Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The Captain

macrumors regular
Oct 14, 2008
129
199
A la carte tv is nice to think about, but I don't think most people fully understand how difficult that would be to pull off. After all, a lot of those channels survive based on the success of other channels. They don't necessarily work on their own. No one out there actually watches all 200 or so channels they get, but chances are the ones they do are supported by the many. In fact, with an a la carte system, there's a good chance that you will ultimately end up with less options to choose from.

Best case scenario would be to hope many other people share the same taste in programming, which will keep your shows on the air. But that doesn't seem to be the case, evidenced by the hordes of bad scripted and reality programming that gets good ratings.

I don't think the supporters of A la carte TV have really given much thought to the consequences of the idea, or they have little understanding of how TV gets made. Right now is the best TV has ever been in terms of variety of choices, level of talent, quality of productions, and amount of experimentation. And the trend seem s to be that it's only getting better as we go forward. Bundled networks have allowed for a vast amount of new talent to get their starts. It has allowed for shows that are experimenting with formate or story lines to actually be made in the first place. Most of the FX shows like Louie, It's Always Sunny, Wilfred or Archer would never have gotten made in a A la Cate system. And those are just a few examples from one network out of hundreds.

Right now TV is being viewed as more cutting edge, more experimental, and having more freedom and variety than Hollywood ever was. How many times have we heard lately about how Hollywood movies are in trouble. That there is no risk taking and everything is a sequel to a franchise? Well that's because the film industry is an A la carte model and that's what you get.

The comparisons with iTunes is also not applicable. Well it did save consumes a bit of money (a full album is still $9.99) it mostly just cut the labels out as middleman (though they still are a bit). The artist themselves where mostly not effected too much since the main difference is that bands make most of their money touring. There is no "touring" for a TV crew. A TV crew gets their money upfront in the form of day/project rates or hourly. A band playing a few gigs to save up the money to rent studio time for a new project, is much different that needing to have a budget in place to hire the 5-20 man crew, fly them to location, pay for post production time ect. The editor need to be paid wether the show is a hit or not. The grips have rent, and need to be paid when shooting is complete, not after some internet sales. Studios are able to do this all on such a grand scale now because bundling allows them to spread the risk of any one project throughout the advertising revenue of the networks other shows or even other networks. The great thing is this even applies to small networks and production houses so that all levels of the industry can take more chances and flourish more than before.

How is removing all of that "better" just because there's an apple logo on it now?
 
Last edited:

T-Will

macrumors 65816
Sep 8, 2008
1,042
433
Then it will fail.

I don't want to do hand signals to my TV and I don't want to talk to it and be frustrated when it doesn't understand me. I want it to just work without delay.

Same with having an iPhone or iPad used as the primary input device. If that's the solution it will fail. You can't ask people to own another expensive device and have it available at all times to control your TV.

I see the point about not having to use hand signals, I don't think that would be really useful.

But I would imagine a lot of people already watch TV with their iPhone/iPad at arms reach, so I don't think it would be a bad solution to use an iOS device as a remote. Although, a dedicated remote I think is still the best solution, one that has a simple layout (like the Apple TV's remote) but also integrates a microphone for Siri/voice integration.
 

Robin4

macrumors 6502
Feb 6, 2010
355
26
RTD-NC
A few days ago I read about Disney signing up with Netflix. I thought this might be a sign that content providers are beginning to break the mold. Cable might not be a way to the future.

I wonder if this is the starting point. I certainly hope so.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,145
3,861
So. We have the iPad and the iPad Mini. So I'm gonna guess next up will be the iPad Remote®.

I'd rather have a simple Bluetooth remote that could also be used with an iPad.
 
Last edited:

phr33k

macrumors newbie
Nov 22, 2012
19
0
I see what you mean... yet, everything indicates Apple's going to have an amazing quarter - best ever - and yet investors have the stock on a roller coaster. To me, seems like positioning for profit taking in Q1.

I see what your aiming at
 

cclloyd

macrumors 68000
Oct 26, 2011
1,760
147
Alpha Centauri A
What would be perfect is if it uses my existing xfinity service for TV,

Have channel 0 be Apple TV interface
Channel 1 be ondemand,
and so on for the normal channels.

Basically the TV setup I know and love, but with that apple flare, design, and UI, plus Apple TV built in.
 

lilo777

macrumors 603
Nov 25, 2009
5,144
0
Since when have Sony revolutionized anything since the Walkman?

Sony inventions since Walkman:

* CD (with Philips)
* MD (MiniDisc)
* DVD (with other companies)
* Blu Ray Disc
* AVCHD (Advanced Video Coding High Definition) - with Panasonic
* Ultra portable laptops (which were, as some here would say, copied by Apple when they released MBA)
* SLT (Single-Lens Translucent) Digital Cameras
 

danakin

macrumors 6502
Dec 6, 2012
328
719
Toronto
Sony inventions since Walkman:

* CD (with Philips)
* MD (MiniDisc)
* DVD (with other companies)
* Blu Ray Disc
* AVCHD (Advanced Video Coding High Definition) - with Panasonic
* Ultra portable laptops (which were, as some here would say, copied by Apple when they released MBA)
* SLT (Single-Lens Translucent) Digital Cameras

Sony has been a very innovative company throughout its history. No doubt, their missteps in the past dozen years or so have taken some of the shine off their brand. What doesn't change though is that they, unlike other hardware manufacturers, are also big-time content producers. And yet, even with this key piece, revolutionizing television hasn't been heard about from them.

