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. 
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.
Apple's New TV Effort May Kick Off This Fall with Focus on Third-Party Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
like iPads or iPhones? oh wait..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.
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?
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?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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.
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.
Willing to pay more for AppleTV
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.
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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.
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.
