Apple TV's Future?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Otherwise, HobeSoundDarryl is just repeating what he wants and there is no way that he can claim that he speaks for the majority of potential Apple TV customers.

I've posted more than once that I could care less about DVR or BD add-ons or as built-in features. But I'm a big enough fan of the TV that I own, and Apple in general... not to mention that my business is marketing and product development with both heavily based upon market research... to have spent time in the places where existing owners and potential buyers talk about product like TV and I've seen enough feedback from potential buyers to conclude that if a next-gen (1080p) platform was developed, and it was open enough to allow the likes of an Elgato and similar to extend the functionality to also cover the BD & DVR bases, it seems highly likely that a lot more of these potential buyers could then be moved to buy.

The alternative is to keep it approx "as is", relatively closed and locked almost entirely into iTunes content consumption (at least for the masses), and thus keep selling it at about the pace it sells now. Do you FPNC believe that it is selling well enough now to entrench in the masses living rooms, and thus create the potential to realize the Apple vision as you've presented it in the 5-year timetable you've also offered up?

And if so, where exactly is that big boom in sales going to come from relative to the non-Apple-fanatic masses? Do you not see that if Apple doesn't get this box into most of the households, that this "everything via iTunes vision" cannot possibly be fulfilled? What about the way that you keep pitching it (mostly leave it the same, but maybe with 1080p hardware upgrade) is going to make the masses buy it over BD and DVRs and similar? How does Apple catch up to the pace of sales of BD players, and the entrenchment of DVRs (not just TIVOs) so that the masses can embrace the "download it all from iTunes" vision you so passionately support?

And finally, why not desire something that fits your vision of what you think it should be while also being able to fit other peoples wants of what they would like it to be? Because Apple has said it shall be so? My opinion is a way for you to get what you want, others to get what they want, and Apple to be able to sell a device that seems to fit a lot of buyer wants. Your opinion is a way to get what you want, some others to NOT be able to get they want, and somehow Apple will- perhaps magically- be able to accelerate the pace of TV sales. Which seems more favorable to fulfill your vision?

...it would be pretty easy for someone to ask for this or that until they actually have to pay for it or until they experience the full meaning of what they are asked to approve or disapprove.

So it's better that Apple decides for the masses because Apple knows best?

The beauty of the more open, add-on concept as I've argued in this thread is that at least there is the potential for a next-gen TV to be what various buyers would like it to be. If Elgato's DVR add-on is too expensive, but buyers still want a DVR, then they still get a DVR as a separate box. If someone's BD player add-on meets with general buyer disapproval, then buyers may not buy that add-on. Etc. At least the marketplace would have the OPTION, instead of Apple arbitrarily deciding things like handicapped 720p is "good enough", and so on.

Being in my business, it is so hard to understand how customers- even Apple lovers on an Apple fan board- can get so behind a concept of let Apple choose what is best for us, as you appear to be doing in your arguments.

I'll concede that maybe Apple does know best. Perhaps TV exactly "as is" is ideal, and that any more, or a normal USB port(s), or a BD or DVR add on option, and so forth would all be complete failures in the marketplace. But it's evident from the sales of "hacks" that subsets of existing TV owners want more out of the box "as is" than as Apple chose it to be. And if you do a little biased research just in thread after thread on this board alone, you'll see that there are a fair amount of people saying that would buy one if it just had __________________. If they don't buy one because it doesn't have _______________, then sticking with things "as is" doesn't get an TV into their homes. I offer that there is certainly more of them, than there are of us.

Thus, it may be that the best that Apple can do at this time is to merely guess at what customers might be willing to buy.

That's a big load of crap. First, Apple certainly has the ability to build a better TV- particularly the relatively easy hardware options I've described in my posts. It is far from the "best that they can do" as it is right now.

Second, it is very easy to do next-gen TV research if Apple was more open about it. For example, given the huge fan base of cross sale potential (those who own an iPhone/iPod Touch), Apple could roll out a simple "app for that" that asks those (MILLIONS OF) people what they would want in a next-gen TV. Present a menu of options and ask them to rank those most desirable. Include an "other" category for items not listed in the menus. Put the same "app" on the Apple site so that people without iPhones/iPod touches could offer their wants too. Then promote the crap out of a "We're All Ears" campaign asking users to play a role in one of Apple's "next big things".

Will the market pay for such features? Put best guess cost estimates right in the feature list. Then, those "voting" are qualifying their votes with what each wish will approximately cost in a finished product (or add on). Or, let them build their ideal next-gen TV, and then ask them what they would pay for that one. There are standard metrics that apply to letting a public-driven product concepting effort like this arrive at the "real" price they would actually pay.

That would be easy to execute, purely objective (based on the "votes"), and very obviously point to 3-5+ most wanted enhancements to an established product. My company helps our clients do this kind of thing all the time. Apple could easily do this kind of thing, quickly learn what the market wants (and what the market will pay for those wants)

Apple chooses not to do this sort of thing, which leads to massive product successes and massive product failures. An open Apple (in this way) would likely only accelerate the pace of home run products they roll out. It is- IMO- the most fundamental thing that is mostly missing for how Apple does it's business. They would be much more successful than they already are if they would at least open their ears a little more to such cheap & simple market research, then let the collective brilliance of their market help them make good decisions about new products in the pipeline.

The only real game changer that I can see for Apple's movie/video store is for it to have a reduction in pricing. If all of the standard definition movies rentals were $0.99 and if the HD was priced at $1.99 then they'd have a likely hit. Unfortunately (for us) the content providers won't allow such pricing because it would compete too vigorously with DVDs, Blu-ray, and cable/satellite broadcasting.

This is likely a big factor, and in this we agree. Lower pricing of the content AND a subscription model (as you've also offered) would be wise steps in the right direction. And yes you are right that the studios control the pricing (and after seeing how much Apple pushes around the music companies, I don't blame them one bit for not wanting to hand over similar domination to Apple).

