Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Please update the article - it says Apple TV allows iOS devices to stream music to TV, this is just a fraction of it's usefulness, it should say movies (from iTunes on an iOS device) or video from Vimeo or YouTube etc. It allows you to watch your Watch later or subscriptions - you ;ice the content on your iPhone during the day and watch it at home in the evening.

The iOS / AppleTV connectivity is one of it's strong points and about so much more than music.
 
The biggest "issue" with an Apple television set is it's marriage to iTunes and content purchased from iTunes. The reality is that iTunes TV shows and movies are crazy expensive compared to their blu-ray versions.

Dark Knight Trilogy
Blu Ray - $24.99
iTunes HD - $47.97 (have to buy them individually)

Harry Potter Set
Blu Ray - $55.79
iTunes HD - $74.99 (though this was on sale for around $58 last summer)

And you could go on and on and on.

Apple needs to learn 2 things
1.) Put things on sale. We're loyal customers. Reward us for that.
2.) You don't need ALL THE MONEY.

I just don't get what Apple are doing with HD content on iTunes. When iTunes first launched it was intended as an online store for getting music on to your iPod so they could make the iPod look more attractive and therefore sell more iPods. And it worked perfectly.

But now it's all confused. They sell TV shows and films in HD which take ages to download and fill up the tiny hard drive on your iOS device faster than you can say "my iPad is already full and I only bought a few TV seasons in HD".

It doesn't make sense. I suspect most people are only downloading the HD content to stream via AppleTV to their non-Apple television set. Why not do what they did with music - create a hybrid format that's better than DVD but not quite HD or BluRay quality but with a lot smaller file size. Just have one version instead of SD and HD. I'm sure they could use some clever way of upscaling old SD content so that it looks a lot better in the same way they have Mastered for iTunes music. Then when the time is right they upscale their content to a better quality but again just giving one option. They could add the option for customers to upgrade their content to the better quality version for a small fee in the same way they went from 128 to 256 in iTunes music.

Why do they even need to compete with BluRay? What happens when UHD movies start appearing? Are we going to end up with 3 iTunes video formats to chose from and how big are the UHD files going to be. People who want better sound quality buy the CD, people who want ok sound quality but with a more convenient format buy iTunes downloads and Apple still sells loads of iTunes music. The same could apply to video content. If you want the best picture quality on your high end TV buy a BluRay or UHD disk. If you just want something to watch on your iPad then a new SD/HD hybrid would work perfectly well and would be a lot quicker to download on the move. Pay a bit extra to be able to also stream the same content in HD on your AppleTV at home over your home broadband connection.

Alternatively they could make it possible to stream iCloud content without having to download it first. That would make so much sense. Why do I have to download a film or tv show to my local hard drive when I could buy it and store it in my iCloud and just stream it to my Mac or iPad when I want to watch it. I could still have the option to download if I wanted to. I'm already on my third external hard drive because I've bought so much content from iTunes. It's costing me a small fortune in external hard drives. It's a crazy system. That's why the likes of Netflix are doing so well.
 
No, the "problems" are not just those that work toward Apple getting to replace existing television service provider. Even if both of the above 2 are fully addressed, who own's 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 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 Studio's 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… and 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, Studio's 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.

This.
 
im sure they'll call it itv. seems like the idea behind this first materialized sometime before they renamed the then itv to the apple tv
Nope thay vant fall it itv at least not in the UK, that will create confusion with the broadcaster itv plc, so unless they get a deal the itv name is not gona fly there
 
I'm not sure why they haven't dropped their latest chip in there with a tweak to take advantage of the plugged in electricity source and then just dropped a slightly modified version of iOS on the device. If they had gotten it out this year with MI-FI controllers they could have taken a bit of wind out of the Next Gen consoles. Now they are letting millions of higher powered Next Gen consoles to get sold and they will be much harder to compete against in the future.
 
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.

Yep. Here is the best thing to hope for: you get a better service and you spend more money each month for it. The dream as expressed above is that we get more and pay less. Nonsense. The cable companies have a near monopoly on the internet pipe to your house. You are going to keep sending them more money each month or else you will have to do without that pipe. Your only hope is that you get more for that money. Things like HBO Go is an example of where you can get more value for no extra charge. That is what you should hope for.
 
