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.
No New Apple Television Products Coming in 2012 as Content Negotiations Stall Once Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If some group of companies would get together and start some Web-only channel, it would begin the end of cable/satellite domination. I would hardly mind watching a few commercials on programs as long as they aren't annoying, tend to be tailored to me and don't treat me like an idiot (example: yelling wont make me buy your widget). Netflix is doing it with Arrested Development. If Apple and some other company worked together to produce a couple of shows, there isn't a reason it couldn't build from there. Cable channels were nothing about 30 years ago.
You're confusing content creators (networks and cable networks) with service providers (cable/satellite companies). Networks create content, and air via affiliates. Their revenue is ad and license based. Providers then buy network rights to provide that content to subscribers. Their revenue is then made via your $30 - $150 monthly bill (times their millions of subscribers). Networks seldom sell to competing simultaneous mediums, because they don't want to lose the revenue generated by licenses and the free promotions of their content to subscribers through the provider. (This is why iTunes is behind a day on network shows and a whole season on cable network shows)
As for people switching to what is known as "Alternative Content Mediums". If you look at the numbers, it's actually fairly small. Cable loses only a fraction of a percent to these alternatives. While annually; more and more people subscribe to Cable. The providers aren't going anywhere, they're just getting stronger.
They'll really need to clean up the interface then, because even now with only 20 "apps" it's a real mess.
Hey, another product that MR has been hyping up and proclaimed with certainty its coming only to back out at the 11th hour. Kinda like the iPad Mini that you guys guarenteed would be released 2 years ago and again last year? ....
Not fond of the competition ?
http://www.guessingtheapple.com/2012/05/why-apple-will-make-itv.html
http://www.guessingtheapple.com/2012/04/ipad-mini.html
On the apple TV front, I really hope there is a future for an "à-la-carte" business model. I'm probably hoping in vain. The limitations are not technical but commercial.
I agree, I would love to see a unified UI, were content is what you browse, not where it's located.
Yeah, that worked great for companies like "Revision" and "ONtv". Never heard f them? They were the Web Only saviors you spoke of. What you really want to say is "It'd be great if a web only channel came along, airing my favorite shows from cable and satellite". While the real solution is a web broadcasting model that airs comparable and superior programming to cable and satellite. That won't be for a long long time.
i see no reason why MSOs, Service Providers, Cable, Telco operators would choose to allow/enable this on their network.
it's their industry and there really isn't away around it. at the end of the day, AppleTV relies on Internet, which is provided by the aforementioned group above.
The only way i see this happening is if there is a fundamental shift in billing, and operators enable usage based billing/tiered service.
it's their industry and there really isn't away around it. at the end of the day, AppleTV relies on Internet, which is provided by the aforementioned group above.
The only way i see this happening is if there is a fundamental shift in billing, and operators enable usage based billing/tiered service.
No I didn't get them confused!! I just didn't go into extreme detail. Here's what I said more simplified!!
Network no like Apple, network like old business,old business more money (for now)
Me pay too much tv, me get Netflix
Netflix gets bigger, cable die
Network beg apple please please take our shows for less moneys!!
Apple make more moneys!!
Me now go make love to wife!!!!
WtT
Aka, they are covering their butts with talk of delays so they don't look stupid when they were always wrong
Looking at this another way...
I'm starting to realize that if Apple wants to compete, then they'll have to actually become a TV provider, no different than Dish or DirecTV. Why are they trying to negotiate deals with cable companies? And why are they trying to negotiate with the creators for show content to download like a HULU or NetFlix?
No, the key to their success is to simply directly compete with the Cable Companies or Dish/Direct by being the first internet TV provider. The difference? Channels a la carte. $1.29 a channel for tier 1. 99 cents a channel for tier 2, and probably $2 a channel for the HBOs, etc. Other specialty sports packages can simply be priced competitively like dish or even cable does. Like a pay per season type thing.
I think at those rates, the cost for 50 good channels you actually want would cost about the same as it ever does. But you wouldn't get all the crap. And if you wanted the other 200 channels you don't need, then it would cost you more. The key is to get the providers to allow them to purchase these channels at the right price to make that happen.
THEN - you've got a service that everyone wants and you sell the hardware to make it happen. TVs, boxes, and of course all the content also available with iPad/Phone app. AND, like Dish, any show you want DVR'd will simply be in the cloud for you to view on your iPad or iPhone or AppleTV. Dish has a great app for this. You can watch a bunch of LiveTV on your phone or pad (anywhere I think). I think this could definitely revolutionize television. Still live and scheduled. Still available via download after it airs. And it also opens it up to little podcast channels like the Roku has becoming available. Local time slots for commercials could be filled with ads that are deemed for you based on your interests and watching prefs. THAT might be the argument to win over the content providers. If ads can be served up to more success, then they can charge more for the ads. The whole thing could be the iTunes for the TV industry. Problem is, the TV industry isn't in trouble. The music industry was.
