Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Most likely the new Apple TV will be announced with HomeKit support, App Store, and ability for TV streaming. However, TV streaming will not be available for several months. So it will likely be a .1 update or something to provide functionality.
 
"Adoption of our incredible new product category is so great that we thought we'd milk it for another 5 months at least and not release anything except (if you're lucky) a spec bumped mac pro until October" - Tim Cook
 
There's a lot of people in the US (like myself) who live somewhere that "Free" HD antenna channels are not available (e.g. CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX).

Without those, it's useless. If the delay ensures they can include them, that would be fine by me (so long as the delay isn't forever).
 
Well, I for one am not surprised. Apple is becoming far too dependent on iPhone Revenue.

Service providers demand X for their service. Apple wants to offer it at x. Apple knows they can't change the reality of the Providers X. Apple won't lower it's projected margins. So no deals. Apple is stuck in it's own Space Time Continuum. Bummer for WWDC ATV Hopefuls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Doesn’t surprise me at all. This delay is needed if the rumor of the 25 channel cable sub with a $30-$40 price tag is true. If they release something, I want it to earn the "Revolutionary" title and truly be an ala cart TV provider. Give me something that lets me hand pick channels from a roster of say 100 stations at $2-$3 a pop and then I will submit that you have "revolutionized" this industry. We would also find out real quick how many people watch or don’t watch channels and who has padded viewing stats.

I've been saying this forever. A thousand times - give us ala carte viewing. These old white guys in the cable industry are really getting on my nerves. They're holding onto their antiquated business model till their last breath.

It also doesn't help that they have monopolies on the content or infrastructure.

The same thing happened to Jobs when he revolutionized the music industry with ala carte music tracks via digital downloads on iTunes. The music executives fought him every step of the way.

And all the worry/fuss was for nothing since it turned out to be a huge success for them and for Apple.
 
So very true. This could be a very boring WWDC for those of us outside of the U.S.
It's been a boring few years for those of us outside the US. iTunes Radio (unless you happen to be in Australia), Apple Pay I'm starting not to expect to see ever and a new channel a week on ATV which is unavailable to anyone without a US cable subscription.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Well let me tell Apple (and the cable companies), I'm in the "gray" market, using various logins to watch stuff, and finding other various streams online, with the occasional iTunes season pass. Let me tell you, I don't even think there is anything right now they can do to get me to pay again. The hard truth is that if there is breaking news I can find any one of the Fox, CNN, MSNBC streams out there, and I can watch any show 30 minutes after it airs.

Want to know what really sux? I used to buy South Park season pass. Sometimes 3 days later I still didn't have the new episode. But I can go to <some site> and within 30 minutes of any show ending, you can stream it. The thing is that I would pay for service like that!!!! But I will not pay $40/50 bucks a month for channels I don't want. I don't want channels, I want content/shows. You can keep AMC, just give me the few shows on AMC I watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Meh they don't want Apple dominating TV like they used to control the music business back in the day of iTunes' dominance. But you know what? While the "industry" quibbles and negotiates, the "viewers" are getting way too comfortable streaming everything for free.

Word to the wise, get that Apple TV working so at least there is another viable pay option. Because if you don't give people the specific shows they want (not packages, shows and episodes), they're gonna get in the bad habit of stealing/streaming them.

So make that deal for Apple TV, content providers, while you can!
 
Apple, if you are reading this, I won't sign on for multiple channels for $30-$40 per month. Those numbers sound a lot like the entry numbers for cable and dish. Then the fear of it going up when you aren't looking. Ala Carte is the way to go. $2.99 per channel or something like that, with a quick switch to my HD antenna for local networks (free). I literally only want 3 to 4 channels.

I agree. Ala Carte would seem the best way to go. There are a few channels I would like to watch, but I don't want to pay for content I have no interest in.

I have 2 ATV's at this point, one is in the bedroom which is on my older 720 and is used for Hulu, etc. The other is AYV 3 for 1080 and movie watching.

