Apple Reportedly Set to Open Up Apple TV to Third-Party Developers at WWDC

[tuxon86]

Yes, but I have a LOT of h.264 in MKV, so its a major conversion job that I'm trying to avoid

I've just finished remuxing about 4.5 terrabytes of anime for playing on my new ATV 3. It took me about a week to do on my "old" i3 iMac with handbrake. Remuxing isn't as long as doing a full recompress. You can use Subler for that. In my case I had to burn in the subtitle track so I used Handbrake which does offer batch processing. While setting the different parametters and selecting the audio and subs track was a pain, it took only a couple of hour and then at the press of a button the job was launched and executed in the background.

Most of my remaining 12 terrabytes of movies and TV episodes are already in m4v/mp4 (dvd rip or captured with Osprey/HD PVR/EyeTV HD), but I still have a bunch of them in old AVI/Mpeg2 or MKV to process.

 

[TwinMonkeys]

Apps open up a lot of possibilities for all kinds of TV networks to sell stuff directly, games, and family activities. I'm looking forward to this, particularly for gaming - games on a big screen will be a lot of fun.

 

[edwurtle]

Could be very exciting news. I have said all along that I am more interested in Apple revolutionizing the subscription system rather than inventing a display which will be like all the others.

Apple TV with app based channels done at a reasonable price could be an awesome way out of my cable subscription.

This is the ultimate dream. A true a la carte choice without all the added fees (STBs, local taxes). I can see them getting some channels available, however good luck getting the big players to play!

You think disney going to walk away from the fortunes they make with ESPN? Every dish/cable subscriber in the country dishes out $5/month directly to ESPN. The cable/dish ship is slowly sinking, but ESPN is going to hold on tight to their pirate's treasure as long as they can.

Some assume the content creators and cable providers accumulate wealth independently. They don't. ESPN relies on cable just as much as cable relies on ESPN. Also providers own much of their content (see Comcast). They are going to work together to help keep their money machine alive. This means ESPN won't be available outside cable/dish subscriptions any time soon.

Only until the pirates take out the money ship, will the big players swim to shore line of open availability.

 

[d21mike]

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 have Netflix and Hulu so pretty familiar with those as well. The problem is that they are not enough for me. I watch a lot of network TV which you can get OTA but I also watch the Golf Channel and a number of other Cable Only Channels like CNN, FOX Business etc. that you can't. So, I will need to have at least the smallest TV Package from my Internet Provider since that is usually the cheapest. In my example I get much more TV then I need for $20 extra per month (not counting the STB's) which was the main part of my post. You have to buy the TV Content "that you want" from someone.

 

[gmfeier]

We have this already. It's called "Apple TV."

Yes, but a lot more people have Android phones than Apple TVs right now. That's why I said the time is short.

Original story:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-ne...computer/8110?tag=search-results-rivers;item0

 

[macUser2007]

... 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....

Hm, so why should I subsidize ESPN, if I don't watch it or want it?

Why not have those who want it pay the true cost of it?

Maybe then contracts will be a bit more realistic and prices will be based on actual demand.

 

[CaryMacGuy]

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.

Great suggestion actually...I am not really much of a videophile so I might try that.

 

[WannaGoMac]

Hm, so why should I subsidize ESPN, if I don't watch it or want it?

Why not have those who want it pay the true cost of it?

Maybe then contracts will be a bit more realistic and prices will be based on actual demand.

Because there are channels that you watch that others subsidize, and some channels PAY the cable cos to be included in bundles that then balance out other costs for the channels you want. The bundles actually help overall which I realized once I got over the "That's BS why am I paying for X when I don't watch it!!"

----------

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.

You can rip them with full surround sound as well No need to mix it down to AC-3 if you don't want to. In fact you can actually put TWO simultaneous audio types in a single file nowadays -- both AC-3 and DD

 

[Tinmania]

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

I don't quite get your point when I already have HD satellite, with DVR, for only $32 a month. No "bundle" required.




Mike

 

[Anlino]

If it's true, this could be huge. Fingers crossed.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I don't quite get your point when I already have HD satellite, with DVR, for only $32 a month. No "bundle" required.

How long do you get to keep that $32/month price? If you are going to include promotional prices (I'm guessing) in arguments, maybe Apple could just free trial it's replacement service for a month and then we could forever argue that Apple's TV subscription service is free*

If you have HD satt with DVR for $32/month for the long term (no asterisk), please identify the source and the (hopefully decent) package. I'd like to switch to that one.

 

[Tinmania]

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.

I didn't miss anything: Apple can't make the STBs "go away." They decode the digital cable/satellite stream in the first place. There is nothing Apple can do to change that.

If you want digital cable or satellite, you need STBs.

So, again, what is the point in comparing the price of cutting out TV without also cutting out the cost of the STB? There is no point: if you have saved $20 by cutting out TV you would be an idiot to keep renting STBs that you can no longer use. Ergo, it is $20 monthly saved plus whatever the STB rentals were costing. To only state the $20 is not stating the true savings figure.




Michael

 

[edwurtle]

Hm, so why should I subsidize ESPN, if I don't watch it or want it?

Why not have those who want it pay the true cost of it?

Maybe then contracts will be a bit more realistic and prices will be based on actual demand.

Just cut the cord! It's your only option to fight the anti a la carte cable model. They will only change their greedy minds when they start losing enough customers.

In fact, if you don't watch sports you are just throwing money away for cable/dish. True sports fans don't have that option (unless their wife lets them go to the sports bar every night, mine doesn't). All my other shows I can find somewhere else (netflix, hulu, hulu+, iTunes), but sports is the only exception. I don't consider the crappy resolution of justin.tv as an option.

 

[Navdakilla]

If this rumor is true (please be true)

This will be groundbreaking.
Apple tv will become the king of settop boxes

 

[macUser2007]

Because there are channels that you watch that others subsidize, and some channels PAY the cable cos to be included in bundles that then balance out other costs for the channels you want. The bundles actually help overall which I realized once I got over the "That's BS why am I paying for X when I don't watch it!!"...

You are simply repeating the BS that the cable company feeds you.

But it DOESN'T make sense.

Again, why do any channels have to be subsidized or be in a bundle?

Pay $x for ESPN and $y for BRAVO.

Then we can decide if ESPN is worth $x to us, or if BRAVO is worth $y.

And the channel providers can decide what to charge based on optimum sales/price balance, as well as what to pay to programming originators.

Simple as that.

 

[edwurtle]

I didn't miss anything: Apple can't make the STBs "go away." They decode the digital cable/satellite stream in the first place. There is nothing Apple can do to change that.

If you want digital cable or satellite, you need STBs.

This is false. Today you can buy Tivo and use it without the need for cable STB. (it uses a cable card to decode the stream)

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights

Also the decoding isn't magic. If (this is a BIG IF) the cable/dish networks worked with Apple, then perhaps an apple device could directly decode a stream.

 

[SPUY767]

Finally!!! come out with some controller hardware, video game developers jump on board, bye bye xbox!!! hello iTV!!

This wouldn't do anything to consoles like the XBOX or PS3, but the Wii, with its much more casual set of gamers.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You are simply repeating the BS that the cable company feeds you.

But it DOESN'T make sense.

Again, why do any channels have to be subsidized or be in a bundle?

Pay $x for ESPN and $y for BRAVO.

Then we can decide if ESPN is worth $x to us, or if BRAVO is worth $y.

And the channel providers can decide what to charge based on optimum sales/price balance, as well as what to pay to programming originators.

Simple as that.

No it's not simple as that. You're imagining the programming is married to the channels. Hypothetically, let's all decide ESPN is not worth it. ESPN generates a lot of revenue for it's owner (Disney). Disney uses that revenue to make programming for ESPN as well as many other venues. Did you like the Avengers movie? Are you interested in Pixar's Brave? Do your kids like the Disney channels? Do you like Disney park prices where they are now? Do you like Disney Broadway shows? Merchandise? Etc.

I'm in the camp that never watches about 80% of the channels in my satt package. But, some of that stuff on those channels that maybe other people watch flows revenues to the production studios that make the shows that I do watch. Kill off those less (mainstream) channels and those revenues go away. "Great," I think, "I never watched that channel anyway". But then my favorite show is cancelled because some of those lost revenues helped pay for it.

That's how it works. A bunch of those junk channels to me help generate revenues to flow into production studio pots that can the be reallocated for the production of shows on channels I do watch. Some of that programming may be so bad, no one would pay for it al-a-carte... but the commercials on those channels generate that revenue flow that pays for the shows I like.

Al-a-carte would yield pricing something like what we see in iTunes now. Per show would be relatively heavy costs. Per channel would be much more than $X (Total cable bill) / Y (number of channels I get). Al-a-carte would work for the people who don't watch much TV (as renting everything from TV can work for them right now). For those that watch more TV (where the existing iTunes rental model doesn't work financially), al-a-carte won't work either.

More simply, we already have al-a-carte via the iTunes store. We just don't like the pricing of it that way. We want our cable TV bill divided by the number of channels math applied to just the channels we like. That's what we perceive is the right price. $100/month for cable cut to $10/month... with an expectation that all of the programming we actually like would survive an industry-wide cut of revenues of 90%.

 

[edwurtle]

You are simply repeating the BS that the cable company feeds you.

But it DOESN'T make sense.

Again, why do any channels have to be subsidized or be in a bundle?

Pay $x for ESPN and $y for BRAVO.

Then we can decide if ESPN is worth $x to us, or if BRAVO is worth $y.

And the channel providers can decide what to charge based on optimum sales/price balance, as well as what to pay to programming originators.

Simple as that.

The reasoning is B.S.
The real reason: $$$

They won't stop until another model is more profitable. A la Carte is not as profitable as current model. Perhaps if enough people cut the cord, they will change their mind.

Also it's not just the cable company that decides the model. The channels have even more control. ESPN demands that it must be on basic cable package. The cable company is too afraid to call their bluff.

 

[ctdonath]

Why not have those who want it pay the true cost of it?

You're missing one non-trivial bit: Sheer channel count.

Most new customers aren't going thru the entire bundle comparing one service to another with weighted values etc., they just see "XYZ has 250 channels!" "PDQ has 330 channels!" and picks the one with the larger number. Those channels, existing for little more reason than advertising, must be paid for to attract more money than they cost. Customers like simple X>P type decisions; on-demand/a-la-carte comparisons, not so much.

----------

A la Carte is not as profitable as current model.

Indeed, and Apple is demonstrating that. Instead of shelling out $100/month for a decent cable package, I do a practical "a la carte" via $50/mo Internet, $8/mo Netflix, and about $10/mo iTunes + $5/mo Redbox. I go a la carte, and shell out about $25/mo less.

Most people though really do just want a brain-dead "here we are now, entertain us" low/medium/high package with minimal choice.

 

[d21mike]

I didn't miss anything: Apple can't make the STBs "go away." They decode the digital cable/satellite stream in the first place. There is nothing Apple can do to change that.

If you want digital cable or satellite, you need STBs.

So, again, what is the point in comparing the price of cutting out TV without also cutting out the cost of the STB? There is no point: if you have saved $20 by cutting out TV you would be an idiot to keep renting STBs that you can no longer use. Ergo, it is $20 monthly saved plus whatever the STB rentals were costing. To only state the $20 is not stating the true savings figure.

Michael

My original post said something like eliminate "most" of the cost of STBs. Besides TIVO (which requires renting Cable Cards for about $2-4 per month I think) there are other options. You have to understand I have 8 TV's in my house. The cost to "RENT" Cable Boxes for each TV would be a big part of the bill. By using Apple TV's (with an App Store) then you can have an App to stream content around the house "after" it has been decoded. If you read my other posts you will see I mentioned SlingBox that has an App for just about everything but Apple TV. With an App on the Apple TV I could stream from the SlingBox which is behind a Cable Box to all the TVs I use lightly. And normally the Cable Providers will give you 1 STB as part of the bundle. And in another Post I mentioned that Verizon FIOS is coming out with a Media Server with 6 Tuners (not free) which they say you will be able to connect to it from XBOX and others without the need for a Rented STB on every TV. Besides TIVO there are other DVR Options that also would require the Cable Card to decode the content. I never said in any of my posts that I expected ATV to "decode" the encrypted content. Just that with an App Store there are options to replace a bulk of my STB's with Apple TV's which I current already have 3.

 

[Tinmania]

How long do you get to keep that $32/month price? If you are going to include promotional prices (I'm guessing) in arguments, maybe Apple could just free trial it's replacement service for a month and then we could forever argue that Apple's TV subscription service is free*

If you have HD satt with DVR for $32/month for the long term (no asterisk), please identify the source and the (hopefully decent) package. I'd like to switch to that one.

It's not a promotional price. It's Dish Family package, for $24.99 per month.

Specifically, it works out to this: $24.99 for the package, $6 for DVR, and $1.33 in tax for a total of $32.32.

Please note this is certainly not for die-hard TV fans, but it's fine for me.




Michael

----------

This is false. Today you can buy Tivo and use it without the need for cable STB. (it uses a cable card to decode the stream)

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cablecard-know-your-rights

Also the decoding isn't magic. If (this is a BIG IF) the cable/dish networks worked with Apple, then perhaps an apple device could directly decode a stream.

I'm sorry I can't this post seriously. Even cable card is a joke--and it is still rented.

Regardless, no way will ATV move to cable companies (nor will they embrace Apple). Apple is trying to go the other direction.




Michael

 

[WannaGoMac]

I don't quite get your point when I already have HD satellite, with DVR, for only $32 a month. No "bundle" required.




Mike

Just that cable TV doesn't cost much money once it's part of a bundle.

 

[Tinmania]

My original post said something like eliminate "most" of the cost of STBs. Besides TIVO (which requires renting Cable Cards for about $2-4 per month I think) there are other options. You have to understand I have 8 TV's in my house. The cost to "RENT" Cable Boxes for each TV would be a big part of the bill. By using Apple TV's (with an App Store) then you can have an App to stream content around the house "after" it has been decoded. If you read my other posts you will see I mentioned SlingBox that has an App for just about everything but Apple TV. With an App on the Apple TV I could stream from the SlingBox which is behind a Cable Box to all the TVs I use lightly. And normally the Cable Providers will give you 1 STB as part of the bundle. And in another Post I mentioned that Verizon FIOS is coming out with a Media Server with 6 Tuners (not free) which they say you will be able to connect to it from XBOX and others without the need for a Rented STB on every TV. Besides TIVO there are other DVR Options that also would require the Cable Card to decode the content. I never said in any of my posts that I expected ATV to "decode" the encrypted content. Just that with an App Store there are options to replace a bulk of my STB's with Apple TV's which I current already have 3.

I understand that.... but what are Apple TVs going to do for you if you still want to watch cable on those TVs?

If you meant cutting out cable, then you will also save more than the double the $20 monthly even if going the cheapest option (cable card rentals). That was my point.



Michael

 

[WannaGoMac]

You are simply repeating the BS that the cable company feeds you.

But it DOESN'T make sense.

Again, why do any channels have to be subsidized or be in a bundle?

Pay $x for ESPN and $y for BRAVO.

Then we can decide if ESPN is worth $x to us, or if BRAVO is worth $y.

And the channel providers can decide what to charge based on optimum sales/price balance, as well as what to pay to programming originators.

Simple as that.

Ok, why doesn't it make sense? You just state "it doesn't make sense" and proffer neither evidence nor proof that it isn't true.