Apple Selling Apple TV Near Cost?

[Porco]

Having just bought a PS3, I have to say I feel even less inclined than I was to buy an Apple TV. I seriously believe that Apple should team up with Sony on movie rentals and downloads and make iTunes for the PS3, it'd be a winner for all concerned IMHO.

 

[AppleMojo]

Interesting...seems like a market Apple knows it has to be in even though it doesn't have a revolutionary vision (or is limited by the media companies to the extent it can't have a revolutionary vision).

I'm not terribly interested in this product, but I think if HD rentals are to remain competitive with Blu-Ray, which has far higher quality and bit-rate (I think the maximum on the Apple TV is only 5 mbps), Apple needs to up its offerings.

Apple TV has always seemed like Apple putting some electronics in a box and somewhat embarrassingly putting it on the shelf and saying, "Does someone want one of these?"

"No you don't?"

"What if we add pay per view movies, do you want it now?"

It's the complete opposite of the iPod which had a clear simple vision and the message, "You want one of these."

You've obviously not used one or any competitors devices to compare.

The AppleTV is actually pretty nice, there are a few drawbacks but those are easily remedied with software as Apple is doing so now.

My wife and son use the Apple TV several times a day, to listen to Music and watch iTunes purchased Movies and TV shows.

Compared to other solutions out there, the AppleTV is far more turn-key and easier for the general user to find useful.

 

[soosy]

Interesting...seems like a market Apple knows it has to be in even though it doesn't have a revolutionary vision (or is limited by the media companies to the extent it can't have a revolutionary vision).

I'm not terribly interested in this product, but I think if HD rentals are to remain competitive with Blu-Ray, which has far higher quality and bit-rate (I think the maximum on the Apple TV is only 5 mbps), Apple needs to up its offerings.

Apple TV has always seemed like Apple putting some electronics in a box and somewhat embarrassingly putting it on the shelf and saying, "Does someone want one of these?"

"No you don't?"

"What if we add pay per view movies, do you want it now?"

It's the complete opposite of the iPod which had a clear simple vision and the message, "You want one of these."

Agreed. The iPod has a clear benefit—portability (even if it has become a replacement for stationary home stereos as well).

Apple TV has always irked me because it's doing something my home computer should already be able to do. Just slap some HDMI on the graphics card and we're good to go (Although many flat panels will accept standard DVI/VGA).

Relatedly, I'm irked that rentals via computer aren't available in HD... so I can't hook up my laptop to my TV for HD rentals. I know the reason is probably from the studios relating to copyright concerns... but it is irksome regardless.

I can already get movie rentals on my xbox and cable box. The one saving grace for Apple could be selection and quality. Let's hope their rental library grows fast.

 

[sananda]

It's approaching 1 year old. Surely it's cheaper to make it now, considering there are no hardware changes????

Based on an old thread about ATV costs, it was projected at $235 a while back. It appears if these numbers are accurate, that it has indeed become cheaper to build.

there are charts in both the articles you are posting about showing the reduction in build cost.

 

[gugy]

The Apple TV is great. Now all I need is a regular TV . . . Why not an Apple TV with a screen? How sexy would that be, a 42-inch aluminum HDTV with all the guts of the Apple TV in it?

Not going t happen. Very unlikely.

TV's are a though market with very low profit margins and fierce competition. Plus so many cool HDTVs out there. What benefit would Apple bring in making a television?
Seriously not much.
I rather they improve AppleTV and make it a sensational product and just plug it to my cool HDTV.

 

[John-S]

I have a love-hate relationship with my Apple TV. I like the idea of it but it always comes up just a tad short...

Movie Rentals in HD> I don't want to "rent" a movie for that high price... every movie rental place is cheaper! I want to be able to "buy" transformers in hi-def from my apple tv and have it include additional features like a dvd. Forget my blu-ray (no transformers anyway) and let me download the stupid thing. I really don't need streaming speeds... I can wait a bit for it to download. Its still quicker then driving to the store and buying a movie if I had the quick urge.