But all it takes is for one deal to be made. Get Time Warner to allow them to stream their networks for a price. If they sell their content to Dish, to Comcast, to Charter, to DirecTV, then why not Apple? My guess is they want to bundle channels in a way that wouldn't be cost effective for Apple. And this is what the negotiations are about. Apple probably wants to give them a cut for each registration, instead of paying up front like Cable and Dish probably do. Whatever it is, it's a new pricing model and I'm guessing it has to do with a la carte.
Within a year or two the cable companies and satellite companies would fall in line offering the same a la carte services, but with poor interfaces and poor integration since they don't actually make TVs or iPads. Google will come out with the same service and have cheaper boxes with lesser interfaces for awhile.
I'm starting to realize that if Apple wants to compete, then they'll have to actually become a TV provider, no different than Dish or DirecTV. Why are they trying to negotiate deals with cable companies? And why are they trying to negotiate with the creators for show content to download like a HULU or NetFlix?
No, the key to their success is to simply directly compete with the Cable Companies or Dish/Direct by being the first internet TV provider. The difference? Channels a la carte. $1.29 a channel for tier 1. 99 cents a channel for tier 2, and probably $2 a channel for the HBOs, etc. Other specialty sports packages can simply be priced competitively like dish or even cable does. Like a pay per season type thing.
I think at those rates, the cost for 50 good channels you actually want would cost about the same as it ever does. But you wouldn't get all the crap. And if you wanted the other 200 channels you don't need, then it would cost you more. The key is to get the providers to allow them to purchase these channels at the right price to make that happen.
THEN - you've got a service that everyone wants and you sell the hardware to make it happen. TVs, boxes, and of course all the content also available with iPad/Phone app. AND, like Dish, any show you want DVR'd will simply be in the cloud for you to view on your iPad or iPhone or AppleTV. Dish has a great app for this. You can watch a bunch of LiveTV on your phone or pad (anywhere I think). I think this could definitely revolutionize television. Still live and scheduled. Still available via download after it airs. And it also opens it up to little podcast channels like the Roku has becoming available. Local time slots for commercials could be filled with ads that are deemed for you based on your interests and watching prefs. THAT might be the argument to win over the content providers. If ads can be served up to more success, then they can charge more for the ads. The whole thing could be the iTunes for the TV industry. Problem is, the TV industry isn't in trouble. The music industry was.
But all it takes is for one deal to be made. Get Time Warner to allow them to stream their networks for a price. If they sell their content to Dish, to Comcast, to Charter, to DirecTV, then why not Apple? My guess is they want to bundle channels in a way that wouldn't be cost effective for Apple. And this is what the negotiations are about. Apple probably wants to give them a cut for each registration, instead of paying up front like Cable and Dish probably do. Whatever it is, it's a new pricing model and I'm guessing it has to do with a la carte.
Within a year or two the cable companies and satellite companies would fall in line offering the same a la carte services, but with poor interfaces and poor integration since they don't actually make TVs or iPads. Google will come out with the same service and have cheaper boxes with lesser interfaces for awhile.
Most of the world still have download caps, let alone having a fast enough infrastructure to support sustained viewing online. Until this changes, having an online service isn't practical.
Also as the cost of making shows goes up, so does the rights to show them. Only the really old stuff, like M*A*S*H etc could be had for a reasonable price. Although that can still demand a fortune.
The content owners are really only digging their own graves, I wish I could buy channels like I buy apps. I know this may not be the most effective solution, but huge cable packages only serve to piss off customers. I don't usually root for massive corporations, but I really hope Apple and even Google come out ahead in this.
Although I understand the difficultities in coming to an agreement with the major US content providers, what I don't get is why Apple can't add BBC iPlayer to the Apple TV for us here in the UK since it's already available for virtually every other Internet connected device (provided you're in the UK).
I see no reason why they couldn't add it other than simply not wanting to add something on the basis that it's not for the US market which is backward to say the least.
I see no reason why they couldn't add it other than simply not wanting to add something on the basis that it's not for the US market which is backward to say the least.
The problem with Apple teaming up with a cable provider is that outside of moving to a different area, you have no choice on the cable side. Cable companies have areas on lockdown. Around here it's either Time Warner or Cablevision (Optimum). Apple would really have to bet on everyone else caving in once a deal is struck with one.
What Apple is lacking now are Steve Jobs' negotiating skills (oft referred to as the 'reality distortion field'.) People often attribute Apple's success only to hardware and software, forgetting all the negotiating that would have paved the way for the iTunes phenomenon. I have sometimes wondered how much of that was due to Steve's much talked about ability to win people over to his vision.
The problem is that what Apple TV hopefuls are asking is for the consumer to bear almost the entire cost of content production and profit margins. Producer selling direct to consumers. But consumers don't realise how much good content costs to make, how risky it is, or how much its worth in the current climate. The great Game of Thrones example is very illustrative. If it was sold at $3 an episode day and date with TV release it wouldn't make nearly so much money as it does now.
Content is produced to drive TV subscriptions, which drives viewers to other content which then drives ad revenue across hundreds of stations, many of them with low viewer appeal. Content is sold, en masse around the world to distributors who then take full risk and responsibility for monetizing it. A TV producer in LA does not want to have to worry about how to get high ratings in Dubai, he just want to sell it on for a high price to someone he knows will have the local energy and skill to exploit it and make a slim profit.