But here again, unless your vision of TV somehow magically moves the masses to buy the TV's, there is little incentive for the Studios to even try lower prices on something as unpopularly received (by the masses) as TV. But get one in nearly every home (by making it cover some of the other bases) and the Studios will feel the profit-driven desire to test things like 1080p and lower prices via iTunes, see that they can make more that way- even at lower prices- vs. burning discs and giving a big cut of each sale to Walmart & Best Buy, and thus the vision gets here sooner than later.

Studios just want to make as much money as they can. If TVs were as entrenched as iPods, they would be scrambling every which way to try to get their content into iTunes, and selling as much of it as possible- even at lower prices.

Next, it is my opinion that the 1080p question is kind of pointless. Yes, it's most likely that the next Apple TV hardware will support 1080p decoding but that doesn't mean that the industry will then be ready to support content delivery in that format.

Wouldn't it be more pointless for the industry to support 1080p if ALL that an TV market can playback is handicapped 720p? If the hardware is there, at least there is the potential for a Studio to TEST 1080p downloads. Should Apple not build in features like MMS or tethering to iPhones until AT&T is completely ready to support such features? Should Macs not be enhanced until the bulk of software can fully take advantage of multi-core hardware, etc?

If you take a stance that the content has to come from the Studios BEFORE it makes sense for Apple to build that hardware in, there's never a reason for the Studios to play ball with Apple. But, if Apple goes ahead and delivers hardware beyond what the Studios will support now, (and beyond what many people's broadband pipe can manage now), then buyers are buying a "futureproof" product, not one that is already "old technology".

In my own case, what I most want out of a 1080p TV is the last link in my chain. I shoot precious family video on a 1080p camcorder, polish it in iMovie where I can output it in 1080p, running iMovie on a Mac, and I can insert that 1080p render into iTunes. I have a 1080p HDTV. But I can't get the video from iTunes to that HDTV through the device best suited for that purpose.

Unlike what you've implied, I don't really care much about the Studios bringing 1080p content to iTunes, or that broadband pipes might be too tight for the masses to be downloading 1080p content from iTunes (or BD or DVR functionality). But I would love a 1080p TV pretty much "as is" if my posts were about MY wants. If you're going to speculate about the markets, it's important to be able to see the markets beyond YOUR own uses and needs.

And even almighty Apple doesn't guess it right every time.

Given the above, it's my opinion that Apple can't really do much to make the Apple TV as wildly as successful as either the iPhone or iPod and that may just be the case for the time being.

Or, Apple could try something different such as some of the ideas that people like me have shared in this thread- including the quick & easy market research approach I've offered in this post- and see if they can heat up sales of this product.

I'm so passionate about it because I see it as a no-brainer, home run, likely to be a bigger success than the iPhone if they would just execute a few simple things to expand it's appeal. From my perspective what is in the way is mostly an issue with Apple's will to make it great now, and certainly not a lack of ability, or know how, or technical competencies, or methods to nail down what a next-gen TV should be.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Biggest wish right now: Subscription...I would pay as much as $40 a month. I have already dropped DirecTV and we live entirely on OTA HDTV and AppleTV and we are very happy.

I think many would be with you on this one mstrze. The trick is twofold:

1. getting the studios to make that kind of (generally better than cable/satt option) deal
2. getting the controllers of the principal broadband pipes (cable/satt) to allow their cash cow psuedo-monopoly business to be undercut with a solution that flows through those very same pipes

I would love to see it happen, but especially because of the 2nd bullet, I find it hard to imagine it will be allowed to happen. If too many could do as you've done (jettison the cable/satt bill) in exchange for internet downloads, guess what those companies feeling the pain (cable/satt) will do with their broadband pricing?

I think for it to actually happen, Apple would also need to bring a new kind of broadband solution so that interested subscribers could bypass the traditional broadband provider pipes.

Or, unfortunately, pricing would likely be such that it remains a generally better deal to keep your cable/satt subscription for those that can't live without channels beyond the basics.

 

[mstrze]

I only use my local cable provider for broadband. So they get my money, even without me using their 'cable tv' services.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I only use my local cable provider for broadband. So they get my money, even without me using their 'cable tv' services.

Oh, I understand that. But let a bunch of other people do what you are doing so that your cable provider feels the pain in their cable business, and watch what happens to your broadband bill. The last thing those in control of the pipes want is to end up as just a cheap broadband pipe. And these companies controlling those pipes especially love the easy- and lucrative- profitability of their core television programming distribution businesses. They won't lose that easy money to someone like Apple if Apple's solution has to flow through their pipes.

Sorry to hit you with that. But what would you do if you were them?

 

[idunn]

Apple: the new Google?

"The home video market is crucial for studios because that is where they recoup much of the cost of producing movies."

'Hollywood hopes an ensemble cast boosts Blu-ray'
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/us_tec_blu_christmas​

The most basic equation in video is a content provider and the customer with a screen that wants to watch it. Everyone in between, including Apple, is only a middleman.

Content providers want the widest possible circulation, but most of all the most revenue possible. They have to deal with a fickle audience, rapidly changing technical standards, and a variety of middlemen with competing business models and goals.

Customers want to watch what they want, when they want, as easily and cheaply as possible. They have to deal with rapidly changing technical standards, and a variety of middlemen with competing business models and goals. As customers, they have a lot of options and also a lot of headaches.

As an aspiring middleman (with iTunes), someone such as Apple could take advantage of this situation. They are competing with the likes of Wal-Mart, Amazon, Dish Network, Comcast, to name a few. Challenges include traditional thinking, among content providers for one. Perhaps most importantly in present limitations with true global broadband. Strengths include a solid established brand and growing franchise in iTunes. Also, with iTunes, a good business model in offering digital media.

Digital media eclipses many of the issues of format (DVDs, Blue-Ray, etc.), even as it has to contend with those of its own. But a digital file, no matter how transmitted, remains the purest form, before issues of encoding, etc. It is also the form best adapted across all platforms, and simplest for the customer to use.

From Apple's perspective the biggest bottleneck in their distribution chain is in inadequate broadband (which they have only some control over), and ATV. Video via iTunes will remain a 'hobby' as long as its content is not easily transferable to HDTV televisions. Few will settle for a computer screen. Thus ATV is critical to the success of iTunes until or unless HDTV sets can receive such data directly.