Off topic (somewhat), I went to check out one of the new 4K Sony TVs this week and WOW! Looks like they will make native 4K content available via download to a hard-drive in the TV itself. No doubt Columbia releases.
 

Peace

Cancelled
Apr 1, 2005
19,546
4,556
Space The Only Frontier
Sony inventions since Walkman:

* CD (with Philips)
* MD (MiniDisc)
* DVD (with other companies)
* Blu Ray Disc
* AVCHD (Advanced Video Coding High Definition) - with Panasonic
* Ultra portable laptops (which were, as some here would say, copied by Apple when they released MBA)
* SLT (Single-Lens Translucent) Digital Cameras

I beg to differ on the Ultra portable laptops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerBook_100

And the Blu Ray Disc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

"The "Blu-ray Disc founder group" was started on May 20, 2002 by MIT and nine leading electronic companies: Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, and Samsung.
 

TallManNY

macrumors 601
Nov 5, 2007
4,742
1,594
No, you're right and the fact that it's difficult is probably why TV is the last to be disrupted. But I can't picture Apple making a move into the TV market without changing the business model, I really don't think they're that dumb. Without affecting distribution, they really have no leverage.

In the end I think it's the consumers that will decide and not the companies. Whoever makes the better value proposition will win. I pay Time Warner a ton of money just so I can watch Laker games because I'm subsidizing a ton of channels in languages I don't understand, oxygen, the lifetime network, AKA channels I don't care about. If someone could give me a value proposition where I only pay for what I actually watch, I would switch in a heartbeat and my $$$ would follow.

I doubt you are subsidizing those channels all that much. I suspect the channels that mentioned get very little money from Time Warner. They make their revenue from advertising. It is the live sports channels that know that they are basically the last reason keeping lots of folks from cutting back to just an internet connection. So the sport channels are the ones that get lion's share of the payment from the cable companies.
 

blizaine

macrumors 6502
Sep 17, 2003
355
157
I think Apple is working to re-invent the cablebox/dvr. Not just the appletv, but a box that has appletv features with multiple hd tuners and in home sharing to other boxes. Pretty much every DVR's interface hasn't changed in 10 years and they ALL suck. Google TV was a nice attempt but it's UI sucks as well, and you shouldn't need a keyboard for your TV.
 

Liquorpuki

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2009
2,286
8
City of Angels
I doubt you are subsidizing those channels all that much. I suspect the channels that mentioned get very little money from Time Warner. They make their revenue from advertising. It is the live sports channels that know that they are basically the last reason keeping lots of folks from cutting back to just an internet connection. So the sport channels are the ones that get lion's share of the payment from the cable companies.

ESPN per subscriber fee is around $5, so that's how much Time Warner pays ESPN to middleman their channel. Meanwhile they charge like $50 for me to get access to ESPN. I also have to rent a cable box to turn coax into HDMI when the same content could be streamed through the internet if they developed the infrastructure. I also have to pay a service charge for a guy to come staple coax under my carpet and flip a switch outside. If all I want to do is watch ESPN, how am I not getting ripped off?
 

435713

macrumors 6502a
May 19, 2010
834
153
Thinner TV's confirmed!!! :p

*had to*
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mike MA

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2012
2,089
1,811
Germany
“When I go into my living room and turn on the TV, I feel like I have gone backwards in time by 20 to 30 years,” Cook told Williams. “It’s an area of intense interest. I can’t say more than that."

For the first time Tim sounds like Steve :D
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
Why do we need a all-in-one ? More importantly, why does it need to come from Apple,,, their a computer company, not a television company.

Apple may as well go to everything, including the kitchen sink...

Soon we shall see Apple turning into IKEA...

:eek: Hell no ... :eek:
 

nickgri

macrumors member
May 9, 2011
95
0
Tv

Forget all the fancy stuff at first Apple-make millions by simply offering a "bookmark" or send feature to a remote which allows the advertisers to send you to their website either now or later-simple.
That's what they want to get us to look further at their products right-well make it happen and charge them for it-duh!
Apple could start by making it a lot simpler to type in your info rather than that scroll to each letter pain in the butt thing they have now-totally laborious-helloooo Apple-you can do better!
 

bearcatrp

macrumors 68000
Sep 24, 2008
1,733
69
Boon Docks USA
If apple dumps the apple tv puck for a actual tv, then I will be looking elsewhere to stream my movies. If apple can make a apple tv the size of a mac mini, user changeable hard drive and get content up the gazzo, (ABC, NBC, CBS, all sports, etc.) that I can click on the icon to watch, and record when I want, then i'm in for a subscription. Don't think apple can pull off getting into the TV manufacturing. Better to hook up to any tv than be strapped to apple's eco system.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.