Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 18, 2013, 10:11 PM   #101
Lark.Landon
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: So Cal
Sorry Apple, I don't think you have the focus to develop a TV/Gaming platform that doesn't leave the consumer without a serious case of buyer's remorse.
Lark.Landon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 04:56 AM   #102
StoneJack
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lark.Landon View Post
Sorry Apple, I don't think you have the focus to develop a TV/Gaming platform that doesn't leave the consumer without a serious case of buyer's remorse.
like iPads or iPhones? oh wait..
__________________
LC 630, Blue and White G3 350, iPad 1, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPod nano (2), iPodTouch 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, AppleTV HD, iPad mini
StoneJack is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 05:09 AM   #103
Macman45
macrumors G5
 
Macman45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
Quote:
Originally Posted by japanime View Post
This is getting exciting! I hope they offer the content not just in the United States, but internationally. (Otherwise, I'll use a proxy server.)
I just want to know what all this "wonderfulness" is likely to cost? Are Apple going to price this competitively? I think not, and I can't see what they can produce that is likely to tempt folks into spending $KKK on such a TV. Okay, built in ATV functionality, more content etc. BUt I have all these things on my Sony Bravia, and it didn't cost the earth either....I'm interested to see what and how Apple market this...It's unlikely to make me jump though, unless it is sold at a price that mainstream TV's are. My Bravia has full 3D, full smart functionality, content from them, and the other major providers which I don't use as I have an ATV connected to it. What is a 3D capable, smart Apple TV going to cost?
__________________
Thats Not All Folks
Macman45 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 10:17 AM   #104
patsfan83
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
We consumers did not get huge savings in cell phone plan costs as a result of Apple inventing an iPhone. In fact, we generally pay MORE than we did before for those plan costs.
I would argue we got a lot more bang for our buck vs pre-iPhone. To go from a phone that only made calls, couldn't take pictures, couldn't browse the web, didn't have a good camera, didn't play music, and had only basic texting (not SMS) for roughly $50/mo...to an iPhone for $80/mo?
patsfan83 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 12:07 PM   #105
Radio
In Time-Out
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAndonian View Post
Oh no he didunt!!
Yes

He said he solved it

Siri didnt exist

Not his baby
Radio is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 12:26 PM   #106
Carl Sagan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCarabma View Post
Perhaps I was a little flip when I said not that many people are "hardcore gamers". But while the numbers on this chart have changed since 2007, the scale really hasn't.

A product that primarily appeals to gamers is small potatoes. Sony and Microsoft know this as well, thats why they have desperately tried to sell their consoles as a media centers. That's why they have become more and more hostile to "hardcore" gamers with things like kinect. They want casual gamers. They want to expand this market.

When Apple TV stops being a hobby for Apple it will be aimed at a market way bigger than "the tens of millions who by CoD".
That chart is so out of date. There's over 200 millions consoles in use today.
__________________
13" MacBook Pro [2010] | iPad [3rd gen, black, 16gb +4G] | iPhone 3GS [32gb, black] | iPod classic [40gb, 4th gen]
Carl Sagan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 01:03 PM   #107
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan83 View Post
I would argue we got a lot more bang for our buck vs pre-iPhone. To go from a phone that only made calls, couldn't take pictures, couldn't browse the web, didn't have a good camera, didn't play music, and had only basic texting (not SMS) for roughly $50/mo...to an iPhone for $80/mo?
That missing the point of my comment. You're offering justification for why we should pay MORE for service while my comment was about how an Apple innovation of wow hardware & software didn't result in a huge discount in service fees from those who "own" the pipe that makes it work. In short, I'm offering up the iPhone didn't yield huge 3G/4G savings as a pretty relevant example of why we shouldn't expect an Apple Television to deliver huge savings in television service. In the former, the crucial service (pipe) is owned by companies like Verizon, AT&T, etc. In the latter, the crucial service (pipe) is owned by companies like Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Etc.

Why are the owners of the TV cable pipe (that is also our broadband pipe) going to allow an Apple Television model replacement to kill their cable revenues when it depends on their broadband pipe to deliver even 1 minute of anything from iCloud? Did AT&T, Verizon, etc give us a huge discount on cellular service because Apple invented an iPhone?