Also, lack of NBC is pissing me off. I want "Heroes" season 2 on my Apple TV! That kind of stuff is why I bought the Apple TV. NBC and Apple would both be winning right now... instead of me watching it for free on tv and not buying the dvd set they could be making $1.99 on me now an episode! I also hate the lack of WB content like Smallville and ER off whatever station that is (nbc probley)

Pictures on the tv... not a grand slam. Not by a long shot. Its cool when you first get your apple tv but then later.... I mainly want the Apple tv for Movies, TV and now youtube. Thats it!

The Apple remote and menu's are slow and OVERLY easy. I don't want a big remote like MS's or anything like that but that little tiny piece of crap is annoying and unresponsive. The apple tv takes too long to navigate through because its... so simple!


Otherwise, I know I made it sound like I hate the Apple tv but I really don't. I'm a big fan of mine and think its cool.... Just its sitting there not getting used these days because the lack of tv content and hd movies (hd tv content too).

Plus, they really need to get those in the UK (friends) some additional video content in the itunes store...

 

[autoy]

Let's put things this way:

The Apple TV will never succeed (don't know about the USA) in Europe because we need boxes that offer, beyond of a legal alternative way of online purchasing, a way to coexist with our exisiting video libraries (pirated, ripped or otherwise) which happen to be in Xvid/DivX formats 95% of the time (the rest is mkv). Microsoft and Sony have finally undeerstood this getting some codec support in their latest firmwares. The iPod/iTunes woud have never been anything without mp3 support.

If I have to pay for a box that sells me stuff over the net I would rather spend my money on an xBox or PS3 than on another one that offers me just the "privilege" of continuing to pay though rented movies.

Apple can choose: let the codecs in, give away the box for free (like all of the other cable providers here) or enjoy the slow death of the Apple TV.

 

[twoodcc]

yeah, that isn't very apple-like. but i guess it's better for consumers. hopefully they will sell more at these prices

 

[minik]

I look forward to purchase an Apple TV next month.

 

[Dorfdad]

Apple will have a hard time with this venture. They got LUCKY on the IPOD as they were the first out the door and grabbed alot of the market.

Secondly Unlike the IPOD where you can buy it once for 300.00 you now can add FREE content podcasts, your music etc to the IPOD. The Eye TV will make you pay for the system and than cost you every time you use it.

With stiff competition from Netfix, Cable Providers, and others Apple is not going to recreate the IPOD success unless they SHAKE the foundations on price and quality..

 

[thejadedmonkey]

ok. I'll get one. Soon as I get a HDTV... Right now it's useless to me though

 

[eXan]

Computerworld's Seth Weintraub first speculated that Apple is subsidizing the cost of Apple TV with their new movie rental sales. Indeed, Apple dropped the price for the Apple TV ($299-$399 -> $229-$329) at Macworld 2008 -- but this discount was only reflected in the U.S. and Canadian markets. To be fair, Apple's international pricing has always been higher than the U.S. counterparts, but this discrepant price drop did raise some eyebrows.

To followup, Gizmodo asked iSuppli for the current materials costs for building the Apple TV. According to their numbers, the $229 40GB Apple TV costs $208.20 to build while the $329 160GB Apple TV costs $235.70 to build. This includes raw component costs alone without taking into account assembly, packaging, shipping, and development costs.

These 10-30% margins are significantly lower margins than Apple typically enjoys on their hardware products, suggesting that they are indeed aggressively pricing the units to drive more sales. The Apple TV was originally launched at Macworld 2007 but was reportedly met with modest sales. Apple revamped the Apple TV at this year's Macworld with the inclusion of direct-to-tv movie rentals. This revamped software will be available as a free software update to all Apple TV owners.


Article Link

Yea, yea. I still haven't found any use for ATV with it's current feature set. If it had a DVD player, then ....

