That would be a dream for consumers. You get a free device, and they only get whatever you decide to pay for, even if it's nothing.
The company needs contracts to write down on their balance sheets for their stakeholders and for their predictions.
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 Reportedly Prepping Revamped Apple TV: iPhone OS, Cloud-Based Storage, $99 Price Point?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be a dream for consumers. You get a free device, and they only get whatever you decide to pay for, even if it's nothing.
The company needs contracts to write down on their balance sheets for their stakeholders and for their predictions.
all more for a reason why it wont happen, if the customers want it - it wont happen lol. i guess a $150
TV could be possible, which is still pretty cheap compared to the current one.silly private organisations
well it all depends. are we talking apples 720p streams, or something that actually looks good?
all more for a reason why it wont happen, if the customers want it - it wont happen lol. i guess a $150
That's why. You will only get something for nothing if you give them back that something over a long time. The only way they would win is if you managed to buy several thousand dollars of media (remember Apple makes next to zero money on their media stores).
AND THERE IT IS: Apple is a hardware company. If they give away their stuff to the end user...they aren't a hardware company!
It also locks them to you. Hello AT&T early upgradesilly private organisations
well it all depends. are we talking apples 720p streams, or something that actually looks good?
LOL. Avatar is 2.3GB from iTunes. That is proper DVD quality right there masquerading as HD.
well it all depends. are we talking apples 720p streams, or something that actually looks good?
I think it looks pretty good. And I have a huge TV!
The image quality is substantially better than most cable and satellite services which have very compressed signals.
C.
That isn't a totally fair comparison since most HD on at least cable is still MPEG2.
even more reason why it wont happen lol
lucky we aint got AT&T here eh? unrucky we have TelstraIt also locks them to you. Hello AT&T early upgrade
its ripped from pretty high standard sources, so it looks ok i guess. ive seen better
must just be me then. i think they are pretty yuk.
of course, but attempting to stream that over the internet to multiple people would clog it down something chronic, thats another topic.
True, most consumers don't care. But then again most consumers don't even know how to set up their tv's to even display HD (or their DVRs). Which probably is why most consumers think that their DVDs look as good as BDs.
While it is true that some consumers might be technically inept....
What I meant was, why should a consumer excuse a poorer image from a cable TV source?
If the AppleTV movies look better, they look better. Regardless of the technical solution employed.
C.
From that standpoint, I still argue that your average consumer can't tell the difference between cable HD and AppleTV HD. We can; which is why I stated that the comparison isn't fair.
of course, but attempting to stream that over the internet to multiple people would clog it down something chronic, thats another topic.
In the UK we have the BBC's iPlayer - distributing a lot of Standard (and hidef) BBC content to computers / iPods / iPads and all manner of other internet devices. A lot of people use it. And in some households, watch different shows in different rooms.
Some ISPs moaned a little. But it works pretty well.
I don't think the AppleTV streaming a few episodes of House would be even noticed.
C.
If you are proposing that many consumers can't tell the difference, then you are agreeing with my basic argument.
If AppleTV and cable services could be considered as comparable. Then consumers might be happy to pay a subscription to Apple rather than to a cable company.
If a subscription model is used, the box-maker could embed the manufacturing cost into the subscription charge.
Apple has tried selling the box and it didn't work.
C.
You've already lost. TPG bought up PIPE Networks a short while back
You've already lost. TPG bought up PIPE Networks a short while back
thats probably the reason why you get more data then i do! cuz i pay for it!
thats probably the reason why you get more data then i do! cuz i pay for it!
I guess the data is greener on my side.
There are clearly some places on the globe where delivery of HD content via an internet connection is not going to work.
But I'd argue that even a 4Mb connection will deliver a 720p movie better than most cable providers.
It's worth noting that the AppleTV does not actually need that speed to deliver content. On slower connections you just have to wait until enough movie is in the buffer. A half-hour wait is not on-demand, but might be quicker than a drive to the rental store.
C.
In the UK, a few lucky people are getting fibre-to-the-cabinet ADSL which delivers 40-50 megabits down and 10 up!
But I'd argue that even a 4Mb connection will deliver a 720p movie better than most cable providers.
It's worth noting that the AppleTV does not actually need that speed to deliver content. On slower connections you just have to wait until enough movie is in the buffer. A half-hour wait is not on-demand, but might be quicker than a drive to the rental store.
C.
In the UK, a few lucky people are getting fibre-to-the-cabinet ADSL which delivers 40-50 megabits down and 10 up!
But what about TV shows? Multiple AppleTVs in a house all streaming different shows (a possible situation, since people tend to have more than 1 tv in a house). that 4Mb pipe isn't going to last long having to stream multiple HD streams. Heaven forbid you start looking at streaming sports in HD.
Not sure what your point is?
Apple are already selling the current AppleTV. It already streams movies and TV shows.
The sky has yet to fall.
C.
I think what he means is that once this service were to be mainstream, the average connection would be enough for 1 streaming device, but for more than one device it would be utterly useless, especially for live streams.
The AppleTV with a subscription might deliver 5 or 6 hours of content per week. And subscribed content could be downloaded overnight. That won't precipitate a data apocalypse.
Moores law seems to be working well for bandwidth. So I think it will keep up.
In my household we often watch iPlayer in different rooms.
C.