There are two problems that will need to be solved soon here:
1) The Apple TV interface will not scale and is already on the cluttered side. There has to be a redesign in the works.
2) The link between apps and Cable providers really tarnishes the draw of any set-top box for anyone trying to cut the cord. Why on earth would ABC need to link to your cable provider when its content is over-the-air for free? I fear this is the only way to stop Cable Operators from crapping their pants and a feeble attempt to stem the technological shift that's coming.
No, the "problems" are not just those that work toward Apple getting to replace our existing television service providers. Even if both of the above 2 are fully addressed, who owns the pipe through which an Apple cableTV replacement solution must flow? Why will the cableTV companies that are also our broadband providers just roll over and let Apple have that business (without making up for it in higher broadband rates and/or tiers for "heavier users")?
Another problem is the ongoing belief that we're going to get to pay a fraction of what we pay now, still get all that we want to consume, Apple can plug in and get their big cut right off the top too and it will all "just work." Apparently, "we" think the savings we expect will come from cutting out the cable middleman (who is the broadband middleman too) and also by some magic. If big cable (broadband) is still going to get their revenue cut either way and Apple is going to take a big bite too, who's left to take the financial hit so that we can get our 99 cent/month or $10/month "just the channels I want" rate?
If the Studios are expected to take the HUGE hit in a mass shift from consumers tossing about $100/month or more into this chain to spending $10/month (a 90% cut to the cash flows) why do we think the Studios will be able to keep making the stuff "we" want to watch? The best shows- typically best on relatively high budgets and expensive stars- probably can't be funded if the cash flows are cut by 90%.
Look through this very thread. There's always some dreaming about $1/month per channel… yet Apple should get it's big cut too. There's usually a few more chiming in about wanting "commercial free" (ignoring the huge subsidy that that OPM throws into the machine, which helps us get what we want to watch for what we pay now). There's always a crowd who hates paying for 200 channels "I" never watch, ignoring that the commercials that are never seen on those 200 channels are also OPM flowing to Studios in support of shows that "we" do want to watch.
We just ignore that the Apple dream alternative must flow through pipes owned by Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon and others as if our broadband cost is absolutely static. And we ignore that cutting any flow of cash from consumers by 90% is likely to result in massive cuts to the quality of whatever is consumed. In this case, Studios would fall, expensive shows would be ended, etc. We already have ultra-cheaply produced "programming" in abundance- see youtube "shows".
I love the dream as much as the next guy… but it's just a dream. To actually change this model means showing all the other players beyond us consumers how they will ALL make MORE MONEY- not less- in any new model. That doesn't happen if the source of the money gets to cut our bills by 85% or more.