And of course, he doesn't just sell on one series. Distributors have to buy bundles of shows, most of which are the flops that still need to be paid for. Production is risky, and despite the best intentions and the best staff, viewer expectations race forward at the pace of only the very best productions and therefore failures are more common than successes.
Unfortunately consumers have been led to believe an episode is worth $2 or a whole series about $16. In their heads it might be half that or a third. This is because they don't realise that the sell-through at the end of the chain is just squeezing the last drop of juice out of a dry orange. The big money has already been made, and most likely spent on the next year's productions.
Take a look at all the content producers. They're just ticking over, doing reasonable business. Their margins aren't obscene, and in many cases quite thin. That should give the clue that they aren't going to slash revenue just for the 'disruption' of it. And if somebody slashes it for them the thing that's going to hurt is jobs and new commissions and ultimately viewer choice.
TV could go the same way as gaming (used to be). Pay big for an item you really want ignore what you don't. But that leads to low risk development. Churning out CoD and Fifa and Tomb Raider over and over, with the risk takers going bust one a week. I guess there's a reason games companies are edging away and looking for ways to be more like TV. Spread risk, subscriptions, multiple revenue streams. etc
Content is produced to drive TV subscriptions, which drives viewers to other content which then drives ad revenue across hundreds of stations, many of them with low viewer appeal. Content is sold, en masse around the world to distributors who then take full risk and responsibility for monetizing it. A TV producer in LA does not want to have to worry about how to get high ratings in Dubai, he just want to sell it on for a high price to someone he knows will have the local energy and skill to exploit it and make a slim profit.
And of course, he doesn't just sell on one series. Distributors have to buy bundles of shows, most of which are the flops that still need to be paid for. Production is risky, and despite the best intentions and the best staff, viewer expectations race forward at the pace of only the very best productions and therefore failures are more common than successes.
Unfortunately consumers have been led to believe an episode is worth $2 or a whole series about $16. In their heads it might be half that or a third. This is because they don't realise that the sell-through at the end of the chain is just squeezing the last drop of juice out of a dry orange. The big money has already been made, and most likely spent on the next year's productions.
Take a look at all the content producers. They're just ticking over, doing reasonable business. Their margins aren't obscene, and in many cases quite thin. That should give the clue that they aren't going to slash revenue just for the 'disruption' of it. And if somebody slashes it for them the thing that's going to hurt is jobs and new commissions and ultimately viewer choice.
TV could go the same way as gaming (used to be). Pay big for an item you really want ignore what you don't. But that leads to low risk development. Churning out CoD and Fifa and Tomb Raider over and over, with the risk takers going bust one a week. I guess there's a reason games companies are edging away and looking for ways to be more like TV. Spread risk, subscriptions, multiple revenue streams. etc
USB/Thunderbolt would be sufficient for a content heavy external, otherwise they'd have ludicrously tiered storage prices...especially since Apple and much of the modern world is tired of spinning drives.
I'd like to see wireless trackpad/keyboard support (bluetooth, obviously) without having to go through an iPod/iPad/iPhone.
Some of us didn't want to wait 20 months for 4G/want an iPad with adequate storage/Don't want another phoneless iPhone.
Of course theres going to be no Apple TV. We now have the iPad mini as the perpetual rumour that will never amount to anything but 'analysts' insist on constantly batting around!
Note to Apple:
Stop playing around making "Toys" for people to play with.
Yes, I know toys make you a lot of money but you are neglecting your roots.
Ok, many people may not NEED real powerful computers any more, but that does not you should just give up pushing.
Please get back to the great company (tech wise, not money wise) you once were and push and push tech as hard as you can every single year so the whole world can move forward to better things.
Don't just dumb society down with easy to use toys, please.
Oh how I wish you were "cutting edge" for people's main computers once again.
One day, perhaps.......
Stop playing around making "Toys" for people to play with.
Yes, I know toys make you a lot of money but you are neglecting your roots.
Ok, many people may not NEED real powerful computers any more, but that does not you should just give up pushing.
Please get back to the great company (tech wise, not money wise) you once were and push and push tech as hard as you can every single year so the whole world can move forward to better things.
Don't just dumb society down with easy to use toys, please.
Oh how I wish you were "cutting edge" for people's main computers once again.
One day, perhaps.......
Apple TV in it's current form works for me in terms of access to iTunes content and Netflix on the big screen, plus mirroring.
More content provision apps would make it a far stronger offering though - for example I'd love to see the Apple TV user experience applied to BBC iPlayer, LoveFilm etc....I'm in the UK.....
At the moment, from a UK user perspective, the content provision / apps are pretty light and could do with opening up a bit to compete better with other non Apple devices.
More content provision apps would make it a far stronger offering though - for example I'd love to see the Apple TV user experience applied to BBC iPlayer, LoveFilm etc....I'm in the UK.....
At the moment, from a UK user perspective, the content provision / apps are pretty light and could do with opening up a bit to compete better with other non Apple devices.