While Apple has total control over ATV, it also has some influence in adoption of true broadband. Technically, decent broadband is possible. Only a question of will that can be influenced by demand. If internet transfer of 1080p movie files became the norm the infrastructure in such places as the United States would choke. If this increasingly became the case, infrastructure could and would adapt. Moreover, it is in the national security interests of such places as the US to have stellar internet; they do themselves no favor in maintaining half-assed, limited broadband service. Business alone, and not just in movies, demands it.

But while working on that front, Apple could turn most of its attention to its 'hobby' of ATV. As the above cited article mentions, many customers may forsake quality for utility and portability. But only if they have to. Via iTunes, Apple can excel in utility and portability, they might as well in quality. For most it has probably been a revelation to witness 1080p on a large HDTV television. Few, if the viable option, likely willing to settle for less. Particularly not when sets at 40" and above are increasingly becoming the norm, with more and more media being broadcast in 1080p.

Satellite providers such as Dish Network offer internet. An option, if one must, with but a download speed of 1.5Mps, and rather expensive. But they have no problem offering most any other channel one might want, increasingly in HDTV. They also presently enjoy advantages in offering live content (ie: Sports), selection, and ease of use. Someone using such a service, Comcast, etc., has little reason to use ATV, other than for purchase of media (but that inferior to Blue-Ray). With a more robust DVR, why wouldn't someone such as Dish Network prevail? Conceivably one could have not only the option of recording most anything, but also the option of easily purchasing it (sans commercials) and having it automatically archived.

Apple has to contend with that. iTunes is not a given, and it has prospered to date largely due music and within a window that other providers have yet to fill.

Broadcasters such as NBC have seen their business model shot to hell of late. They, along with CBS, ABC and FOX are adapting to the internet, but slowly. They cannot assume any longer a near monopoly which advertisers could count on. Everything is now fragmented. The same holds true for such monopolistic content providers as the NFL. Increasingly they cannot shop their wares for the best annual deal with one of the major networks and consider it done. What they and their advertisers will have to recognize and adapt to is a widely disperse market of a myriad of small channels, each of which can make them a profit, in total quite possibly larger than before.

What these guys need is an aggregator. Before, someone such as ABC was, by default. Now they are but one of many content providers, and but one of many middlemen in distribution. There may be a new Google in this, whether Apple or someone else, that not only best gets media from content providers to customer's HDTV sets, but also best provides for advertisers in a very fragmented market.

No one is presently doing this.

 

[Michael CM1]

After seeing some TVs for sale yesterday, Apple TV is in trouble as a hardware device. TVs with Internet connections are getting more popular and coming with Netflix and other stuff already built in. I saw a Samsung 52" LCD for $1300 with this.

As this feature makes it into more TVs, Apple should probably wise up and develop Apple TV as a widget for such platforms. Apple TV is $229, the same price as Samsung's bad-ass Blu-ray Disc player that streams all sorts of stuff and loads faster than a PS3. Apple will only get die-hard iTunes media buyers to get the hardware at that price. I'd like to get my iTunes content on my TV, but not at that price. I have only bought a few shows and movies via iTunes, and I don't think I'll be buying more as BD prices come down. "The Universe" looks MUCH better in Blu-ray HD anyway.

 

[fpnc]

Thus, it may be that the best that Apple can do at this time is to merely guess at what customers might be willing to buy.

...That's a big load of crap...

I'm uncertain as to why you choice to extract that small fragment from my previous post when I immediately followed that sentence with the following:

Well, "guess" may be too strong of a term, it should be an informed opinion backed up with real financial estimates on what the market will accept and with a good dose of analysis on what is really feasible given current technology and competitive markets (things like intellectual property barriers and licensing costs need to be examined in great detail).

I guess you consider that a "load" also?

As for these questions:

Do you FPNC believe that it is selling well enough now to entrench in the masses living rooms, and thus create the potential to realize the Apple vision as you've presented it in the 5-year timetable you've also offered up?

And if so, where exactly is that big boom in sales going to come from relative to the non-Apple-fanatic masses?

I think the answer is fairly obvious, Apple doesn't need to win at making the best multi-functional hardware device, they just need to win at offering the best streaming media service and any hardware that they produce will just be a window into that service.

My "vision" is that streaming media is the future, I don't think that can be disputed (or at least it could be the most likely outcome). Thus, I see Apple making incremental improvements with the Apple TV hardware while concentrating on ease of use and quality of service. As most of us have already opined, there are still a lot improvements that Apple could make through software upgrades and changes in the licensing terms of the media they offer through the iTunes Store (although as we all seem to agree, the content providers currently have a very tight grip on exactly what Apple can offer in the way of movies and TV).

By the time that streaming media begins to replace Blu-ray players and DVRs the cost of the hardware to support streaming 1080p content will be extremely low. Then, with the proper infrastructure and streaming service Apple will be able to produce a box for $100 (or less) that can completely replace Blu-ray players and DVRs (think of this, no moving parts and a few chip could do it all). As I've already written, the true genius in this whole question is knowing when or how soon this transition will take place. In the interim Apple will be building infrastructure (like that one billion dollar server farm) and perfecting their streaming services (for the iPhone/iPod, Macs/PCs, and the Apple TV).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm uncertain as to why you choice to extract that small fragment from my previous post when I immediately followed that sentence with the following: I guess you consider that a "load" also?

No, the balance was OK, and yes, the financial forecasting and modeling is a part of good new product development processes. What made it a load of crap was implying that it may be as good as Apple can do and/or guessing was maybe as good as they can do for researching what features would be desirable. Both of those implications are completely false. Certainly Apple has the ability to make better hardware than what TV "as is" amounts to now (and even what it was when released several years ago). And certainly Apple could do "research" as cheaply, quickly and simply in ways such as the example I shared in that last post to get a very good feel for what BUYERS would like to see in the next incarnation (for some reason I don't understand, they just choose NOT to do that).

