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 Set to Open Up Apple TV to Third-Party Developers at WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I hope it is not like that crap DirecTV has where you run built in apps in the TV.
Last edited:
HBO themselves said that they won't be selling standalone streaming subs anytime soon. But for current subs, this is a great way to view HBO's entire content library on your tv.
You're probably right but with the right chips being released, and so many part leaks, and an almost garanteed preview of iOS 6 there's nothing stopping it from being released this summer.
Last edited:
I think my satellite box has two coax cables coming in.
Local storage is needed for bandwidth crippled places (60% of places).
Rocketman
Rip them and throw them in the closet for safekeeping. Oh, sure, you get AC-3 surround instead of DTS, but if you're enough of a videophile to care about the distinction, AppleTV doesn't meet your needs anyway.
The ATV3 and software update that came with it finally fixed high profile encoded BR files... they play so great now, even over wifi. It's fantastic. My entire video collection fits on a 3TB external HDD and plays through the iMac to the ATV. I'm ready for ATV to add the next big thing, basically apps.
I am not referring to their iOS app (which I like), but have you tried using their "apps" on the TV where you click right arrow twice to access? Slow and useless in my opinion.
I was under the impression that HBO wants to have it available everywhere (web, mobile devices, etc) for their cable/dish subscribers. The key part being "subscriber". HBO still is reluctant to offer subscription outside their cable/dish model.
You didn't include this rental fee in your calculations, though? And for the love of God what good are 210 channels if you are only interested in a handful (if that)?
Plus, not everyone gets internet from cable. I have satellite and do not pay a dime to a cable company. My satellite bill was $110 per month. I cut it down to the bare minimum and it is now $32--and it was not a big deal. I felt it was foolish to pay that for satellite when I could go days--even weeks--without watching anything on TV.
I could easily cut out satellite entirely, and it wouldn't hurt. I use my jailbroken ATV when I do watch TV--and have Hulu Plus and Netflix.
Michael
16x9 on the iPhone
16x9 on the AppleTv
Seems like a developer nightmare if they left out the iPad.
Yeah, just like they did for bluray players as soon as they came out... oh wait.
Hulu, yes.
Movie streaming services (Netflix/VUDU) most likely.
Amazon... we can only hope.
HBO... dream on. HBO is in the business of selling subscriptions to their regular premium cable channel package. Yeah, you can get HBO-GO access for your tablet or smartphone. But it's a service you get for subscribing to HBO, not available by itself. And since you're already going to have HBO (and HBO-VOD) on your digital cable box you have hooked to your TV, using a lower-resolution HBO-GO stream service on your AppleTV doesn't make any sense. They aren't going to offer HBO as a stand-alone product on the Apple TV. Their deals with cable/satellite providers are simply too lucrative.
Same here.
I wish apple could replace my DVR STB with a slick fast interface, however that would require them to actually have DVR capability. I haven't heard any rumors of apple tv DVR functionality. Perhaps they could add a thunderbolt or sata port for external drive.
You missed his point: If you take away the STB rental prices then it's actually cheap. Basically he's hoping Apple's solution will help him keep is cable service however without the need for STBs.
Because of the bundle, my HDTV with DVR costs me a measly $35/month. Big deal, hardly any different in price and I get better quality video and far more selection than doing it the cable cutter way (rent from itunes/amazon, hulu plus, and netflix subcriptions). At best it's like $10-15/month more... thankfully I can afford that amount of money
When you say Rental Fees are you talking about the STB's? If so, this is the cost I want to eliminate a big part of. You have to pay for the content from someone unless you are happy with just OTA which I not. And since you have Satellite where do you get your Internet from? And what does that cost? And how much more to add TV to it? You already said you are paying $32 per month. My point is that if you are getting your internet from Verizon FIOS or a Cable Company, then the basic content is not that much more.
Not to be snarky, but do you really think Apple ("App" Pioneer) would release a sluggish/unusable interface? iOS and OS X interfaces are both superior. Even the current ATV's UI is great. This next revision will be amazing as well.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The complaints are grounded in false math logic. It goes like this:
- I pay $100/month for 200 channels of cable
- I only watch about 10 channels
- Each channel costs 50 cents/month (this is the false math part)
- Thus, if I could just subscribe to the 10 channels I watch, my cable bill should drop to $5/month.
The false math is false because of a lot of things. For example, commercials running on lots of channels we don't watch generate revenue for the production studios who make some of the programming we do watch. Kill off the channels we don't watch and the commercials don't run, don't yield their revenues and thus the shows we want to watch aren't funded (and can't be paid for out of a tiny slice of that $5/month we want to pay).
Or, some channels definitely have a cost per channel. For example, ESPN is perceived to have a relatively high cost to be included in a cable package. Because it is so highly demanded, it's owner (Disney) leverages that demand to "encourage" cable/satt to also carry a bunch of other channels they wouldn't necessarily want to include in their packages. This gets many more channels on which those all-important commercials can run. That generates revenues for Disney which can then help pay the huge costs related to channels like ESPN. Kill off those other channels and kill off those revenues. ESPN then goes from (I've heard) $6-$15/month for JUST ESPN to maybe $20-$40 per month for just ESPN to make up the difference. That's quite a difference (either way vs. 50 cents per channel).
And so on. Basically, we've lost our perspective about the business model. We think local network television should be free because it seems to be free by putting up an antenna. However, all those network shows we love involve all the people we see (the actors) and all the behind-the-scenes people (writers, directors, producers, camera, sound, etc- think of that long list of names in the credits that zip by at the end). They all get paid for making those shows. They don't do all that work for free. If we don't pay for their work (if it as actually free), how do those salaries get paid?
On the cable/satt level, you have hundreds of channels of programming (and other people's money paying so that we can see any of that programming we desire). The industry is built around about $100/month (give or take $50+ dollars) rolling in from each household each month. Cut that to $5 or $15 or $29.99/month with Apple getting their 30% and you are removing a revenue stream of $100 and replacing it with a revenue stream of < $20. While there is certainly some profit in that $100, we should have no expectations that the Studios that make the shows we like will be able to keep making them if their business revenue stream is suddenly cut by 80% or more.
We already have the free video programming that is actually free. That's stuff like YouTube and Podcasts. That's what we get if the dream becomes reality: programming with a cost structure that matches the revenue structure. You don't get a Avatar or Avengers or Titanic or Game of Thrones or Major Sports Programming "as is" by pinching off most of the revenues that holds all that up at that level of quality.
Looking at that "190 channels I never watch", one can imagine that it is 95% of their cable bill. Or they could see it for what it really is: a big piece of the subsidy that contributes to getting to see the "10 channels I actually watch". Of course, we would all love to get just the shows we want for 90% less expense... but that won't make it all go. Get what we want in the wallet and we lose what we want in the programming.
The last piece of the false math is this: while the dream seems fantastic for us (substantially cut the cable/satt bill) and Apple (domination of the video space much like they dominate the music space), the deals that would have to be struck with everyone to make it go would involve Apple having to show them (the Studios) how they are going to make MORE money with this new model, not 80% less. If the new model involves only 3 parties: Studios for Content + Apple as middleman + Us a content consumers, one of the latter two have to come up with that "more money" to get them to play ball. I don't see Apple replacing the "other people's money" subsidy of the current model (just the commercials revenue alone was $49 billion last year). So if it's not Apple showing the content owners the money, who's left?
Last edited:
In some places, there are companiese that sell standalone internet (or companies who sell both at reasonable prices). I understand that many areas have only a single choice for high speed (I lived in one for years) and in those places cord cutting isn't a great option. But there are places where it works. I now have 12mb internet for $25/month, Netflix for $8... and that's it.
I don't think so. I think screen size is far more important for designing apps across devices than aspect ratio. Perhaps if you were just "blowing up" the same interface for everything having them all 16:9 would be helpful.