PDA

View Full Version : Will ATV now support the streaming Radio stations in itunes?




acidzerocool
Jan 16, 2008, 08:12 AM
Just as the title says. Will ATV witht he new update now support the streaming of the radio stations in itunes?

THanks



MikieMikie
Jan 16, 2008, 01:10 PM
Unlikely. Surely "The Steve" would have mentioned it...

JohnnyGadgets
Jan 16, 2008, 04:18 PM
not from Apple. It's all about paying. I firmly believe playing radio stations in Itunes was either originally a plan to sell subscriptions like satellite radio but never worked out. The only reason Apple made any new features in atv was to sell more content.:apple:

FreeState
Jan 16, 2008, 06:19 PM
not from Apple. It's all about paying. I firmly believe playing radio stations in Itunes was either originally a plan to sell subscriptions like satellite radio but never worked out. The only reason Apple made any new features in atv was to sell more content.:apple:

But podcasts are free.... so not all content is paid. I believe Apple makes more on its equipment than content.

imlucid
Jan 16, 2008, 06:40 PM
not from Apple. It's all about paying. I firmly believe playing radio stations in Itunes was either originally a plan to sell subscriptions like satellite radio but never worked out. The only reason Apple made any new features in atv was to sell more content.:apple:

.Mac and flickr photos are free as well...

Kevin

JohnnyGadgets
Jan 17, 2008, 11:24 AM
podcasts are an apple thing/tool as is .mac and they have deals with youtube and flicker. too many internet radio stations to have deals with. i suppose since they have the ability already in itunes to play internet radio they should add it to atv. i personally don't like have to turn on my tv to listen to radio however. thats why i have a Roku.:apple:

ipedro
Jan 17, 2008, 11:34 AM
I'd rather have LastFM than internet radio. At least I'd be listening to something chosen for me according to my taste.

Avatar74
Jan 17, 2008, 12:09 PM
Actually, none of the above answers are correct. It's not about selling more content, or adding value added services to promote the iTunes Store content (for which Apple barely makes anything anyway)... Apple would only benefit from Podcasts and Internet Radio that make their machine more competitive as an alternative to traditional conduits of distribution.

Think about it. I was watching an HD podcast the other day and it suddenly occurred to me... Jesus, Apple is really on to something here. The same way the internet has opened the door for recording artists and really scared the record industry about potential obsolescence of their distro model, people could buy an AppleTV and instantly have access to not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of sources of programming, all on demand, and all free... How the hell would that NOT benefit Apple, whose business model is to take a loss opening access to a tremendous volume of content that customers want in order to make MUCH bigger margins on the hardware that runs it. How could MORE content hurt their model? It can't.

The real answer has more to do with what's happening behind the scenes of internet radio. Currently, there's a legal morass surrounding it just like what killed Betamax. And this mess could last years, and it could ensnare companies like Apple just as it did Sony.

The whole thing has to do around licensing of internet radio stations and the payment of Performing Rights Societies royalties (e.g. ASCAP, BMI, etc.) to the artists. Broadcast stations are required to pay for blanket licenses... but most internet radio stations do not.

What happens if AppleTV streams radio stations... will they get sued or will they be required to tack on licensing fees that will undoubtedly come out of their pockets (and by "their pockets" I really mean your pocket)? Apple's probably waiting until the issue is settled before they get their hands in it.

Frankly, that's the real issue and that's the right decision on Apple's part at this point in time.

P.S. For those of you who are about to mention the writer's strike... The strike is not a legal action being taken. Apple is under no threat of lawsuits from the copyright owners (the studios) just because the writers are striking to re-negotiate their contracts with the content owners over the very issue of internet distributed content and the like.