 

[matticus008]

Apple TV has always irked me because it's doing something my home computer should already be able to do.

I think it suffers more from the fact that it lacks a clearly defined set of competitors, so no matter what you compare it to, it will be a poor fit, which pre-judges the outcome of the comparison.

Your home computer can do all of this. But it's not small, silent, and meant to be used without a keyboard all the time. The Mac mini certainly is an option for "HTPC" class devices (though it's a term that's difficult to lock down--does an HTPC need a tuner? I think not, since digital/HD cable has managed to make obsolete computer tuner devices at an astonishing rate, but others disagree). But at $229, it's more like a beefed-up iPod for your living room.

Even at $230 Apple will have an up hill battle with this. Most consumers are used to getting their set top boxes for free when they sign up for some new service.

They're used to having, but not owning those. When your service ends, that free equipment has to go back. When Netflix launches their STB, it'll be a simpler (i.e. cheaper) device and will have built-in subscription revenue involved.

Tivo owners are used to buying their hardware and don't have a huge problem with it. AppleTV definitely does need some sort of subscription plan (even if it's as simple as putting a Netflix plugin in, like the YouTube one).

With ATV Apple is asking you to pay $230 up front just so you can rent their movies.

Works for Tivo, and you're not even done when you sink $300 on the HD box, and all that does is record TV for $13/month. The AppleTV wouldn't ever be a freebie. It would box out all the people who want one and probably won't rent that many movies on it--lots of the existing customer base.

I certainly didn't buy it so it could be a double for video on demand. I'm happy that they've added the feature, but I'd have one anyway. It's priced less than every other component in my setup, but it's one of the most useful for me.

 

[inkswamp]

Apple really did improve the AppleTV with this latest revision but I still don't understand why they can't see their way clear to get a freakin' DVD slot on the front of the box. I'd consider the AppleTV as a replacement for my DVD player if they did that, but I don't have any need for an all-download video player, and I don't know a lot of people who do. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's improved but it still strikes me as a toy for people with nothing better to do with their money.

 

[sellitman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

I know I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with for this platform. I'm so ready to ditch Comcast and Netflix over the next few years just like I banished Sam Goody and Tower Records over the past few.

I stopped Netflix when they bombarded web sites with pop-unders. I refuse to purchase from any company that employs obnoxius technologies

 

[inkswamp]

Apple will have a hard time with this venture. They got LUCKY on the IPOD as they were the first out the door and grabbed alot of the market.

Apple wasn't first with mp3 players. They weren't even second. I would doubt if they were even in the first 10 companies to make one. There literally was a slew of players prior to the iPod. If you're not certain of a specific claim like that it would be best to look it up before posting.

Secondly Unlike the IPOD where you can buy it once for 300.00 you now can add FREE content podcasts, your music etc to the IPOD. The Eye TV will make you pay for the system and than cost you every time you use it.

What?! I'm not sure what point you're making. What does Eye TV have to do with any of this?

With stiff competition from Netfix, Cable Providers, and others Apple is not going to recreate the IPOD success unless they SHAKE the foundations on price and quality..

First, it's written "iPod." It's not an acronym so the all-caps is not necessary.

Second, nobody has quite succeeded with this distribution method for movies yet. Apple stands just as good a chance as any, if not moreso as they have expertise in all areas needed--hardware, software, digital delivery, customer service, user interface/experience, DRM, format compatibility, etc. The companies you listed, as well as others like Amazon and Microsoft, are all severely lacking in one or more of those categories. And if you don't think that matters much, go talk to WalMart about their failures in music downloads. And when you think about the fact that the AppleTV is being tied in with the iPod, Apple stands the best chance out of all competitors in this field.

Seriously, what does (to pick one of your examples) Netflix have over Apple in this regard?

 

[Stella]

Downloading / streaming movies sounds good. However, be careful about whatever 'fair use' policy your ISP has. Download a few HD movies and you may blow your monthly limit and end up with a huge great bill data bill at the month's end.

