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

Disney and CBS Signing on to Apple TV Subscription Service? Tablet to be 'multimedia gadget'

iMat77 said:
Well, it all seems good and interesting. Except for the fact this is US-only.
IF Apple wants to make serious money in selling hardware they have to make content available all over the world. The success of the iPhone was, in great part, due to the App Store being available worldwide. The Tablet, AppleTV or whatever, will only stand a chance outside the US if they are backed with an Store that truly delievers content and not some half backed solution.
...

I know it isn't entirely down to Apple to make it come true, but I think they should invest a great deal of resources in these negotations.
Click to expand...

Word.
The marketplace is global now.
This whole "regional thing" makes absolutely no sense any more.

Not in the movie industry. Not in the music industry. Not in the games industry. Not in the hardware industry. Not in the clothes industry. Not in any industry.
 
str1f3 said:
LOL, you're actually linking to a George Ou article? Hasn't he been banned from the tech world? He's like Rob Enderle without paychecks from Dell! Some other articles by Ou:

http://macalope.com/2006/08/30/george-ous-greates-apple-hits/

While I agree that it's not as good as a Blu-Ray disc, it would consume too much bandwidth. Besides most people can't tell the difference between HD and DVD quality.
Click to expand...

most people? really? my father who copies most of his stuff recently saw my disc of blazing saddles and was amazed at the clarity compared to his DVD version... and he's hardly a tv/movie buff.
 
Minimoose 360 said:
The term "multimedia gadget" scares the crap out of me.

Every time I hear new news about the tablet, I feel like the ball fumbles more and more out of Apple's hand.

If this tablet runs the iPhone OS or a slightly modified version of that OS, it will scream fail. It needs to be able to run real applications in the same way that any other Mac does.

Just my dollar minus 98 cents.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what you said (and MorphingDragon in #2). If it's just another MM gadget it's gonna be a big disappointment for me. It needs to run not just Safari/Mail, but preferably also iWork, AMP, and BBEdit.
 
Truffy said:
Yeah, what you said (and MorphingDragon in #2). If it's just another MM gadget it's gonna be a big disappointment for me. It needs to run not just Safari/Mail, but preferably also iWork, AMP, and BBEdit.
Click to expand...

It will be at least as versatile as an iPod touch. It will certainly have mail/browser, and at least third party document edit abilities. Yet to be seen whether it is based of of the touch version of mac os or the mac version. It's not going to be a mobile version of apple tv. I take solace from the fact that a few of the snow leopard changes seem suspiciously finger-friendly.
 
kzin said:
that's not even close to being good enough for taking notes in a meeting, or class.
Click to expand...

Good enough for me. If it supports blutooth keyboards, even better. But I can take notes in meetings now on my iPhone, so the much bigger tablet keyboard would presumably be even better. Maybe throw in a little handwriting recognition, and we're golden.
 
I agree the touchscreen keyboard would be good enough for me, and am looking forward to what 2010 brings in the tablet world.
(and hey Cliff, good to see you on here 🙂
 
bergmef said:
I would think NBC, since they were just bought by a company that will lose customers (Comcast).
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Very possible that it's both NBC and Fox since those are the two big guns missing. The only thing about NBC, though, is that the deal isn't done quite yet. The FCC's gotta lot of work ahead of them to approve the sale. Fox, on the other hand, is trying to force cable providers to triple their rates for Fox programming (FX, Fox Sports, etc... but not necessarily the local affiliates) and Murdoch has stated publicly that he wants to turn most of their free online content from Fox owned sites into paid content.
 
str1f3 said:
Yes, most people cannot tell the difference between an upconverting DVD player and HD. A study was conducted on this:

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20091014/study-shows-people-difference-hd/.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but that study did not show an A-B comparison of HD vs SD - it showed the same SD clip to two different groups, told one group it was HD and the other group that it was SD.

Also, note that a DVD player is upconverting a bitrate of around 8 Mbps, from a 307Kpixel source. Itunes "HD" is around 4 Mbps from a 922Kpixel source - three times as many pixels at half the bitrate. I've noticed when doing web videos it's often better to make a smaller picture and do a 2X in the player, than to spread the same bitrate across four times as many pixels. Scaling a higher quality source seems to give a better picture than a big low quality source.

Let's redo the Dutch study comparing a Blu-ray to an Itunes movie side-by-side, and see if nobody can tell the difference. 😉
 
Here's a pretty good article on this topic: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/22/can-steve-jobs-unplug-cable-tv/

Those of you imagining that we are somehow going to get a full cable/satt replacement at a huge monthly price discount are living in a serious illusion. There is no (voluntary) way that the cable/satt Goliaths are going to allow this to happen- not through their broadband pipes.

Plus, there's just too much money involved if anyone thinks that we are going to get a $30/month eat everything package of iTunes TV content "as is" (commercial free). Key quote: "Another issue is whether iTunes TV would be advertising-free. U.S. broadcast and cable networks sold $43.4 billion in ads in 2008, according to TNS Media Intelligence." Companies don't just jettison $43.4 billion for a little slice of $30/month. Remember the system "as is" has the vast majority of people happily(?) paying a cable/satt subscription AND accepting an ever-increasing number of commercials on most of the channels they receive.

Lastly, we still have the great challenge of "Live" (sports, for example) as well as "Local" (news, for example), neither of which is well implemented in the iTunes ecosystem (nor is it currently set up for such programming). But maybe the recent acquisition is aimed at resolving that big problem.

But, let's imagine it happening somehow. Further, let's imagine mass adoption (beyond the little segment of pure Apple fans). What do you think will happen to broadband internet fees? Hint: Who controls almost all of those broadband pipes? And the excuse for much higher broadband fees will be blamed on much higher bandwith demands.

All the companies that would be involved put profits for the shareholders ABOVE doing what is best for customers (such as delivering a replacement for cable/satt subscription services at dramatically lower cost to custumers). Again, a key quote: "As one media executive told the Journal: "You don't want to shoot a hole in the bucket to create another revenue stream."

I'd love to see it happen. But something is going to give, such that we are not going to end up with an "eat everything" package of commercial free iTunes content for something like $30/month. The one glimmer of hope is that Apple is apparently offering more money to the owners of the content than they get via the cable/satt Goliaths now. That pits greed of those who owns the content against power within the established system.
 
AidenShaw said:
Interesting, but that study did not show an A-B comparison of HD vs SD - it showed the same SD clip to two different groups, told one group it was HD and the other group that it was SD.

Also, note that a DVD player is upconverting a bitrate of around 8 Mbps, from a 307Kpixel source. Itunes "HD" is around 4 Mbps from a 922Kpixel source - three times as many pixels at half the bitrate. I've noticed when doing web videos it's often better to make a smaller picture and do a 2X in the player, than to spread the same bitrate across four times as many pixels. Scaling a higher quality source seems to give a better picture than a big low quality source.

Let's redo the Dutch study comparing a Blu-ray to an Itunes movie side-by-side, and see if nobody can tell the difference. 😉
Click to expand...


The study isn't perfect but it goes to show that people really don't know what it is.

Anecdote: My family is in Long Island and has Cablevision. I went to their house and they had recently picked up an HDTV. I viewed the HD channels and the picture was disgusting. Cable companies give an even worse HD feed than iTunes (with FIOS being the exception). I had to convince them it was not HD by pulling out my laptop to show the difference. They didn't really care too much.


Ultimately the most important thing is that you are pleased with the picture rather than letting technical details get in the way (at least in my case). For me, iTunes is good enough though there is some pixelation in action scenes. For others it may not be.
 
Huh?

Rocketman said:
Even though Apple represents a Monopsony to them (a monopolistic buyer), it also is a "benevolent dictator" in that in exchange for a non-exclusive agreement they happen to know in advance will be dominant anyway, they will also receive about 20% higher net revenues on those sales than from any one of a dozen other non-exclusive (bit player) suppliers.

The reason the bit players do not have larger market share is not because of exclusionary practices by Apple, but because of a more focused approach, message, and system, to deliver the very services content offerors need and cannot do themselves. Or they already would have, directly or through bit players.

Which they have not.

Apple TV in the palm of your hand? Not a hobby? 😀

Rocketman

ATNN
Click to expand...

This is trite and pretentious. What's your point?
 
flottenheimer said:
Word.
The marketplace is global now.
This whole "regional thing" makes absolutely no sense any more.

Not in the movie industry. Not in the music industry. Not in the games industry. Not in the hardware industry. Not in the clothes industry. Not in any industry.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately copyright laws vary from nation to nation, and there's a hundred years of complicated regional licensing agreements to untangle.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Here's a pretty good article on this topic: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/22/can-steve-jobs-unplug-cable-tv/

Those of you imagining that we are somehow going to get a full cable/satt replacement at a huge monthly price discount are living in a serious illusion. There is no (voluntary) way that the cable/satt Goliaths are going to allow this to happen- not through their broadband pipes.
Click to expand...

They are going to have to allow it because of this administration's support of net neutrality.

HobeSoundDarryl said:
Plus, there's just too much money involved if anyone thinks that we are going to get a $30/month eat everything package of iTunes TV content "as is" (commercial free). Key quote: "Another issue is whether iTunes TV would be advertising-free. U.S. broadcast and cable networks sold $43.4 billion in ads in 2008, according to TNS Media Intelligence." Companies don't just jettison $43.4 billion for a little slice of $30/month. Remember the system "as is" has the vast majority of people happily(?) paying a cable/satt subscription AND accepting an ever-increasing number of commercials on most of the channels they receive.
Click to expand...

No one said this would be commercial free.

HobeSoundDarryl said:
Lastly, we still have the great challenge of "Live" (sports, for example) as well as "Local" (news, for example), neither of which is well implemented in the iTunes ecosystem (nor is it currently set up for such programming). But maybe the recent acquisition is aimed at resolving that big problem.
Click to expand...

Through their HTTP Live Streaming protocol and you're right that the engineers from Lala will have some involvement in this.

HobeSoundDarryl said:
But, let's imagine it happening somehow. Further, let's imagine mass adoption (beyond the little segment of pure Apple fans). What do you think will happen to broadband internet fees? Hint: Who controls almost all of those broadband pipes? And the excuse for much higher broadband fees will be blamed on much higher bandwith demands.

All the companies that would be involved put profits for the shareholders ABOVE doing what is best for customers (such as delivering a replacement for cable/satt subscription services at dramatically lower cost to custumers). Again, a key quote: "As one media executive told the Journal: "You don't want to shoot a hole in the bucket to create another revenue stream."

I'd love to see it happen. But something is going to give, such that we are not going to end up with an "eat everything" package of commercial free iTunes content for something like $30/month. The one glimmer of hope is that Apple is apparently offering more money to the owners of the content than they get via the cable/satt Goliaths now. That pits greed of those who owns the content against power within the established system.
Click to expand...

Broadband prices will not up that much because there would be lawsuits. As for your bandwidth concerns, virtually all cable companies serve their triple play package (phone, TV, & online) through one pipe. Most likely their pipes would not be more exerted as they already are.

Broadband companies, which are the cellular carriers and cable companies, are dumb pipes. This isn't AIG where these companies are so powerful that they're too big to fail. Broadband prices may go up to $70/month but they won't be milking customers like they used to.
 
Truffy said:
Yeah, what you said (and MorphingDragon in #2). If it's just another MM gadget it's gonna be a big disappointment for me. It needs to run not just Safari/Mail, but preferably also iWork, AMP, and BBEdit.
Click to expand...
I see mobile iLife/iWork on the device.

cmaier said:
It will be at least as versatile as an iPod touch. It will certainly have mail/browser, and at least third party document edit abilities. Yet to be seen whether it is based of of the touch version of mac os or the mac version. It's not going to be a mobile version of apple tv. I take solace from the fact that a few of the snow leopard changes seem suspiciously finger-friendly.
Click to expand...
The OS is still in the air but it looks like iPhone OS is more likely.
 
iMacmatician said:
The OS is still in the air but it looks like iPhone OS is more likely.
Click to expand...

Probably. But one can hope. (Not that I think Snow Leopard is an appropriate UI for a tablet device, but one could imagine a new shell on the same guts, with compatibility for existing apps).
 
cmaier said:
Net neutrality doesn't help when the company that owns the pipes also owns and controls the content.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to Comcast, well people in CA will have a tougher time but no one could care less about NBC/Universal and the shows they produce, with a couple of exceptions. Also my guess is that the EFF will sue them outright to a very sympathetic ear in the Obama admin.. Otherwise the main holdout is FOX, which they can eventually get.

Sidenote: the only worthy channel FOX has is FX.


As an amendment to my earlier post, broadband could potentially be faster without the cable companies pumping, what is largely garbage channels, through their pipes.
 
Lala has NOTHING to do with subscription based music.

Less than 2 minutes on the site would tell you that. I have no idea why Lala was included in this article at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back