I was looking more at an updated ATV that would now become more of a hub for home automation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
IMHO opinion its never going to happen, these are just rumour after rumour with no true bound. lets hope for ATV4 with app store
 
If they go global and it lives up to the rumoured 25 channels then I'd be a very happy lad. I'd also love to see Apple team up with PBS/BBC/DW and other public broadcasters to broadcast to Apple TV devices because right now PBS still doesn't provide all their content on YouTube which means it is pretty much off limits for those of us with an Apple TV device. Hopefully Amazon and Google will get their act together as well because us overseas customers are routinely screwed over at every opportunity by US based media companies.
 
Ala Carte would seem the best way to go. There are a few channels I would like to watch, but I don't want to pay for content I have no interest in.

Even with a la carte channels... you're still paying for stuff you don't want.

Channels broadcast 24 hours a day... including the 8 hours you're asleep and the 8 hours you're at work. You might love AMC for Mad Men... but you'd still be paying for a bunch of meh movies during the day.

It sounds like you want a service where you could simply watch the shows you want... not entire channels.

I'm imagining a service where you can get EVERYTHING on-demand.

But not like Netflix with crappy B-content for $8 a month.

More like $40 a month and you get every TV show and movie ever made.

I doubt that will ever happen though... but it's fun to dream :)
 
Haha dream on. Everything we've heard about this is it's going to be a skinny cable-like package. If they don't launch it next Monday its probably because they don't have one of the major networks yet.
This is probably how it is going to have to go down but it might be good thing. Think about it, Apple needs that SDK out there before they get big networks on board for competition's sake. There are thousands of Internet shows and pseudo networks that don't have their content tied up in contracts and affiliate streaming rights. Now they will get onto Apple TV before all the big networks because they've been waiting for that SDK to release their own app/show/network. They might not be making much money except for advertising like podcasts do now but they will show just how easy it is to get along without big networks. Within 6 months time, all the big networks will be banging on the door trying to join the party on Apple TV. At least that's what I hope.
 
The same thing happened to Jobs when he revolutionized the music industry with ala carte music tracks via digital downloads on iTunes.

What Apple did with music isn't really relevant because it's a totally different business model than TV. Apple was/is just another middle man selling an end product (music) to consumers. What happened with music was a natural evolution. Music used to be sold to consumers on records, then 8-track, then cassette, then CD and then as downloadable digital files. Medium changed but the business model remained basically unchanged.

TV is a completely different ball of wax. TV shows are not end products sold to consumers. Consumers/TV viewers are the product and they are sold to advertisers. Been that way since the 1930s and currently ad revenue for OTA and cable/sat is somewhere in the neighborhood of 65-70 billion dollars annually. Considering things like the current business model has been used since the dawn of TV, the number of players in the game (untold number of production companies, broadcast networks, sports leagues, local TV stations, cable providers, sat providers, retailers, etc.,.) and the massive amount of ad revenue generated (which apparently these companies are all just supposed to turn their back on and 'assume' that direct sales will generate substantially more revenue) I'd say the industry as a whole is moving at a pretty decent clip towards change. I mean, in about 10 years we've basically gone from no-streaming options to cord cutting being pretty viable. Not to mention waiting for technology to improve. I mean, even if the TV industry was ready to go 'all in' 10 years ago there's no way the Internet at the time could have supported it.

If you want per-show a la carte then buy shows from Amazon or iTunes. I was a cord cutter for 5 years and that's how I kept up with SoA, Justified, Orphan Black, Walking Dead, The Americans, Breaking Bad, Dexter, etc.,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Money issues huh ? Serves them right for building all those stores.

Content wise, well that's a no brainer....... Content creators are the major hold up of anything now-days anyway.
 
I watch like four channels and NFL Sunday ticket. 30-40 dollars a month would be phenomenal instead of 100. If it weren't for the NFL I would have cut the cord years ago. I'd love to see them cut a deal with the NFL.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.