 

[Alrescha]

The Apple TV will never succeed (don't know about the USA) in Europe because we need boxes that offer, beyond of a legal alternative way of online purchasing, a way to coexist with our exisiting video libraries (pirated, ripped or otherwise) which happen to be in Xvid/DivX formats 95% of the time (the rest is mkv).

Assuming that normal humans can encode in whatever format Apple is using for HD movies with 5.1 surround, I will being saying goodbye to Xvid/Divx as soon as possible (even sooner for mkv).

A.

 

[TheotherJoseph]

I would buy an Apple TV, but considering my HDTV only has two HDMI ports, I don't think I will.
One of the ports is occupied by my DirecTV box, the other by my PS3.

Also, 720p definitely isn't 1080p, especially on a 57" TV. I wish Apple would have offered the best available.

Here you go...

 

[GregA]

Even at $230 Apple will have an up hill battle with this. Most consumers are used to getting their set top boxes for free when they sign up for some new service. With ATV Apple is asking you to pay $230 up front just so you can rent their movies. They would have done better to give the ATV away with a movie download subscription service. The price could have been the same in the end.

Interesting idea. Force people to rent a minimum of 4 movies a month and give them the aTV? (and take the aTV back if they choose to stop renting?).

I guess they would have considered that? And even the opposite - keep the price at $299 but give buyers $6 credit each month for the first year?

I still don't understand why they can't see their way clear to get a freakin' DVD slot on the front of the box. I'd consider the AppleTV as a replacement for my DVD player if they did that, but I don't have any need for an all-download video player

For a long while, I've consistently flipped my thoughts on this

(edit: pressed send to early!).

I'd like the DVD... something nice and easy, and I could throw out my DVD player. BUT I do already have a DVD player, so how much would I be willing to pay for integration? Would AppleTV be criticised if they offer a HD player which plays SD (DVD) content (much as they've been criticised for the lower iTunes movie quality).

 

[autoy]

Assuming that normal humans can encode in whatever format Apple is using for HD movies with 5.1 surround, I will being saying goodbye to Xvid/Divx as soon as possible (even sooner for mkv).

A.

It may be easy enough for you or me (but time consuming to say the least) but I guess my sister (or the average joe for that matter) wouldn't go transcoding everything she downloads or owns, not a chance.

 

[xenotaku]

I would love one, but I don't have an HD TV, so there is use wish for it. I don't plan on buying an new TV for a while. Apple has to know there a lot of people in my camp. Not EVERYONE has an HD tv yet.

 

[tirerim]

Seriously, what does (to pick one of your examples) Netflix have over Apple in this regard?

What Netflix has is market penetration. Anyone with a Netflix subscription can use their download service, and they have huge numbers of subscribers, vastly more than the number of people who own AppleTVs. Now, they haven't succeeded with this model yet, either, and there's no guarantee that they will, but having that existing customer base is a big boost, I think. That's why Apple is dropping the price -- the more people that buy the AppleTV, the more successful the movie rental service will be.

 

[matticus008]

Interesting idea. Force people to rent a minimum of 4 movies a month and give them the aTV? (and take the aTV back if they choose to stop renting?).

Apple is not in the business of renting hardware. If another company wanted to buy some inventory and lease them out for some scheme or another, that would be one thing. Motorola doesn't rent its set-top boxes, nor does Tivo, or anyone else. It doesn't make sense. Some cost recovery can offset lower prices on content, but iTunes has never been a cash cow and there's no indication that it's meant to be for Apple. Apple isn't a content company; iTunes is and always has been just a means to an end--hardware sales.

I guess they would have considered that? And even the opposite - keep the price at $299 but give buyers $6 credit each month for the first year?

What would that accomplish? Who honestly would prefer paying more up front? You can spend the $70 on rentals if you want...but why be forced to "earn" the price drop?

 

[caseyh]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A93 Safari/419.3)

Were the first few generations of iPods subsidized?