We should not worship at the alter of Apple so thoroughly that we blindly accept that they know best in all things, and that whatever they deliver is the best it can possibly be. While Apple does a great job in many things- and in many ways- they don't do EVERYTHING perfectly right, and this is an obvious opportunity for them to use their deep- and capable- technical and marketing competencies to do this much, much better.

There are no good excuses for what seems like mostly a lack of will and/or focus on a product that could be bigger than iPhone... and that they could clearly evolve into yet another category killer.

I think the answer is fairly obvious, Apple doesn't need to win at making the best multi-functional hardware device, they just need to win at offering the best streaming media service and any hardware that they produce will just be a window into that service.

So, do you think they are doing that now? Are they "winning" with this thing "as is"? If you measure winning by sales, closely related set-top hardware options are outselling them. If you measure it by quality of video, it appears the mass market is reasonably aware that 1080p is "true HD" (and if not, they've been trained to think bigger numbers are better). If you measure it by Apple's own focus on what is working (selling heavily) for them, it seems like even Apple doesn't see it as "winning".

Many companies make the best ______________, but if it doesn't sell that well, is it a winning product?

My "vision" is that streaming media is the future, I don't think that can be disputed (or at least it could be the most likely outcome). Thus, I see Apple making incremental improvements with the Apple TV hardware while concentrating on ease of use and quality of service. As most of us have already opined, there are still a lot improvements that Apple could make through software upgrades and changes in the licensing terms of the media they offer through the iTunes Store (although as we all seem to agree, the content providers currently have a very tight grip on exactly what Apple can offer in the way of movies and TV).

In this, you & I agree. So what would put Apple in a position to better win concessions from those studios? My opinion is make a next-gen TV that the mass market will buy... THE product of the year for 2010 (and maybe 2011), entrench (meaning get into a high percentage of living rooms, ahead of purchases like BD players, DVRs, etc), and then let the Studio's greed- and competitiveness- move them to want to do deals with Apple to sell their content to all of that opportunity.

Your opinion seems to rely on some kind of magic... that Studios will one day just magically embrace the TV channel because internet distribution is the future. Or that magically the mass market will decide to buy TV's as APPLE has decided to configure them- but in great numbers- because internet distribution is the future. What makes your vision come to pass, if the product is not heated up so that the mass market buys it en masse?

By the time that streaming media begins to replace Blu-ray players and DVRs the cost of the hardware to support streaming 1080p content will be extremely low. Then, with the proper infrastructure and streaming service Apple will be able to produce a box for $100 (or less) that can completely replace Blu-ray players and DVRs (think of this, no moving parts and a few chip could do it all). As I've already written, the true genius in this whole question is knowing when or how soon this transition will take place. In the interim Apple will be building infrastructure (like that one billion dollar server farm) and perfecting their streaming services (for the iPhone/iPod, Macs/PCs, and the Apple TV).

Well this is the most important piece. I was under the impression that you believed TV should compete with BD and DVR options. This reads like you are conceding the next step in the market to them, and that Apple is working on trying to entrench in the mass market AFTER those start petering out. In trying to understand your point of view, that's an important concession.

My arguments are based on an idea of getting to your vision much sooner, not by waiting out another round of disc-buying to replace (DVD) discs that replaced (LD) discs that replaced (VCR) tapes, but actually attempting to take that next round from BD and DVRs ASAP. It is my opinion that moving now (yesterday) with a next-gen 1080p TV somewhat more open as I've described it would allow this device to directly compete with BD and DVRs NOW, giving the mass market a desirable alternative to another round of disc buying, by buying the "next big thing" from Apple.

If BD player sales roughly follow DVD sales (and they largely have to date), DVDs are still "king" more than a decade later. I sincerely hope that the grand plan for TV is not as much as another decade out. And I believe it doesn't have to be... a few modest enhancements (leaving some bigger optional enhancements to third parties) and Apple could bite into that lucrative segment much sooner than 5-10+ years.

 

[mstrze]

Oh, I understand that. But let a bunch of other people do what you are doing so that your cable provider feels the pain in their cable business, and watch what happens to your broadband bill. The last thing those in control of the pipes want is to end up as just a cheap broadband pipe. And these companies controlling those pipes especially love the easy- and lucrative- profitability of their core television programming distribution businesses. They won't lose that easy money to someone like Apple if Apple's solution has to flow through their pipes.

Sorry to hit you with that. But what would you do if you were them?

I would argue Darryl, that it is cheaper for a company to be a purely broadband service than to have to deal with all sorts of programmers(TV nets) and negotiating over how much money per subscriber a channel gets and deciding which channels to carry and fighting the Govt. over various laws like must-carry and whatnot.

Sure, it makes them money, but it is a lot of hassle and it's not really as much a cash cow as it was back in the day where cable systems just pulled all their content from over the air or microwaved singals.

If it were me...and it's not...I would LOVE to run a pure broadband company as I would only have one thing to worry about: bringing the internet to customers' homes.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I would argue Darryl, that it is cheaper for a company to be a purely broadband service than to have to deal with all sorts of programmers(TV nets) and negotiating over how much money per subscriber a channel gets and deciding which channels to carry and fighting the Govt. over various laws like must-carry and whatnot.

Sure, it makes them money, but it is a lot of hassle and it's not really as much a cash cow as it was back in the day where cable systems just pulled all their content from over the air or microwaved singals.

If it were me...and it's not...I would LOVE to run a pure broadband company as I would only have one thing to worry about: bringing the internet to customers' homes.

mstrze, again I'm with you on what you would like to see, but I would encourage you to look into how much those companies make on their tv signal distribution businesses before you dismiss it as "not much of a cash cow". They don't keep buying each other out because they want more hassle, content provider wars, government battles, etc. Their model is very simple: put up a good fight on things that would increase their costs, but any costs that get forced through (onto them) get passed on to their subscribers in ever-increasing subscription costs (plus a little extra to further pad the profits). When was the last time someone's non-promotional cable or satt bill actually went DOWN in price?