No arguing that the iPhone may have brought us many new benefits for more money. That's what may happen with this al-a-carte Apple replacement too: many new benefits for more- not less- money than we are paying now. What doesn't work is this ongoing belief that we are going to have Apple plug in as new middle man and our own bills are going to get cut by 80% to 95% or more.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 01:17 PM   #108
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfan83 View Post
I would argue we got a lot more bang for our buck vs pre-iPhone. To go from a phone that only made calls, couldn't take pictures, couldn't browse the web, didn't have a good camera, didn't play music, and had only basic texting (not SMS) for roughly $50/mo...to an iPhone for $80/mo?
I had a phone that could take pictures, listen to music and had picture messaging, etc well before the iPhone. As for the rest of your comment - read HobeSoundDarryl for some wise words.
samcraig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 03:08 PM   #109
goldfinch123
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Willing to pay more for AppleTV

Quote:
Originally Posted by HobeSoundDarryl View Post
No arguing that the iPhone may have brought us many new benefits for more money. That's what may happen with this al-a-carte Apple replacement too: many new benefits for more- not less- money than we are paying now. What doesn't work is this ongoing belief that we are going to have Apple plug in as new middle man and our own bills are going to get cut by 80% to 95% or more.
Okay, I agree with that last part of your post -- that the benefits will outweigh the extra costs, and we'll hear less about cost over time than you might think. Why I think that:

The iPhone: no one I know, or me, ever talk about paying more for our cell phones than we used to. The phones just rock now, so it's worth the extra cost. If the experience wasn't worth the extra cost, we'd eventually dump it. (A little extra note on the iPhone: it's replaced my Garmin, my kids' Gameboys, my Canon Elph digital camera, my home camcorder, my kids' portable DVD player, my guitar tuner even, and at times my laptop. So in a way, I'm saving, right?)

Same thing with music. I didn't save money when Apple changed the music industry. I actually buy more music now than ever. iTunes makes it easy for me and my family to explore/purchase/listen. Again, if the experience wasn't great, I'd eventually move on to something else.

Same thing with the mac. 20+ years working with macs, and cost once again gets trumped by user experience. Mac users have long been willing to pay more for an easy/intuitive/powerful hardware/software solution.

Same thing with my home network. Easy to set up, music everywhere, devices everywhere, easy to manage, always works. I would pay even more for those airport extreme/express devices!

So for me, if this AppleTV can do the same thing -- make an existing experience easier, more enjoyable, more empowering, plus apps that I can't even imagine yet -- I expect to pay more, and will go for it. And I'm looking forward to it.
goldfinch123 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2013, 04:19 PM   #110
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
OK but that willingness to pay more than the existing cable bill puts you in the minority. I do think that is what it will take for this al-a-carte (and definitely commercial-free, al-a-carte) dream to be realized.

The bulk of the rest of the post reads like I'm finding fault with an iPhone or something. Not at all. I simply was using it as an example that what Apple has within it's control- the ability to develop wow hardware & software- is not enough to make the economics of the service part of a cable TV replacement solution actually deliver the big savings about which others were dreaming.

The point I'm trying to make is that we shoudn't expect an Apple Television or new TV to somehow result in our $100 cable bills being cut to $5 or $20/month just because Apple will get it right. They can't get it right because the pipe that connects us to iCloud is owned by the very same cable players that like their cable revenues "as is" now.

As usual, I've made a good point and so some are trying to flip the argument to something else. The argument I was addressing is this belief we're going to get al-a-carte for dirt cheap if Apple plugs in and I'm saying for al-a-carte to arrive, we probably have to pay a lot more than we do now. In fact, Apple has already taken a good shot at commercial-free, al-a-carte with the shows already in the iTunes store. But few seem to like those prices, instead believing we're going to get some kind of all-we-can-eat subscription for about $5 or $20/month. Not going to happen unless Apple can bypass the middlemen by linking us directly to iCloud and- even then- Apple will probably prefer 30% of $100/month to 30% of $5 or $20/month from each of us.

I fully appreciate the idea that Apple may indeed deliver something that is better and that some of us are willing to pay up for better. But I'm not offering arguments against that idea at all. In fact, that is what I expect.
HobeSoundDarryl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 5, 2013, 09:29 PM   #111
muncyweb
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Order now!

Order now and receive your free iBum, complete with iChips and iBeer.
muncyweb is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any third party apps that use Apple Maps Flyover ? BeachChair Mac Applications and Mac App Store 1 Mar 19, 2014 06:13 PM
Apple Lossless or AAC m4a files and 3rd party Apps biosci iPhone and iPod touch Apps 3 Sep 17, 2013 07:58 PM
3rd party apps can't use in Apple TV Cyndinaka Apple TV and Home Theater 3 Sep 12, 2013 10:36 AM
3rd Party Apps & OS6 new Apple Maps App philga iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 2 Dec 18, 2012 05:46 AM
Apple TV: 3rd Party Apps on Jailbroken Apple TV baldana Jailbreaks and iOS Hacks 0 Jul 29, 2012 12:47 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC