'll get exactly what you want... and none of the extra fluff.