Sure, it would be cheaper to be simply one thing instead of two or three, but cost is only one piece of the net profit calculation. Relatively easy revenues like a deeply entrenched model of the masses paying for TV programming with automatic subscriptions are not something to dismiss so easily (if you were them).

Furthermore if you were them, the board would fire you for wanting to jettison such a lucrative stream of cash to simplify operations to just a broadband pipe business, in the interests of making customers happy. It is admirable to put customers first, but our business society is one that puts stockholders first- even if that means somewhat socking it to customers to do so. Often that seems contradictory to long-term success, but that does tend to be how things often are.

I'm very much with you on the concept, but it just won't happen. If an Apple could significantly impact the cable/satt cash flows with some new (lower cost to end users) deal, those same companies through which Apple's (replacement) signals would flow would charge more for that flow. I believe the biggest reason they are also in the broadband business is the recognition that such a scenario could otherwise play out. Control the pipe and you can nearly guarantee your revenue & profits one way or another.

Look around. How many pure broadband pipe companies are there? Why isn't there many (is there any?)? If you started one and it gained a fair amount of momentum, the Goliaths that own the pipes now would quickly buy you out- or squeeze you out- as often happens when such well-entrenched business models are modestly threatened by entrepreneurial upstarts.

There was a rumor flying a while ago that Apple might take it's cash and buy DISH network. As wild as that sounds, it would have given Apple a way to bypass the established wired pipes and thus be able to control the pipeline between iTunes servers and end users.

AND, Apple (and Google) were apparently also seriously interested in bidding for the wireless spectrum freed up as part of the Digitial Television changeover. This was high-bandwith spectrum, nationwide, which could have opened up another way for Apple to make a broadband (bypass) connection directly from them to end users. More simply, this could have been a great way to offer high-speed wireless broadband by anyone who bought this spectrum.

Either scenario would have been very interesting relative to the envisioned "get it all from iTunes" model and the TV business. But guess who paid up big time to lock up the bulk of that wireless spectrum? And, at least to this point, the wild rumor about DISH seems to have faded to oblivion.

Bottom line: A CEO who just rolls over and accepts big losses in what has been long-term dependable revenues is not going to be CEO for long. I wish that your wish would come true as you imagine it, but I just don't see the Goliath's allowing it to happen (unless Apple can bypass their pipes to deliver that cheaper, better programming subscription solution directly to the end users like you & me). Competition could help make it happen, but when ALL of the broadband providers available to any given user can be calculated at 1- or sometimes 2- providers, there's insufficient competition to support such a radical change. If everyone had 6-10 broadband providers from which to choose someone like Apple might be able to strike a deal with #5 or #8 to help make such a concept work out. If #5 or #8 were not in the cable/satt businesses, they would love to steal a bunch of broadband subscriptions from those Goliaths.

 

[mstrze]

Darryl,

I didn't say cable TV is 'not much of a cash cow' these days just 'not AS much of a cash cow' as in the early day of cable when most content was absolutely free as cable companies pulled in their signals via tall antennas or ones mounted on mountain tops to pull in distant-city independent stations (that's how the first 'superstations' were started...like WPIX in NYC being pulled into my hometown area from mountaintop antennas in NE PA as an example.)

Now, content costs a cable company...so instead of an 80-90% profit margin, those companies are making maybe 10-20% or less. Still big bucks of course.

I'm not arguing your points per se...but just wanted to clarify as you missed one word in my post that makes a BIG difference.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm not arguing your points per se...but just wanted to clarify as you missed one word in my post that makes a BIG difference.

OK, sorry about missing that one word. And I really would love to see the sequence of events play out like you want them too. It would be terrific to get a lower-cost subscription option to iTunes video content that many could find as sufficiently competitive to their cable/satt setups so that this new iTunes offering plus "free" locals via an antenna would rapidly gain a ton of subscribers.

Win for Users (like you & me). Win for Apple/iTunes (and the "vision"). Lose for pseudo-monopoly Goliaths. But let's see it come to pass before we spend the savings over what we are paying now for X00 channels of mostly stuff we never watch (well, in your case, you're already ahead of me there).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Another big (related) play: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/15/comcast.fancast.xfinity/index.html While much of this reads as "another hulu," note those references to their DVRs, already entrenched in home AV stacks. Apple needs to step it up, and in a hurry.

And also note the 1080p BD player for $78, showing that a 1080p platform with a built-in box can be profitably(?) sold for only $78: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10414375-58.html?tag=rtcol;pop Is there any doubt that a next-gen version from Apple could not add 1080p and maybe another "normal" USB (or similar) expansion port for $200-$300, still feed Apple's margin desires, while giving the mass market more of what they are seeking?

Clearly, some wholesaler is selling a chipset capable of full bandwith 1080p playback for something less than $78. And they or some other wholesaler is selling a BD player for something less than $78 MINUS the cost of that chipset. So it seems reasonable that Apple could sell us a next-gen AppleTV device for $200-$300, and they or a third party could sell us a BD player add-on option for $100-$200 more and everyone interested in just that next-gen or that next-gen PLUS a BD player could get a solution from Apple, that is much more than the sum of the parts... and a more elegant solution vs. buying that $78 (or similar) player as a separate box.

 

[JonHimself]

I won't quote any specific text because 1) there's no way I'm finding it and 2) it's been repeated a couple times but while I agree with HobeSoundDarryl saying that it would be a good idea to keep the ATV as is (slight specs to play 1080p) and then allow add-ons from third parties in the form of bluray, DVR, etc what I was getting at is, I don't see Apple doing that.
I think your solution is the best compromise between what (and others) have suggested that ATV becomes your ONLY place for HD movies, TV, etc etc and completely replaces your bluray and cable boxes and what you (and others) have suggested about giving the end-user more options. I say that because, as you've said, the add-ons are... well, added on. They don't affect the cost of the unit to someone like me who doesn't want and/or need them.
The main reason I'm arguing my side is trying to be realistic. I would love to see what you've suggested but I just don't think it Apple would do it. From that state of mind I came up with my side of the argument.
Unfortunately a lot of topics like this get debated to death because it's what people want and we're all likely never going to agree on that. I would want what you've suggested, but knowing (or at least having an opinion on) how Apple operates, I've realistically conditioned myself to expect something more along the lines of what I suggested so that when ultimately a new version comes out and doesn't include those things, I won't be angry/pissed off/disappointed. Not that you would, or are expecting these things either (the fact that you're responses aren't just "you're an idiot, you don't know anything" means you're probably a pretty realistic person), but just saying where I'm coming from

 

[mstrze]

Those new BR players with built-in Netflix and the like are game-changers in my opinion. Apple HAS to include BR AND do subscription or AppleTV will be dead.

