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 Jan 1, 2013, 01:46 PM   #51
imageWIS
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NYC
More + better content > complicated submenus full of 'features'
imageWIS is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:47 PM   #52
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggyonice View Post
I don't want to have to subscribe to cable for this very reason television companies hate time shifting. They want you to watch TV on their schedule.
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.
gnasher729 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:50 PM   #53
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
When you post a news post from The Daily Mail, The Sun, etc you should add a disclaimer stating that 99% of what they post is pure lies based on "sources" they cant name and "facts" they cant back up.
rmwebs is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:51 PM   #54
pacalis
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
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.
pacalis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 01:58 PM   #55
adildacoolset
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
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.
__________________
Last edited by adildacoolset; Tomorrow at 09:42 AM. Reason: grammar error
adildacoolset is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:01 PM   #56
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
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.
Awakener is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:05 PM   #57
kas23
macrumors 603
 
kas23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Apple is jamming social media down our throats like it's going out of style. I don't need this garbage nor do I need notifications on my TV.
kas23 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:05 PM   #58
louis Fashion
macrumors 6502a
 
louis Fashion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Just a half-smart TV please.
No Social Content.

And A LA Carte!
__________________
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. - Lao Tzu
louis Fashion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:09 PM   #59
bungiefan89
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by baryon View Post
I think the problem of TV is that 99.9999999% of content is complete crap, and most people just watch TV to turn their brain off and don't care about what is actually happening. People can watch celebrities arguing, people who can't sing sining, or people talking about politics for hours.

I don't think TV can be saved at all, or that there is a need for it in today's world. You can do everything on a computer that a TV could do, and much more, so why do you need a TV? Is it just for the big screen? Then why not just get a bigger computer monitor?

People who grew up with TV are of course addicted to it, but those who grew up with the internet are less reliant on TV. I think and hope that TV will at some point become extinct and replaced by what is already there on computers.

As Daft Punk says, "Television rules the nation"
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.
__________________
27" 2011 iMac, 3.4 GHz, 12GB RAM, 2GB VRAM - Late 2009 Macbook, 2.26 GHz, 4GB RAM - iPod touch 32GB 4g
bungiefan89 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:09 PM   #60
louis Fashion
macrumors 6502a
 
louis Fashion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
No news is good news

Quote:
Originally Posted by Awakener View Post
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.
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.
__________________
A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving. - Lao Tzu
louis Fashion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:11 PM   #61
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
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.
rmwebs is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:14 PM   #62
Awakener
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis Fashion View Post
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.
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.
Awakener is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:17 PM   #63
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
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.
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.

MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A
John.B is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:17 PM   #64
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacalis View Post
... The cable companies are already resellers, and also bear a lot of risk burden on picking shows. Apple doesn't have competencies here.
..
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.

...
paul4339 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:18 PM   #65
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
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.
__________________
13" MBPR, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV, iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD
"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."

Last edited by Tech198; Jan 1, 2013 at 02:24 PM.
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:20 PM   #66
scottsjack
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Originally Posted by SBlue1 View Post
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.
scottsjack is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:21 PM   #67
Compile 'em all
macrumors 601
 
Compile 'em all's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Market research is useless.
__________________
Compile 'em all is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:23 PM   #68
iReality85
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
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.
iReality85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:29 PM   #69
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
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.
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:29 PM   #70
mw360
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I thought consumers wanted to wave their arms in the air in an embarrassing laggy attempt to assemble a tweet, while the rest of the family watches bored and asking WhenTF can we just have the TV on.
mw360 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:31 PM   #71
lkrupp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio View Post
I want everything but pay for nothing
You've just described current U.S. culture to a tee. Bravo.
lkrupp is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:39 PM   #72
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iReality85 View Post
... 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. ...
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).
paul4339 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:49 PM   #73
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul4339 View Post
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?
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.

MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A
John.B is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 02:49 PM   #74
dampfnudel
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirThis View Post
They've got my vote for that. I'm simply fed up of seeing social networking features being poured on top of apps like marmalade.
So true. Let's hope 2013 is the year of moderation when it comes to the proliferation of social media.


Quote:
Originally Posted by baryon View Post
I think the problem of TV is that 99.9999999% of content is complete crap, and most people just watch TV to turn their brain off and don't care about what is actually happening. People can watch celebrities arguing, people who can't sing sining, or people talking about politics for hours.

I don't think TV can be saved at all, or that there is a need for it in today's world. You can do everything on a computer that a TV could do, and much more, so why do you need a TV? Is it just for the big screen? Then why not just get a bigger computer monitor?

People who grew up with TV are of course addicted to it, but those who grew up with the internet are less reliant on TV. I think and hope that TV will at some point become extinct and replaced by what is already there on computers.

As Daft Punk says, "Television rules the nation"
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.
__________________
iPhone 5s (64GB) | iPad Air (128GB)
dampfnudel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 03:02 PM   #75
paul4339
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post
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?
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 by paul4339; Jan 1, 2013 at 03:08 PM.
paul4339 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
Is it possible that we will see Full Ultra HD TVs and Content in the near future mrmarts Apple TV and Home Theater 5 Sep 27, 2013 03:20 AM
two apple TVs on two separate TVs question maria122285 Apple TV and Home Theater 4 Aug 24, 2013 02:42 PM
Consumers Less Willing to Pay for Content as Free Apps Surge MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 136 Jul 23, 2013 02:47 PM
YouTube App Updated with 'Send to TV' Feature, Now Pairs with Smart TVs and Consoles MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 27 Mar 27, 2013 01:10 AM
Content on Mac Mini, XBMC/Plex streaming to Apple TVs/Roku? jshbckr Apple TV and Home Theater 1 Nov 13, 2012 01:19 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 PM.

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

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