Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
NPD: Consumers Want Content, Not 'Smart' Features, on Their TVs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think what they actually want is to be able to tell their advertisers that you are watching the advertisements, with enough proof to make the advertisers pay up.
Most of my TV watching is time shifted, so whenever an ad block comes, fast forward to the next bit of the program. Watching TV in real time can be quite annoying because of ads.
Apple faces a much larger challenge in TV content than in music. In music they were disrupting bricks and mortar using a new hardware and service model
In TV the hardware is already really good and the there are already (too) many other service providers that are digital. The cable companies are already resellers, and also bear a lot of risk burden on picking shows. Apple doesn't have competencies here.
I'm not arguing that Apple can't offer something new - I just don't think they can find the margins in it.
In TV the hardware is already really good and the there are already (too) many other service providers that are digital. The cable companies are already resellers, and also bear a lot of risk burden on picking shows. Apple doesn't have competencies here.
I'm not arguing that Apple can't offer something new - I just don't think they can find the margins in it.
Someone who has used his common sense.
These existing "smart" TVs are full of gimmicks that don't actually make the experience more efficient. They use these kinect-like gestures which just nee more effort than just a remote or Siri.
Although some features are good, like games and communication.
These existing "smart" TVs are full of gimmicks that don't actually make the experience more efficient. They use these kinect-like gestures which just nee more effort than just a remote or Siri.
Although some features are good, like games and communication.
Focus on content? What content?
$200/month cable bill and three subscriptions, guess what? Still nothing worth watching! Same old tired movies, and new ones are made for teenagers. Ten year old documentaries, and the new ones insult any intelligent person. Faked reality shows and unfunny sitcoms everywhere. Even the news is pathetic. If you're a sports nut there always seems to be another mindless game, but intelligent programming is dead.
Make some real content to focus on first.
$200/month cable bill and three subscriptions, guess what? Still nothing worth watching! Same old tired movies, and new ones are made for teenagers. Ten year old documentaries, and the new ones insult any intelligent person. Faked reality shows and unfunny sitcoms everywhere. Even the news is pathetic. If you're a sports nut there always seems to be another mindless game, but intelligent programming is dead.
Make some real content to focus on first.
SO true! I concluded over 2 years ago that the internet will one day replace TV as a medium. Books and newspapers are still around because they don't need electricity to use, radio is still around because it's crazy cheap and you can access it while you're driving your car, but the internet does almost everything TV does and does many of them better.
The only thing TV does better than the internet is provide content to huge audiences at once. During election night, news websites around the country were saturated with users and slow-loading pages due to the bandwidth demands, while the television continued to broadcast without difficulty.
All the same, thanks a lot for bringing this issue to light: more people need to realize how terrible TV and all its "content" really is.
No news is good news
Humm. "intelligent programming " may be sick, but not dead: Game of Thrones, Homeland, Dexter, Justified, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, etc.
Agree the news is pathetic and is likely to get worse. In fact we have come to the point where "no news is good news" can now be the new golden rule.
Humm. "intelligent programming " may be sick, but not dead: Game of Thrones, Homeland, Dexter, Justified, Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, etc.
Agree the news is pathetic and is likely to get worse. In fact we have come to the point where "no news is good news" can now be the new golden rule.
What I'd like out of my TV:
A range of content. Not channels, as we really do not need those anymore. It's out of date and pointless.
Lets take a hypothetical situation. Lets say you watch The Big Bang Theory. Lets say that right now, a new episode is on at 8:00pm every Thursday.
Now, if something like live sport needs to be shown, Big Bang Theory has to be cut, and the episode moves to the following week.
This just seems idiotic.
Make everything on demand. The networks can still release programs at the same time each week, just as an on-demand stream that is only active after a certain time. They can still show ads before/in-between/after (forcefully stopping you skipping them, otherwise no adverts = no content).
This way you just pick your shows from a library, 'bookmark' them and watch as you like.
For live content, a live streaming service would be provided, just for that event. Adverts would then be fed down as part of the stream in the same way current TV services work.
Each TV network would have a section for each show, where you can watch past episodes on demand, again with ads to cover their costs, etc. This would kill DVD/BlueRay sales, but TBH thats going to happen very soon anyway and its an inevitable transition.
Each TV show area could also have exclusive content such as blogs, games, etc specific to the show you love.
Television in its current state needs to die. It's just crap. We dont need channels.
As another option on top of the above. You could buy a 'season pass' to your favorite shows or networks which would make them ad-free. Adverts would only be shown if you are on 'basic'.
This would create an Xbox Live stlye subscription where you have a Gold or Silver tier which gives different benefits. For example on the 'Silver Tier' you may not get access to live sports, but on 'Gold' you would.