(Funny how my opinion can be swayed in just a week or so )

 

[fpnc]

...I was under the impression that you believed TV should compete with BD and DVR options. This reads like you are conceding the next step in the market to them, and that Apple is working on trying to entrench in the mass market AFTER those start petering out. In trying to understand your point of view, that's an important concession...

You say "conceding," I say leapfrogging (Blu-ray and DVRs). Look what i've said previously (as for understanding my point of view):

In any case, Steve Jobs has said the following, ""I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it's been." That's partly marketing talk and a Steve Jobs' vision statement, but I'm pretty sure that's what they will be doing with the Apple TV.

-- and --

And it [the Apple TV] will have to remain a "hobby" until the broadband infrastructure is ready for widespread HD transmission and the content providers loosen their grip on the control of the movies and TV shows.

-- and --

I'm very confident that Apple will continue to focus on streaming and downloadable content from the internet, that's where they want to be successful and that's where they should be attempting to "slay the beast" (whether that should be infrastructure, easy of use, and/or new and expanded licensing terms with the content providers).

Furthermore, let's not forget that if Apple provides the best streaming media experience then that also enables the iPhone/iPod and the rumored Apple tablet and few companies will be able to compete head-on with that hardware lineup as Apple makes those same services available for your in-home, HD entertainment center.

Apple probably isn't too worried about Samsung's Blu-ray player or the cable companies' DVR. The iTunes Store's competition is Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft, etc. Or more precisely, it's those companies' streaming media and so-called cloud-based services.

...What made it a load of crap was implying that it may be as good as Apple can do and/or guessing was maybe as good as they can do for researching what features would be desirable. Both of those implications are completely false...

I guess you mean when I said things like this:

Given the above, it's my opinion that Apple can't really do much to make the Apple TV as wildly as successful as either the iPhone or iPod and that may just be the case for the time being.

(my new emphasis with the bold type)

As for my "guessing" comment, I think I've already shown (or defended) what I was actually saying.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

You say "conceding," I say leapfrogging (Blu-ray and DVRs).

OK, I'll concede that I was apparently wrong in that interpretation of what you wrote. So, how is that leapfrogging working out? How does Apple get the market entrenchment skating where the puck is going to be if the mass market doesn't buy a ticket to that game? You keep ignoring those questions and comments from me. I've offered my opinion of how this product could be a mass market winner, with a logical approach to win mass adoption by non-Apple fanatics. I've challenged your view by asking if it requires magic- that the Studios and mass market will magically decide to embrace your vision just because internet distribution is the future.

So let's decide that my view is wrong- as you seem committed to do. How does your view get a mass adoption of TVs into homes? It's not leap frogging if the mass market is buying other boxes (like BD players and DVRs instead of TV).

Furthermore, let's not forget that if Apple provides the best streaming media experience then that also enables the iPhone/iPod and the rumored Apple tablet and few companies will be able to compete head-on with that hardware lineup as Apple makes those same services available for your in-home, HD entertainment center.

In comments like this, I'm completely with you. That's why I am so passionate that Apple can take this market ASAP if they would move toward delivering a next-gen TV with features (or at least optional add-ons) that will make the mass market buy it. Apple is extraordinarily well set up to take this market. All of the basic pieces are in place now... except, this tired, mostly closed bit of hardware that would only cost Joe Average about $200-$300 if Joe wanted one.

I want Apple to do it because I love the TV I own. The UI is the best I've seen for balancing multi-functional power with being "for dummies" and "Grandma compatible". But the hardware is in it's own way. Step it up so that the mass market can embrace it and it will be a big hit. Keep it the same and it is a big hit with only a small segment of Apple fans that "get it" as it is, and can live with individual compromises.

Apple probably isn't too worried about Samsung's Blu-ray player or the cable companies' DVR. The iTunes Store's competition is Google, Amazon, Netflix, and Microsoft, etc. Or more precisely, it's those companies' streaming media and so-called cloud-based services.

The mass market is going to buy only so many pieces of set-top boxes for their stack. They are not going to be motivated to go from 1080p on a BD box down to handicappd 720p in an TV. They are not going to be motivated to want to buy another box so that they can re-buy content they can get as part of their existing subscription to cable/satt on their DVR. In the meantime, these other boxes are adding TV-like features (and desirable features beyond TV) such as netflix streaming tech, on-demand video downloads: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10...?tag=rtcol;pop, hulu, etc.

And Yes, Apple had better fear the iTunes copycat potentials of Google, Amazon, and others, because this internet distribution battle can be won by whoever brings a high quality set-top box with the convenience and broad availability of desirable content at competitive prices. Apple has basically shown both the hardware and software sides the way, then- apparently- lost a fair amount of interest in continuing to blaze the trail (minor software enhancements aside). Perhaps those other guys are reading information like the ideas in this thread and building a next-gen TV with the features the mass markets are wanting to buy? And don't the Studios want ANYONE other than Apple to make this work, so they don't have to get under Apple's thumb (like their buddies in the music industry)?

I agree with the vision. I am as big an Apple fan as anyone. Where we differ appears to be in how Apple can fulfill the vision. I've laid out logical ideas they could follow to have a great shot at realizing the vision quickly. You've done a lot of "keep it mostly the same (but with 1080p hardware)" without laying out how that will lead to entrenchment. Show me the better way, and if it is at least as logical, I'll be happy to concede my views to yours.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...but while I agree with HobeSoundDarryl saying that it would be a good idea to keep the ATV as is (slight specs to play 1080p) and then allow add-ons from third parties in the form of bluray, DVR, etc what I was getting at is, I don't see Apple doing that.