I hope they will add Chinese channels one day... There has been already a Korean channel right?
 
Meh i pass on this one for now. I own two Sony Bravia HX850 they are a great looking TV set with the monolithic design, so they blend in well my Apple Gear. More Importantly I can play PS4 and WII U for several more years so no rush here, unlike when the PS3 came out which forced to me to upgrade HD and than latter to Full HD.

If history repeats itself anything can be introduced between 4k and 8k launch in the latter, however i wouldn't mind a OLED TV I heard they look fantastic in 4K resolution.
 
I want one today

Apple TV 60" min AMBILIGHT, RETINA. and 1999,- would make me happy I love :apple:
 
i hope apple tv has its own app store
and let us play games in TV~ :)

klkas.jpg
 
The biggest "issue" with an Apple television set is it's marriage to iTunes and content purchased from iTunes. The reality is that iTunes TV shows and movies are crazy expensive compared to their blu-ray versions.

Dark Knight Trilogy
Blu Ray - $24.99
iTunes HD - $47.97 (have to buy them individually)

Harry Potter Set
Blu Ray - $55.79
iTunes HD - $74.99 (though this was on sale for around $58 last summer)

And you could go on and on and on.

Apple needs to learn 2 things
1.) Put things on sale. We're loyal customers. Reward us for that.
2.) You don't need ALL THE MONEY.

Apple sends 70% of the money straight to the movie company. So about $33.20 of that Dark Knight Trilogy goes straight to the movie company, more than you apparently paid for the Blu Ray.

If you spend any reasonable amount of money on iTunes, look for gift card offers. The best one I found in the UK was £40 iTunes gift cards sold for £30 at WHSmith, and £25 gift cards sold for £20 is quite common. Whenever these offers are out, I stock up, so that Dark Knight Trilogy would have cost me $36 (of which $33.20 goes straight to the movie company).
 
I'm not sure why they haven't dropped their latest chip in there with a tweak to take advantage of the plugged in electricity source and then just dropped a slightly modified version of iOS on the device. If they had gotten it out this year with MI-FI controllers they could have taken a bit of wind out of the Next Gen consoles. Now they are letting millions of higher powered Next Gen consoles to get sold and they will be much harder to compete against in the future.

Actually current consoles will be easier to compete with in the future - after the Apple "A" series chip goes through 1 or 2 more revisions the current consoles will be mid-cycle and stuck on two year old hardware.

The best time to introduce a competitor will be in 2014 or 2015.
 
Apple sends 70% of the money straight to the movie company. So about $33.20 of that Dark Knight Trilogy goes straight to the movie company, more than you apparently paid for the Blu Ray.

If you spend any reasonable amount of money on iTunes, look for gift card offers. The best one I found in the UK was £40 iTunes gift cards sold for £30 at WHSmith, and £25 gift cards sold for £20 is quite common. Whenever these offers are out, I stock up, so that Dark Knight Trilogy would have cost me $36 (of which $33.20 goes straight to the movie company).

That's a good point.

I do stock up on iTunes gift cards when they are on sale - as they are now during the holidays.

But still, Apple could throw a sale every once in a while. At least match Blu-Ray prices on new releases.
 
Actually current consoles will be easier to compete with in the future - after the Apple "A" series chip goes through 1 or 2 more revisions the current consoles will be mid-cycle and stuck on two year old hardware.

The best time to introduce a competitor will be in 2014 or 2015.

Hmm, I see your point. I was thinking that once the next generations are in the home, the cost advantage of an Apple TV is moot. But I suppose these consoles need to sell for four or five years to make back their development costs. The A9 with modifications to take advantage of the plug in electricity source and perhaps a heatsink of some sort will be much more of a competitor. But we are just talking about competition in the casual games, I would think. The graphics of the next generation consoles will be out of reach. But good games can be played at any graphics level.
 
I think it's pretty clear that Apple is very focused on the content aspect of ATV. I think they themselves know that a pretty looking TV won't be enough to differentiate their product. This needs to be a knockout product in terms of both the content and the user experience. And I just don't think they're there yet on the content which is why there hasn't been any new TV products.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.