JohnnyGadgets
Jan 17, 2008, 11:21 PM
I'm somewhat familiar with the internet radio legal problems and the recent legislation to help keep the small internet radio streamers like RadioParadise.com
from going broke paying more than radio stations for their content. I love internet radio especially the listener supported commercial free variety. I don't believe the hardware vendors have any liability here so I don't believe that's why AppleTV doesn't provide that feature. Itunes does. So Apple might have something else in mind or just don't think the extra effort is worth the payback. Remember Itunes is free so the only revenue from it is from content and some sales of hardware that result. AppleTV is about the video! Yes it plays music (with album art) but it is primarily a video device. I would love something like RadioParadise with Snappradio (Flicker photos with tags that match the currently playing song/album/artist). Perhaps with the Flicker integration we might see something down the line.:cool:

MikieMikie
Jan 18, 2008, 07:36 AM
Actually, none of the above answers are correct. It's not about selling more content, or adding value added services to promote the iTunes Store content (for which Apple barely makes anything anyway)... Apple would only benefit from Podcasts and Internet Radio that make their machine more competitive as an alternative to traditional conduits of distribution...
(snipped for space)


While you offer a very reasoned argument, I am more than a little disappointed with the focus of the updates that have been provided by Apple. And I believe this feeling is widespread and reflected in the quality of answers in this thread. I further believe the major focus of these updates speak directly to Apple's new attitude. As an example, the iPhone updates still leave the device crippled (no copy/paste, etc.), but have made the ITMS available. And Starbucks(!).

This focus seems centered on making devices into credit cards, with Apple's ITMS on the other end.

I am more reasoning than emotional, but recent updates have taught me to expect nothing from Apple except what shipped in the box, and is creating a real attitude in me that I used to reserve for Micro$oft. I have been an iPhone owner for over 6 months, have seen no new apps, and yet have been plugged in to the Apple $ machine (ITMS). I resent that they went to all that programming effort to provide me with an additional way to spend my money while still leaving the device wanting for basic features.

The same approach seems to extend to my :apple:TV. While the 1.1 update provided YouTube, and this new upgrade provides access to other internet services, we would not have this new update were it not for Apple's hope we will turn our devices into credit cards directly tied to their ITMS.

There have been lists, lists and more lists of what people needed from Apple -- updates that would have made the device easier to use, easier to navigate. Sorting. Grouping. Simple features that would have improved the experience. Both iPhone and :apple:TV are "closed" devices -- and devices they are -- and Apple has no responsibility to the owners of these devices once they have been purchased. I bought both devices aware of their limitations because they worked for what I needed.

I just wish Apple would shift their focus back to the end-user.

But Apple seems to be focused elsewhere.

Avatar74
Jan 18, 2008, 10:53 AM
I just wish Apple would shift their focus back to the end-user.

But Apple seems to be focused elsewhere.

I have to disagree with you here on a few fronts.

First... no one guaranteed you anything you didn't get. Apple never guaranteed third party apps or when they were coming, for iPhone. Apple never guaranteed that iTunes Music Store would do anything other than allow you to purchase music... It's a store, that's the point. Is there some part of you giving up something (money) in exchange for something in return (music) that you don't understand?

That being said... no one forced you to use the iTunes Music Store. You don't even need a membership like you do with umpteen other services. If anything, Apple fought the industry on this one and won the argument on behalf of the consumer.

As for listening to the design issues... When was the last time Microsoft gave higher priority to consumer feedback than vendor demands in the design and revision of their products? Or any other company for that matter.

They're a company like any other. They have to make money to keep putting out products that you desire and you desire them because they have a reputation for good industrial design... or because you like to brag that you have a nice shiny toy... in either case, you want what they have, but you're griping about it as if you are being forced to buy their products.

When I bought iPhone I knew what I was getting into. It was plain as day. I knew the risks with AppleTV, too. They're not perfect devices, but I accept my fanboy fervor for what it is. I didn't have to pay $600 for the iPhone, but I believe in the underlying concept so I supported it.

The updates to AppleTV have taken as long as they have because of several factors... one being the intense focus on getting iPhone off the ground because, contrary to what kids like to imagine about how the world works, Apple had a deal with AT&T to release the product by a certain time, and there were problems in development that required them to pull resources from other teams to get it done. I work in a similar environment called "reality." Every day I'm putting down one ball to pick up another and run with it when there are fire drills left and right.

At any rate, here's what Apple did that many others did not... instead of ditching the product and leaving everyone in the dust, they went back to the drawing boards with the data they got from initial sales. To get the industry on board for rentals is not an overnight process. Again, children might look at what parents do for a living and have a very fanciful version of "work" in their head but the reality is that it takes months of negotiations to get something like this off the ground. Apple needed to have it in place or they'd get skewered with "just another update" criticism. They came back refusing to ditch AppleTV, why? Because Jobs actually really believes in this concept. They are committed to making it work, but making it work RIGHT takes time.