A range of content. Not channels, as we really do not need those anymore. It's out of date and pointless.
Lets take a hypothetical situation. Lets say you watch The Big Bang Theory. Lets say that right now, a new episode is on at 8:00pm every Thursday.
Now, if something like live sport needs to be shown, Big Bang Theory has to be cut, and the episode moves to the following week.
This just seems idiotic.
Make everything on demand. The networks can still release programs at the same time each week, just as an on-demand stream that is only active after a certain time. They can still show ads before/in-between/after (forcefully stopping you skipping them, otherwise no adverts = no content).
This way you just pick your shows from a library, 'bookmark' them and watch as you like.
For live content, a live streaming service would be provided, just for that event. Adverts would then be fed down as part of the stream in the same way current TV services work.
Each TV network would have a section for each show, where you can watch past episodes on demand, again with ads to cover their costs, etc. This would kill DVD/BlueRay sales, but TBH thats going to happen very soon anyway and its an inevitable transition.
Each TV show area could also have exclusive content such as blogs, games, etc specific to the show you love.
Television in its current state needs to die. It's just crap. We dont need channels.
As another option on top of the above. You could buy a 'season pass' to your favorite shows or networks which would make them ad-free. Adverts would only be shown if you are on 'basic'.
This would create an Xbox Live stlye subscription where you have a Gold or Silver tier which gives different benefits. For example on the 'Silver Tier' you may not get access to live sports, but on 'Gold' you would.
Agreed on at least one of those. But there is no reason why there can't be more than one or two hours of quality programming per week.
No kidding.
I know there is a natural anti-sports bias here on MR, but I couldn't be happier with the combination of WatchESPN and my iPad and AppleTV. Why? Content. It lets me stream the games I otherwise couldn't get onto my big screen TV.
And their ESPN Goal Line aggregate "channel" is the shiznit, particularly this time of year.
Compare that to the lame "smart" features on my LG TV... (And Wii-style remote? Really? Thankfully, I have a Harmony One.) I'd rather stream content from my AppleTV or PS3 than navigate the lame "smart" options on the LG. The "smart" features are really throwaway apps that nobody in their right mind would pay for, let alone use.
That said, at least my LG came with 4 HDMI inputs, unlike many of the TVs built by that other South Korean company.
I know there is a natural anti-sports bias here on MR, but I couldn't be happier with the combination of WatchESPN and my iPad and AppleTV. Why? Content. It lets me stream the games I otherwise couldn't get onto my big screen TV.
And their ESPN Goal Line aggregate "channel" is the shiznit, particularly this time of year.
Compare that to the lame "smart" features on my LG TV... (And Wii-style remote? Really? Thankfully, I have a Harmony One.) I'd rather stream content from my AppleTV or PS3 than navigate the lame "smart" options on the LG. The "smart" features are really throwaway apps that nobody in their right mind would pay for, let alone use.
That said, at least my LG came with 4 HDMI inputs, unlike many of the TVs built by that other South Korean company.
That's one of the problems, many people don't want the cable companies to 'pick shows' and they don't want their channels or packages of changes... they want to pick/pay for the shows or series themselves.
And to make it worse, in some regions you where can pick and choose and regions you can't. And when you finally do get the content, sometime you get HD and sometimes you get black bars, etc. ... Tough problem to crack to get everything to be consistent.
...
lol.... @ "Consumers don't know what they what" ... We sure do know.
A so called "Smart TV" won't be very smart it I can't watch Boardwalk Empire...
Features is all ok, just as long it doesn't annoy the heck outta users as their TRYING to watch their favourite movie.... For instance, if people wanna tweet at the same time, for god sake, don't overlay in the middle, or anywhere on the screen ..
Split screen is the only way to go...
Come to think of it... If your tweeting, you have missed parts of the movie/tv show anyway. (unless you pause).
I still reckon content is the key........ Who cares about feature upon feature, if there is no content there......
I feel this is another "movie industry" case, where we have to fight tooth and nail to get what we want.
The question is... will cable companies give in ? Or will the smart TV be an expensive flop..
I put my money on the cable companies won't budge...... Why would they ? They have got everyone right were they want them, in the palm of their hands...
Companies like Apple, need to understand despite their own efforts, TV networks won't stream for anyone. unless payment is involved.
A so called "Smart TV" won't be very smart it I can't watch Boardwalk Empire...
Features is all ok, just as long it doesn't annoy the heck outta users as their TRYING to watch their favourite movie.... For instance, if people wanna tweet at the same time, for god sake, don't overlay in the middle, or anywhere on the screen ..