Unfortunately, I fear you are right about this. And for my own situation, all I really want is "as is" enhanced with 1080p. I just couldn't buy enough of those units to explode this market for Apple. So my comments are far from what I- myself- want, and are instead my best shot at what I think Apple should do to make a next-gen TV as hot as an iPhone is to it's market.

And by best shot, I completely believe that Apple could do it, that it is within their abilities, compatible with more "open" concepts they know work (such as the app store, and third party value enhancing options for Macs, iPods, and iPhones, and so on). IMO, it is sooooooo much within Apple's grasp... if they would just choose to take this market. Thus, my frustration is that it seems it is probably mostly a matter of will vs. anything else.

It's not a complex piece of Apple's business. I perceive a relatively small- but dedicated team- assigned exclusively to delivering the next-gen TV I've described could pretty easily- and pretty quickly- hit a home run. Instead, Apple has spent the energy & time to make the USB port have less functionality than possible (as evidenced by hacks more normalizing that port), and stripping functionality out of underlying- but already existing- software like Quicktime, and so on.

If I could do a "freaky friday" with Steve, I'd just get on this. It would be a monster. Then, I'd take it to CES, and "one more thing" it after my (probable) Keynote, and multiple industry players would wet their pants (or worse). It's hard for me to imagine even the "best of" rumors of this coming tablet ending up as a bigger market than the next-gen TV box as I've described it in various posts within this thread.

 

[fpnc]

...Clearly, some wholesaler is selling a chipset capable of full bandwith 1080p playback for something less than $78. And they or some other wholesaler is selling a BD player for something less than $78 MINUS the cost of that chipset. So it seems reasonable that Apple could sell us a next-gen AppleTV device for $200-$300, and they or a third party could sell us a BD player add-on option for $100-$200 more and everyone interested in just that next-gen or that next-gen PLUS a BD player could get a solution from Apple, that is much more than the sum of the parts... and a more elegant solution vs. buying that $78 (or similar) player as a separate box.

Yes, Apple could do that but from my point of view they probably aren't interested in going that route (to offer expansion capabilities for Blu-ray and DVR functionality). If they eventually decide to go for a more fully-integrated device it could be literally an Apple TV (i.e. more-or-less a really big screen Mac).

Also, I suspect that those $78 boxes don't have a desk-top class CPU and GPU like the Apple TV (those CPUs admittedly getting pretty old and long-in-the-tooth after almost three years on the market). However, one of the advantages of a design like the current Apple TV is that it is fully programmable, they can change the graphical interface and the feature set through software alone. Apple has a long history of doing this, they rely more on software and fully-programmable hardware rather than fixed or limited function chips. In fact, they often over stress the hardware in order to deliver their software-driven experience.

In any case, I agree that prices are coming down and that's one reason I previously said that Apple will eventually be able to produce a $100 or less device that will offer a top-of-the-line 1080p streaming experience that for many consumers will pretty much end-of-life Blu-ray and DVRs.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Also, I suspect that those $78 boxes don't have a desk-top class CPU and GPU like the Apple TV (those CPUs admittedly getting pretty old and long-in-the-tooth after almost three years on the market).

So again, you ignore my suggestion of painting your picture of mass market entrenchment compatible with your view of "as is" with 1080p.

And in all the research I've done on this and related topics, I've never come across the mass market hinging on whether the chip set inside a box is desk-top class quality. Generally, the mass market wants the thing to work, well, out of the box, be easy to use, but powerful enough to impress. So it's great that YOU value such fine details as "desk-top class chips", but if Joe Average wants to make the most of his new 1080p HDTV this Christmas, I doubt that he is going to pay more than double for handicapped 720p- even on desktop quality chips- vs. $78 for a 1080p BD player.

There's a whole lot more of those "Joe's" than there are HobeSoundDarryl's and fpncs.

 

[fpnc]

So again, you ignore my suggestion of painting your picture of mass market entrenchment compatible with your view of "as is" with 1080p.

It's pretty simple, the Apple TV only needs to be good enough (and then some) to provide a window into Apple's streaming and downloadable media services (along with what they offer as extras right now -- user generated content, podcasts, youtube, internet radio, etc.). That will keep them at least in the user's eye and provide a platform for future development. Further, if they win big on streaming mobile devices and services then it will only be a short hop, skip, and jump to gain a spot next to a user's TV (at least among those persons who are willing to pay a slight premium for Apple's products and services -- sort of like the so-called iPhone/iPod halo effect). Let's face it, if the iTunes Store doesn't succeed (or continue to succeed) then I doubt that Apple will have much interest in making a product like the Apple TV a success unto itself. But don't worry, they'll add 1080p (eventually) and they'll continue to add new, internet-based services and they'll try to do all of this in a way that offers the best experience in the industry.

And in all the research I've done on this and related topics, I've never come across the mass market hinging on whether the chip set inside a box is desk-top class quality. Generally, the mass market wants the thing to work, well, out of the box, be easy to use, but powerful enough to impress. So it's great that YOU value such fine details as "desk-top class chips", but if Joe Average wants to make the most of his new 1080p HDTV this Christmas, I doubt that he is going to pay more than double for handicapped 720p- even on desktop quality chips- vs. $78 for a 1080p BD player.

I think you missed my point which was that those $78 Blu-ray players most likely don't have the hardware to offer fully upgradable and programmable services. I really don't know what is inside of that Blu-ray player but I'd be somewhat surprised if it was running a full Linux core that was interfaced to anything like a Pentium/Core CPU, PowerPC, Atom, or even an ARM. It's most likely using an embedded processor with a dedicated HDTV chip and a hardware decoder with limited programmability.

In any case, you're not likely to ever get something as simple as a pong game on that hardware (though an upgrade or by whatever means because the system wasn't designed to be that flexible from the beginning). However, even the lowly and now nearly three-year-old Apple TV has a dedicated CPU/GPU that can support OpenGL 2.0 and even Microsoft's DirectX 9.0 (DirectX cited only as an example of the programmability of the GPU).