The fact is, AppleTV rev 2 was shaped more by consumer feedback, real owner feedback and not just market surveys, than any product I've seen in recent memory. One thing Apple is very good at is putting out feeler products... I call them production prototypes... to get an initial, real reaction before they actually start taking chances on revisions that may or may not be well-received. I know of very few product people who do this in any industry.

CWallace
Jan 18, 2008, 12:06 PM
With respect, Apple cannot prosper solely as a provider of computer hardware, at least without a vigorous refresh cycle that would likely impact the style and substance many of us value to drive us to pay the premium to purchase the hardware in the first place.

Things like the iTunes Music Store not only add value to many of the Apple products we own, they add value (through revenue) to Apple itself, allowing them to continue to offer us innovative products.

And Apple continues to improve those products - Tuesday was proof of that. The iPhone may not have dozens of new applications six months after it shipped, but neither did my Motorola Razr. And the applications that shipped on my Razr were never improved. That has not been the case with my iPhone, where existing features have had their functionality improved, even if it has not been as compelling as some wish/demand.

The iPod Touch added new features that ship with new units. Apple could have forced existing iPod Touch users to buy a new unit to get them, but instead offered it as an upgrade for $20. True, they could have given it away for free, but they could have done the same with Leopard.

It costs money to develop new features. And yet only the iPhone provides a pre-built continuing revenue stream that would fund said development. Everything else either will be funded from the purchase of new versions of the equipment itself (so you need to buy the new model to get the feature) or it will be supported through new revenue sources.

So instead of forcing us to buy new :apple:tvs to rent content or playback HD content with discrete multi-channel audio, it is given to use through a software upgrade on our existing machine.

But that Apple makes money from selling and renting us that content is what allows them to offer it as a free-update.

MikieMikie
Jan 18, 2008, 01:16 PM
I have to disagree with you here on a few fronts.

First... no one guaranteed you anything you didn't get. Apple never guaranteed third party apps or when they were coming, for iPhone. Apple never guaranteed that iTunes Music Store would do anything other than allow you to purchase music... It's a store, that's the point. Is there some part of you giving up something (money) in exchange for something in return (music) that you don't understand?


I need to quote myself, I guess:
"I bought both devices aware of their limitations because they worked for what I needed. "

I never implied that I didn't get what I bought, nor did I imply that I bought something with the expectation that Apple would change it into something I wanted but didn't buy.


That being said... no one forced you to use the iTunes Music Store. You don't even need a membership like you do with umpteen other services. If anything, Apple fought the industry on this one and won the argument on behalf of the consumer.


I don't feel forced to use it -- I have purchase music through it, and was/am satisfied enough with the experience to repeat it.

As for listening to the design issues... When was the last time Microsoft gave higher priority to consumer feedback than vendor demands in the design and revision of their products? Or any other company for that matter.


I remember when Apple did. I guess that's my whole point.

They're a company like any other. They have to make money to keep putting out products that you desire and you desire them because they have a reputation for good industrial design... or because you like to brag that you have a nice shiny toy... in either case, you want what they have, but you're griping about it as if you are being forced to buy their products.

I don't disagree, but your vitriol aside, I don't think the company's attitude of "crap for the rest of us" is reflected in this shiny toy attitude. I do not resent their desire to make a profit, as that's what they're there for -- I just had hoped for more end-user thoughfulness. That's all.

When I bought iPhone I knew what I was getting into. It was plain as day. I knew the risks with AppleTV, too. They're not perfect devices, but I accept my fanboy fervor for what it is. I didn't have to pay $600 for the iPhone, but I believe in the underlying concept so I supported it.


Read my endorsement of the device above. I bought it FOR WHAT IT DID. I knew it was incomplete, and was willing to accept it as "complete, never to be updated." But I was hoping for simple improvements, which have yet to come. The ITMS came pretty quick, though....

The updates to AppleTV have taken as long as they have because of several factors... one being the intense focus on getting iPhone off the ground because, contrary to what kids like to imagine about how the world works, Apple had a deal with AT&T to release the product by a certain time, and there were problems in development that required them to pull resources from other teams to get it done. I work in a similar environment called "reality." Every day I'm putting down one ball to pick up another and run with it when there are fire drills left and right.

Join the club. I have been in deadline-driven industries, including running product development departments, for 25 years.

At any rate, here's what Apple did that many others did not... instead of ditching the product and leaving everyone in the dust, they went back to the drawing boards with the data they got from initial sales. To get the industry on board for rentals is not an overnight process. Again, children might look at what parents do for a living and have a very fanciful version of "work" in their head but the reality is that it takes months of negotiations to get something like this off the ground. Apple needed to have it in place or they'd get skewered with "just another update" criticism. They came back refusing to ditch AppleTV, why? Because Jobs actually really believes in this concept. They are committed to making it work, but making it work RIGHT takes time.

The fact is, AppleTV rev 2 was shaped more by consumer feedback, real owner feedback and not just market surveys, than any product I've seen in recent memory. One thing Apple is very good at is putting out feeler products... I call them production prototypes... to get an initial, real reaction before they actually start taking chances on revisions that may or may not be well-received. I know of very few product people who do this in any industry.

Yeah, and still no internet radio. Why? Because it won't make Apple any more money. And that was my original point.

Saddened. :(

MikieMikie
Jan 18, 2008, 01:25 PM
With respect, Apple cannot prosper solely as a provider of computer hardware, at least without a vigorous refresh cycle that would likely impact the style and substance many of us value to drive us to pay the premium to purchase the hardware in the first place.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Things like the iTunes Music Store not only add value to many of the Apple products we own, they add value (through revenue) to Apple itself, allowing them to continue to offer us innovative products.

I like ITMS. I never said I didn't. I did say that I felt some resentment that the effort put into the WIFI ITMS could have been better used upgrading the iPhone, making it more attractive, and thus selling more iPhones...

And Apple continues to improve those products - Tuesday was proof of that.

By adding more ways for us to $pend money?

The iPhone may not have dozens of new applications six months after it shipped, but neither did my Motorola Razr.

You could have picked a better comparison, like "my refrigerator doesn't get updates from Amana, either." I think a Razr, that is given away, is hardly the same thing.

And the applications that shipped on my Razr were never improved. That has not been the case with my iPhone, where existing features have had their functionality improved, even if it has not been as compelling as some wish/demand.

No argument. Some improvement is better than none. But don't tell me there aren't gaping holes you could drive a bus through...

The iPod Touch added new features that ship with new units. Apple could have forced existing iPod Touch users to buy a new unit to get them, but instead offered it as an upgrade for $20. True, they could have given it away for free, but they could have done the same with Leopard.

Back to the refrigerator?

It costs money to develop new features. And yet only the iPhone provides a pre-built continuing revenue stream that would fund said development. Everything else either will be funded from the purchase of new versions of the equipment itself (so you need to buy the new model to get the feature) or it will be supported through new revenue sources.

So instead of forcing us to buy new :apple:tvs to rent content or playback HD content with discrete multi-channel audio, it is given to use through a software upgrade on our existing machine.

But that Apple makes money from selling and renting us that content is what allows them to offer it as a free-update.

A free update. To spend money. Now you're just making my point for me. ;)

theBB
Jan 18, 2008, 01:53 PM
Just as the title says. Will ATV with the new update now support the streaming of the radio stations in itunes?

Well, there is a bit of argument over whether the new software update will make AppleTV as a destination or source for AirTunes. If it becomes a destination, then you could probably stream radio stations from your computer to AppleTV, but your computer would have to be on. However, if it is a source for AirTunes, then most likely no.

All that talk about forcing users to paid content is unfair. iTunes, iPod and AppleTV has great support for podcasts, which are free.

imlucid
Jan 18, 2008, 02:38 PM
Well, there is a bit of argument over whether the new software update will make AppleTV as a destination or source for AirTunes. If it becomes a destination, then you could probably stream radio stations from your computer to AppleTV, but your computer would have to be on. However, if it is a source for AirTunes, then most likely no.air. iTunes, iPod and AppleTV has great support for podcasts, which are free.

AppleTV is not a source for AirTunes. For AirTunes it is for all intents and purposes an Airport Express with UI feedback.

Kevin

gkarris
Jan 18, 2008, 02:44 PM
AppleTV Take 3... ;)

daveL
Jan 18, 2008, 03:44 PM
I stream internet radio throughout my home using iTunes and Airport Express all the time, and have been for several years. I can't see what's different about ATV acting as a remote speaker for iTunes. Makes no sense to me.