Now we know why they made the new iMac so thin - it will be built in to that plus bigger size too! Maybe that's why the iMac delay.
I want time shifting.
I want to be able to watch any show I want. At anytime. Anywhere.
I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.
I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.
This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.
I want to buy just the channels/shows I want for a fraction of what I pay now.
I want them commercial-free and on-demand.
By design, I want to thrust Apple in as a new middleman so that Apple can make their big cut.
And I want the broadband providers (who is probably my cable company who likes making whatever they make from the system "as is") to just roll over and let Apple take that revenue while Apple's solution will be entirely dependent on the cable company's broadband pipes.
And I don't want my broadband bill to rise to make up for the decline of the cable TV subscription revenues as we all switch over to this new model.
And I want the production companies that make the shows to somehow be able to keep making the shows at the same high quality I like even though the revenue stream would likely be cut by 85% or more.
And I want brand new shows that I can't tell if I like or not to be piloted anyway- even when there would be no source of revenue for them until people like me could decide to buy them- so that all television production doesn't end with this new al-a-carte, commercial-free model. I want the entrepreneurs who take the big risks associated with piloting brand new shows to just go for it anyway... even though this amps up the risks far greater than they've ever been before.
Oh yeah. I also want local news and live events like sports included (but I won't think about how the sports get funded in this commercial-free new model where we consumers pay less than about 15% of what we pay now).
Every thread on this topic is the same. We all want a LOT for a fraction of the cost. We want Apple to handsomely benefit with us. And we want the Cable/Satt and Production companies to take the huge hit and have it all somehow work. Think!
Did you know that last year, about $650 per U.S. household in OPM (other people's money) flowed through the system "as is" from commercial revenue, the vast majority of that from commercials none of us ever saw... most running on those hundreds of channels we never watch? That's $54/month for EVERY HOUSEHOLD that someone else (the companies paying for those commercials) is subsidizing for us... money that motivates the creation of new shows and contributes to the quality of the shows that "I" would like to retain in this new model. Kill that off and it either gets made up for by who- Apple or us- in this new model OR the quality of all production must come way down to meet the new revenue flows we think we collectively covet. Again, think!
I would pay a hefty premium for a device that accomplished this. Period.
I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.
This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.
This again? I believe Steve made the comment about "cracking" the TV just to troll everyone after he checked out.
Apple making a TV just doesn't make sense. An add-on box like AppleTV? Sure. An actual television set? Not so much. There's no way Apple could compete in the current television market with the thin margins, variety of models, and price points. If Apple tries to get into the TV game, I believe that it will be one of their occasional missteps.
I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.
This....is wrong. Those shows get made because we are forced to pay for those numerous channels we don't watch (ESPN get $9 a month from the provider, History get $1.25, etc, etc.). WE are subsudizing the rest of the crap. If they weren't bundled with other channels we do watch, they would go away. That would be welcome in my book.
As for production quality going down, I for one don't care about special effects that drive up the costs. Good, well-written, shows can be cheaply made. Case in point, JourneyQuest on Youtube.
Yes, there's plenty of junk on television that "I" never watch. By my "junk" is someone else's favorite show. And the junk that the vast majority of us never watch on those hundreds of channels we never watch is still generating subsidies via the commercials that run on those channels that goes into a pool that helps pay for the great(?) stuff that "I" do like to watch.
In short, a "new model" and us paying "about 10% of what I pay now" are incompatible concepts. Either we consumers pay up big or something more like the existing model wins. Thinking Apple can somehow pull it off is- IMO- extraordinarily wishful thinking.
Look it up yourself. Commercial revenues are very important to the whole model. And having hundreds f channels that we never watch is hundreds of places for commercials we'll never be bothered with seeing generating OPM to help subsidize some of the stuff we do like on the channels we do watch. Believe whatever you wish but a new dirt-cheap, commercial-free, al-a-carte model will be a bear to actually pull off... especially with Apple as a new middleman dependent on broadband pipes entirely controlled by the cable companies we want them to overthrow.
If we currently pay $100 for a bunch of channels we never watch and $50 for broadband and this "new model" overthrows the television subscription part so that we can pay- say $20 per month for television, I expect our broadband bills to spike right up to $130+ per month. The spin will be for "high bandwidth users" (like video streamers). Doesn't this sound familiar to anyone?
^^^this. Down 11 again today and trading at a ridiculously low 11x earnings.
I want time shifting.
I want to be able to watch any show I want. At anytime. Anywhere.
I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason — television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.
I want to subscribe to channels on an a la carte basis. I want to pay a couple bucks per month for an ESPN "app" and a couple others, through my Apple ID. I then want to watch the content live or on-demand, my choice. None of those "package deals" crap. I don't need to pay for 300+ channels I don't watch.
This is the future. Hopefully Apple brings it.
Although I mostly agree with the viewpoint that it seems unlikely that apple would be able to enter the TV market and be successful while probably maintaining high price points and few model options... the same could easily be said for when they entered the Cell Phone market. Back then, there were hundreds of various phone models, at prices staggered from free to $300, or more even. Then apple sold boat loads of their non-subsidized $500 phone and proved everyone wrong.
I'm skeptical, but I'd love to see it happen. GO !!
Apple left a rather large hole in their release schedule when they moved iPads to Fall (assuming they keep a yearly release cycle from here on out).
Old Schedule:
Spring: iPads
Summer: Macs
Fall: iPhone
New Schedule:
Spring: ?
Summer: OS X & Devices
Fall: iOS & Devices
Given the current state of product updates, what are they going to release in the Spring?
<Queue rampant speculation>
Beyond network infrastructure, what about bandwidth caps?
I believe Comcast is the most generous at around 250GB per month, but I have seen some members note they have caps 1/10th that or even less.
Of course, the cable companies can raise the performance and caps - and charge more money for it. Which would kind of defeat the savings bit...
^^^this. Down 11 again today and trading at a ridiculously low 11x earnings.
The a la carte is the key... customization is what the user is looking for & Apple has known this for quite some time about TV/cable. I just don't know how Apple breaks into this industry without some huge negotiation talks, the cable co's have such a stronghold on your cable service in your particular area that Apple is just caught in a bully-market.
I truly think before we will ever actually hear about or see the actual device, the talks about contracts will pushed to the media, and we will here of the contracts & negotiations getting slipped to the press. I unfortunately do not think we will see an iTV for a couple years still. Hope I'm wrong, but the cable co's make me believe I am right.
An Apple iTV could destroy the cable co's... I mean destroy. The advertising business model would change even more so quickly.
The other item I want to add is - the TV from Apple is the key, not a cable box, and the only feasible way the market for this is started, is simply due to data speeds increasing.
I see a market for an iTV in a couple years, and I wouldn't doubt Apple is trying to find out how they can curtail the cable co's. As the interenet speeds become universally faster, there is more & more of a market for the so-called iTV...
Did Apple's entry into the cell phone business result in cell phone SERVICE rates plunging to 10%-15% of what they used to be? Then why do we think we'll somehow get our television subscription service for 10-15% of what we pay now?
This again? I believe Steve made the comment about "cracking" the TV just to troll everyone after he checked out.
Apple making a TV just doesn't make sense. An add-on box like AppleTV? Sure. An actual television set? Not so much. There's no way Apple could compete in the current television market with the thin margins, variety of models, and price points. If Apple tries to get into the TV game, I believe that it will be one of their occasional missteps.
I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.