Of course, it's all about what you make of this programmability and that's why I've at least partially agreed with your previous statements concerning continued software upgrades on the Apple TV. However, I don't go so far as to expect that Apple will make the Apple TV a completely open platform for third-party enhancements (and by "open" I don't mean open source, just as you've said you don't expect it to go open source either). Here's what I said previously on third-party apps on the Apple TV:

...possibly some support for third-party applications akin to the App Store for the iPhone/iPod touch (sandboxed, controlled, and not a completely open platform).

Frankly, I don't think you'll ever see that possibility on your cheap Blu-ray player (because of limitations in its hardware and system design), a point which should have been apparent from my previous post where I said:

...However, one of the advantages of a design like the current Apple TV is that it is fully programmable, they can change the graphical interface and the feature set through software alone. Apple has a long history of doing this, they rely more on software and fully-programmable hardware rather than fixed or limited function chips. In fact, they often over stress the hardware in order to deliver their software-driven experience...

 

[toolbox]

Change the interface that the HDD's use. Needs SATA ( if that hasn't already been done) Mine was first Gen. So IDE for me

 

[trip1ex]

They need to open up the ATV like the Touch/iPhone.

 

[idunn]

It might be Apple

You know, I could care less about ATV. But I like iTunes and would prefer to continue to use them as my media content provider of choice. Apple should look at this the same way. ATV has a nice UI, otherwise so what, what does it matter to them or anyone else? Only to the extent that it influences their iTunes business, which in video they'll probably find an increasingly picky clientele.

Like me, for instance. I'm beginning to wonder why I should settle for anything less than 1080p. Seriously. Hell, I don't even own any 1080p media, but I know people that do, and it looks pretty fantastic on their 65" screen. Even 720 'HD' media from Apple looks pretty darn good on this 13" MacBook screen. AND I can certainly discern the difference between it and standard definition real easy. I'm starting to get picky, and fairly sure in migrating to a much larger screen that I'll only at best tolerate DVDs from now on.

Do you think I want to go out and buy a Blue-Ray version of some movie I already own on DVD? No way. But I will, for the ones I really treasure. No doubt. And not at all happy that some older titles are not yet offered in Blue-Ray, and may never be. But the thing is there is enough of a difference to really matter. I'm not alone in this either, in seeing others beginning to really appreciate the difference.

So now myself in the position of questioning iTunes. I love the convenience, but increasingly questioning the rationale of purchasing media which I may turn around and replace with something better. What price convenience? Maybe it is time to consider nothing but Blue-Ray, and in convenience the inconvenience of ripping them for digital storage. I'd just as soon not, and would welcome an alternative.

It will emerge. But will it be from Apple?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

if they win big on streaming mobile devices and services then it will only be a short hop, skip, and jump to gain a spot next to a user's TV (at least among those persons who are willing to pay a slight premium for Apple's products and services -- sort of like the so-called iPhone/iPod halo effect).

Do you not think they've already won big on the streaming mobile devices? Who's mobile devices capable of streaming media are bigger than Apples? The problem is that those millions of iPhone/iPod owners aren't hopping and skipping into the purchase of TVs. Why, because it isn't good enough "as is"... not equating to the "open" nature of the iPhone/iPod, nor hanging near the cutting-edge in hardware, etc

I think you missed my point which was that those $78 Blu-ray players most likely don't have the hardware to offer fully upgradable and programmable services.

Oh no, I understood that and fully agree that it is the software UI and the flexibility therein to evolve it that makes the TV my own favorite for these kinds of functions. That is what is best about the TV "as is" now.

I think you missed my point which is this: if someone can put a 1080p chipset and a BD player in a set-top box and sell it profitably(?) for $78, it should be easy for Apple (or Apple plus a third party) to put a similar chipset in a box with an Apple logo on it and deliver a 1080p next-gen TV with a(n optional) BD player for the current pricing +/- $100 or so dollars yesterday.

The beauty of software is that you write drivers to link a UI like TV's to almost ANY underlying reasonably powered hardware and it works. As is, it is running on standard chips (old Pentium M I think), which means drivers are written for a classic PC chipset. The UI is a program running on top of stripped down version of Mac OS X Tiger. So, a next-gen TV could use just about any core chipset on which Mac OS X can run, which means a next-gen TV with 1080p has been possible all along. The hardware is seriously dated now as there are a number of 1080p capable little boxes for sale at prices well below TV's with various TV-like functionality. None of those seem quite as elegant as TV's UI (no surprise there), but they keep trying. Meanwhile TV hardware just stays the same.

So you are right about the software being a key superior feature of the TV experience- even as is right now. But it's not enough for the mass market who wants superior hardware underpinning that great software, which is why- even for Apple- it is a "hobby".

In any case, you're not likely to ever get something as simple as a pong game on that hardware (though an upgrade or by whatever means because the system wasn't designed to be that flexible from the beginning).

Sorry to point it out but even that lowly player has a rudimentary photo slideshow feature- granted not as nice as TV's but it is more than just a one-trick pony. And again, the guy that wants 1080p video on his 1080p HDTV might prefer a 1080p device rather than settling for handicapped 720p on a "desktop quality" chipset as "a dedicated CPU/GPU that can support OpenGL 2.0 and even Microsoft's DirectX 9.0 (DirectX cited only as an example of the programmability of the GPU)."

And for those that pay a little more (but less than TV pricing), they can buy other players with more TV-like features. Again, not as nicely implemented as TV's GUI, but those players will come with really tangible, market-desirable features IMPOSSIBLE to be covered via mere software upgrades.

It's only a matter of time until a competitor(s) basically rips off the TV UI interface in full, links it to an iTunes-like video media source from Amazon, Google, Microsoft or elsewhere, offers it with BD and/or DVR options to kill 2-3 birds with one stone, and has it also linking to Netflix's great service, HULU, and others. I bet this box will be priced at or below TV's price. Which seems more likely to entrench with the masses?