Split screen is the only way to go...
Come to think of it... If your tweeting, you have missed parts of the movie/tv show anyway. (unless you pause).
I still reckon content is the key........ Who cares about feature upon feature, if there is no content there......
I feel this is another "movie industry" case, where we have to fight tooth and nail to get what we want.
The question is... will cable companies give in ? Or will the smart TV be an expensive flop..
I put my money on the cable companies won't budge...... Why would they ? They have got everyone right were they want them, in the palm of their hands...
Companies like Apple, need to understand despite their own efforts, TV networks won't stream for anyone. unless payment is involved.
Last edited:
We want NFL! We want NFL!...
I've even given up NFL. The ridiculous number of long commercial breaks totally ruin the continuity of the game. At the game it is just as bad. The guy with the big orange gloves walks on to the field and just stands there seemingly forever while the players cool off and the crowd forgets what the last play was.
Additionally the soppy, tear jerking NFLTV shorts are every bit as disruptive. It's crappy when someone's mom dies but I don't want to see a mini-chickflick about how some guy is going to play in spite of his sorrow.
As with the rest of TV land the NFL is all about the excess money and the production fluff. The bowl game or whatever is just an excuse for sappy stories, excessive graphics and commercial after commercial after commercial.
Short of Apple becoming a cable provider, you're not going to see much innovation coming from Apple in the TV market. Producing a TV won't quite cut it, as there are already many good sets being produced and of high quality. Apple is all about the user experience, and currently the TV experience lies with the cable box, not the TV itself, despite the proliferation of "smart apps." Therefore, becoming a cable provider, either by producing a cable box (unlikely) or producing a TV that has said cable box/software built it (likely), makes sense if Apple is looking to remake that experience.
What we need desperately is an a la carte model. With hundreds of channels, content and the quality therein has become diluted. Like myself, I presume the majority of people watch anywhere between 10-20 channels 99% of the time. Of course, an a la carte model would need to match the same level of revenue generation that cable packages currently provide. I think a price of $1.99-$2.49 a month per channel 'app' would be appropriate. That would be around $40-$50 a month if you happen to watch something like 20 channels, which aligns with what people pay now for cable (on top of Internet).
I have no problem with commercials in their current form. The channel companies need to earn revenue for the content they produce. Perhaps Apple could bring some innovation here though, similar to iAds. Commercials and interactive ads are necessary when it comes to TV.
What we need desperately is an a la carte model. With hundreds of channels, content and the quality therein has become diluted. Like myself, I presume the majority of people watch anywhere between 10-20 channels 99% of the time. Of course, an a la carte model would need to match the same level of revenue generation that cable packages currently provide. I think a price of $1.99-$2.49 a month per channel 'app' would be appropriate. That would be around $40-$50 a month if you happen to watch something like 20 channels, which aligns with what people pay now for cable (on top of Internet).
I have no problem with commercials in their current form. The channel companies need to earn revenue for the content they produce. Perhaps Apple could bring some innovation here though, similar to iAds. Commercials and interactive ads are necessary when it comes to TV.
Between Netflix, Hulu+ and iTunes I have plenty of content on Apple TV. More than I can watch or care to watch actually.
I want a smarter TV, with full iOS style functionality, and an Ecosystem that integrates more tightly with other Apple products.
TV as is has plenty of content and is in decline so clearly it is not all about content, and having dozens of monthly subscription services is not the answer either.
I want a smarter TV, with full iOS style functionality, and an Ecosystem that integrates more tightly with other Apple products.
TV as is has plenty of content and is in decline so clearly it is not all about content, and having dozens of monthly subscription services is not the answer either.
I want everything but pay for nothing
You've just described current U.S. culture to a tee. Bravo.
why bother having ala carte channels when you can have an ala carte content? That is, aren't 'channels' just pre-packaged content that someone else created for you?
Ala carte to me, means that I get to pick and the choose the individual shows/series, the concept of channels don't exist (or is optional).
You really think studios/content creators are going to willing switch to an ala carte model over charging broadcast/cable/satellite providers based on a subscription model?
So true. Let's hope 2013 is the year of moderation when it comes to the proliferation of social media.
Yeah, but TV won't go out without a fight. Too many TV addicted people, too much money to be made and a lot of people in the business who don't want the money train to stop. Maybe it will take another 5 years before we get any serious changes that benefit the consumer and are in sync with the times.
no... I don't, that's why it's a tough problem to solve. My point is that a real ala carte model, means the consumer gets to pick a choose the content ( many people want the option to buy Game of Thrones without having to buy HBO, model)
The problem is also that the creators and network cable are sometimes the same entity.
.
Last edited: