True. But you still have to pay a cable company like $5.00 per card. Plus the cost of the service. This is why I never went back to Tivo. Its impossible to justify the cost. Payback is to long when you factor in the cost of the unit. The unit would die before you ever hit payback anyway and would have to buy a new one and start over.
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
True. But you still have to pay a cable company like $5.00 per card. Plus the cost of the service. This is why I never went back to Tivo. Its impossible to justify the cost. Payback is to long when you factor in the cost of the unit. The unit would die before you ever hit payback anyway and would have to buy a new one and start over.
That is what they want you to think.
Over-charging for internet to make TV "appear" inexpensive is apparently an effective trick. I would hope that kind of extortion-like technique can only work in the absence of other internet options.
Michael
Yes, I recall paying for high speed internet around $50 for about 10 years now and frankly it hasn't changed.
I agree that a traditional television set seems like a stupid idea. But perhaps, in a characteristic Apple way, they are re-thinking the TV and will surprise us with something we didn't know that we wanted... until they reveal it.
While I agree with you, Apple is far from being above planned obsolescence.
But that is the whole point. What other internet options are there? This whole discussion is based on the FACT that you must at least have High Speed Internet. Right? That Internet will cost you based on the speed at which it is provided. So, once you get a quality internet connection then you can add a TV Bundle at not much more money. And it is that extra cost that is being compare to other TV Streaming Options.
I just checked and Verizon FIOS is $3.99 per month for a Cable Card. Regarding TIVO, I do agree with you that they charge too much as well. I am talking about the TV Guide Rental (I do understand the lifetime).
What I did not mention before since I have all of the STB's I then get the more expensive content packages because of the "convenience". It might be okay for me to switch between boxes but not for my wife. However, if she could get her "normal" TV via the Apple TV (streamed from the SlingBox example) then she would be more willing to use the other features of Apple TV like Netflix and Hulu and we could drop some of the more expensive content bundles. She just wants a simple interface.
Technically, you are correct. But I'll try again. Suppose Apple does as suggested as adds a coax in jack to theTV. Then what? I have DISH, so if
In a Coax in solution, Apple would need to strike deals with all of these players so that the software could be put inside the
I offered how it could work against that reality. Maybe adding an HDMI in port to
I see what you mean. It would work for public TV but not cable. I don't have much experience with cable (since I just recently got it), but there is some way to get the cable box to connect to TVs through coax, and you can actually flip to cable channels on your TV using the TV remote. I'm sure it's not a universal remote. For example, my friends had an old CRT TV hooked up with coax to their cable box, and they were able to change the channel to cable stuff like Nickelodeon by pressing the buttons on the TV itself. The cable box received no commands.
----------
Yeah, cable is a ripoff. We just need it to watch the soccer World Cup (the only sports we ever watch) and a few shows like George Lopez. There's an iOS app to control our cable box with an iOS device over the network, but of course they seem to have made it bad on purpose... it fails to connect most of the time. This is Verizon FiOS.
1. Since when has apple ever been "perfect"? Great products, sure, but not perfect.
2. Since when has Apple ever been concerned about consumer technology being "cheap", "upgradeable", having "user freedom" or becoming "obsolete" too fast? Sounds like the exact opposite of Apple in fact.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right. Some of the digital cable boxes downconvert to analog to still feed an analog signal for older TVs. Some can still offer a bundle of analog channels through coax (as they haven't completed the transition yet). I don't think Apple would want to associate old SD analog signals with an
TV4.There are also some cable card technologies that try to make digital cable work on boxes other than those you rent from the cable company. Everything I see about this seems to imply "hit or miss", "works for some, not others", etc. I conclude it's not a national solution for an
TV4.Basically, if the goal is digital signals (better than analog SD), a coax in on an
TV 4 is probably not THE way. Instead, the cable/satt box needs to be in the chain to decrypt the signal and then that decrypted signal goes out to some kind of input on the TV. That input might be HDMI in or it might be something else. But I think that's the only way it would work (and still be better-than-SD analog quality). Maybe someone sees a third option?
I explained that already. I said you would need at least 1 Cable STB (which is normally free) OR a CABLE CARD. I.E. Something has to DECRYPT the TV SIGNAL for SOME Channels. What I do is I have a Cable STB -> SlingBox -> iOS Device (iPad normally). On my iPad I can instruct the SlingBox to change channels on the STB and I can get ALL of the channels on my iPad that I can get on the STB. Now, put that same App on the Apple TV and then my Apple TV Streams from the SlingBox in the same manor so I do not need a STB on that TV. However, there is currently a limit on 1 connection at a time to the SlingBox per connection but I do not watch all 8 TV's at the same time. However, I can also connect directly to the wall with a COAX Cable and get all of the QAM Channels so I could stream those at the same time as well. My point is there are multiple options once you allow Apps to be developed for the Apple TV. You can do this with competitors to Apple TV but I need the Apple TV for the iTunes DRM Content.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
Are you saying you have one option for high-speed internet? If so then of course you have no other choice than to use them. But that is not the case everywhere.
Michael
I really hope this turns out to be true! I had always hoped they would do this at this years WWDC... It would make sense if they are doing a TV next year as it will ensure there is already a thriving app market before the TV is even released which would be a great selling point! 
If even half of the rumours about WWDC are true it should be a good one
If even half of the rumours about WWDC are true it should be a good one
Yes. A few days ago the HBO CEO appeared on Charlie Rose and explained the magnitude of their enterprise. HBO is only a part of huge conglomerate of cable companies, publishing co, newspapers, etc. He spoke for an hour about his grandiose plans and I am sorry to say, I thought this would have been impressive ten years ago. He made no mention of the Internet, avoided anything that would mean streaming. It was a pathetic avoidance to what is really happening to entertainment today.
Serious losses may be the only way he'll get the message. I hope Apple has a grand plan that will bring him and his cronies into the present.
Last edited:
Since I already have apps on my ATV I understand that.
I guess what I don't understand is the concept of paying for cable--or satellite for that matter--when I will be streaming it from the Internet for which I already pay separately. There is something wrong with that equation.
Presumably it's a matter of bandwidth right now that makes cable and satellite still attractive. They are still essentially "broadcasting." While those 205 channels might be delivering terabytes upon terabytes of data--mostly worthless on an individual level--down the pipe to all subscribers I believe we are on the cusp of the model changing to narrowcasting.
I believe that is how Apple sees it. I think any cable provider apps, while approved, are not really where they want this thing to go (nor where I want it to). If I want to watch ABC I want to use the ABC app. I don't see why a cable company needs to be involved in any of it--other than Internet access.
And before someone chimes in that they will merely raise the price of Internet access so we still pay the same.... so what? It is, for me, a much better experience than dealing with the current mess of STBs, DVR interfaces, scheduling the DVR, family members screwing up a recording in progress, etc.
Michael
Right. Some of the digital cable boxes downconvert to analog to still feed an analog signal for older TVs. Some can still offer a bundle of analog channels through coax (as they haven't completed the transition yet). I don't think Apple would want to associate old SD analog signals with an
There are also some cable card technologies that try to make digital cable work on boxes other than those you rent from the cable company. Everything I see about this seems to imply "hit or miss", "works for some, not others", etc. I conclude it's not a national solution for an
Basically, if the goal is digital signals (better than analog SD), a coax in on an
Well, if it is done over HDMI, changing channels and automatically recording with the Apple TV would be impossible. Still, coax input can be beneficial if you just use public TV because you'd be able to record and have it be more convenient to control.
Again, that's what they'd like you to believe. But it's BS.
If the Avengers didn't make money, they wouldn't make another one.
If ESPN could command $100 per month as an optimum price, they'll charge just that.
It's not like these companies are altruistic and shift money from ESPN to put into community programming.
The pricing you get on iTunes is high because it's what the content providers are demanding, since they get the bulk of their sales from the bundled channels.
But if they didn't have the cable bundles, they'll have to sell on iTunes and the like, which means they'll be forced to be more competitive.
The providers love bundles, because they get $$ regardless of what you actually watch. They go to advertisers and claim XXXXX number of viewers based on bundle subscriptions, rather than on actual eyeballs.
Ultimately it should go to some form of a subscription model, but more along the Netflix lines, rather than iTunes or OnDemand.
The "bundlers" do not do it to keep prices low for consumers, nor are they your friends. Keep in mind that if not for darknet, they'd be asking for $10 per 24hr rental....
As a budding Cocoa developer, I'm really anxious to get a look at the APIs to see just what goodies are made available.
This is my theory as well.With iCloud, local storage is almost moot. Other iP* devices do need self-sufficiency when not network attached, but the
I Apple allows apps like Plex (I do like XBMC better, however), with built-in codec support, then ATV3 would certainly be worth buying.
Does this mean that Safari or a third party web browser will be available? Hmmmm, then it may get closer to replacing my HTPC (chinscratch) ...
Last edited:
Well, you may be right
Hopefully, Apple really will open up ATV to third party apps so we can find out the good way, by actually being able to try things, what it is capable of. I hope MVK is just one of many things I could use ATV for.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, now I see what you mean. If the goal is to get local network programming into an
TV4 via coax, that can work. What you're doing there is expanding the functionality of the TV to also be a DVR. Apple has formalized some patents for DVR functionality in the past so anything is possible.The pessimist might say that Apple wouldn't do this because it would cannibalize iTunes rentals/sales (and a lot of
TV evolution decisions have seemed to be counter to ideal in support of trying to make iTunes the center of the video universe IMO). Also, the Studios that already do business with Apple may be less enthusiastic about the relationship if the main network's programming can be easily captured and stored for free (via OTA + DVR functionality)So, the way to get there without Apple taking it there (and probably the easier way for this to arrive sooner than later) would be to normalize the USB port and allow a company like Elgato offer a DVR attachment with a DVR app. Apple could then show some arm's length from the DVR functionality while still selling many more
TVs because it becomes a "2 birds with one stone" device for those wanting this kind of functionality. If you would be interested in such functionality now, those Elgato products work pretty well "as is" (hooked to a computer). This moves the DVR to the computer but the software is pretty smart and can convert the captures and insert them into iTunes for you (ready to play on
TV). I realize that's not the same as having the DVR functionality right in the box next to the TV, but maybe an Elgato app will come along to control the DVR hardware linked to the Mac from the TV. That would be a very close approximation with what you are seeking, only using the much greater horsepower in the computer to do the video capture work.I could not agree more... Sure shows (content) may be lost, but if it is good enough, it will be made. It just might be priced different.