Agreed. I don't really like the new "menu bar" feature in Movies and TV Shows. I don't find it especially usable, and it is inconsistent from the other sections.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Eddy Cue Suggests Apple Television Unlikely in Near-Term
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. I don't really like the new "menu bar" feature in Movies and TV Shows. I don't find it especially usable, and it is inconsistent from the other sections.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
It works like this: in a model where it's just the artists (those who create the content), Apple and us, someone has to make up the difference made in the model "as is". It's not just our individual subscription dollars. The model "as is" has lots of OPM (other people's money) flowing. In the artists-apple-us model, lots of that OPM flow is at risk. For example, commercials that run on all those channels "we never watch" yield revenues that doesn't come out of our pockets. A fair amount of that revenue flows to the artists that make the stuff we do watch. Kill off those channels we don't watch and we kill off that OPM money that helps pay for what we do watch. Then, either we or Apple would have to make up for that lost revenue when there's only us and Apple in the new model. Recognize that if it comes down to us or Apple coughing up the difference, only 1 of those two will actually be on the hook. Guess who. If we don't make up the difference, then the money evaporates that pays for the creation of the stuff we want to watch.
Similarly, Apple's replacement model generally depends on a broadband pipe owned by someone who is in the video subscription business too. They like their video subscription revenues "as is". But, if Apple is going to take that business from them, they'll be obligated to make up for those losses in some other way. What way? Raising the cost of broadband. Thus, even if we could save some money in the new model al-a-carte (setting aside the OPM subsidies that help pay for our entertainment now), the big communications companies through which Apple's replacement solution must flow will not just roll over and take the hit. Our broadband costs would simply rise... justified with phrases like "for heavier bandwidth users" (sound familiar?).
Too many are dreaming of al-a-carte with fuzzy math. It's not $100 for 200 channels = 50 cents a channel. I like 10 channels, so my bill should be cut to $5/month. You can't hit an industry with a 95% reduction in revenues and expect it to continue to crank out the same quality of output that is generates now. Al-a-carte actually implemented would be 200 channel bundles for $100/month or 10 channels al-a-carte for at least a $100/month. None of the players beyond us have any goals of minimizing our out-of-pocket. All of them share Apple's goal- to make as much money as they can. The artists and the middlemen want to make more money this year than last... and more next year than this year. There is no win in supporting any solution that thoroughly cuts their revenues by 90% or more... except for us dreamers who believe that can somehow work.
Too many others dream of al-a-carte (with the fuzzy math) and commercial-free. To make up for the OPM that flows through the existing model (without coming out of our pockets) it would cost each household about $54/month. If there's no commercials in the dream and no channels "I never watch" running commercials I'll never see, that OPM evaporates. In an artists-Apple-us replacement model, somebody- either Apple or us- needs to make up for that $54/month loss of revenue from those commercials not being purchased... OR the quality and volume of programming will significantly fall.
The full dream is us paying relatively nothing for anything we want commercial free... for Apple to pull this off so that Apple can get it's big cut of the profits (but where is that big cut of profits if we are paying next to nothing?)... and somehow this new model will still yield the money to pay the artists to make all of the shows and films- including gambling on brand new shows and films- that we watch. It's just a very naive dream.
For some big model replacement to come to pass means coming up with the (non-fuzzy) math that shows all involved how they are going to make more money than the current model. That math can't work with us paying 90% less in the dream.
Last edited:
I think the key phrase is "any time soon". I think Apple wants to revolutionize the industry, it certainly has the design chops, UI chops, and manufacturing connections if it wanted to jump in. If it put one out tomorrow, I imagine it would be still be better than most TVs.
But Apple wants to hit a home run and will wait until it lines up all aspects of the product, including content deals. Too bad SJ is not around, that was his specialty.
The way content deals go, I would say Fall/Holiday 2013 at best.
But Apple wants to hit a home run and will wait until it lines up all aspects of the product, including content deals. Too bad SJ is not around, that was his specialty.
The way content deals go, I would say Fall/Holiday 2013 at best.
u can already do this with the "apple tv"
the price of it is the issue tho. im not gonna spent almost twice as much on digital content compared to the price of the BD
Apple TV
Please make the new remote more like a wireless mouse with keyboard and not have to do this laborious click on every letter and scroll deal-this sucks really.
Also, as I have suggested many times add a "bookmark" feature that takes us from any advertisement or show to the website. Apple can make a billion by charging the adverts for every click through and that's what they want isn't it-for us to go and look further at the offering-well HELLO APPLE -forget all the fancy stuff you are lining up for the future-this is available now-make money with it and reduce all our cost for the TV offerings by doing that-send me a big fat check if you do it-thanks. Nick GRI
Please make the new remote more like a wireless mouse with keyboard and not have to do this laborious click on every letter and scroll deal-this sucks really.
Also, as I have suggested many times add a "bookmark" feature that takes us from any advertisement or show to the website. Apple can make a billion by charging the adverts for every click through and that's what they want isn't it-for us to go and look further at the offering-well HELLO APPLE -forget all the fancy stuff you are lining up for the future-this is available now-make money with it and reduce all our cost for the TV offerings by doing that-send me a big fat check if you do it-thanks. Nick GRI
Good to know. How many successful multimillion dollar product launches have you done so far? I am guessing zero?
theres no reason to rush this device... they cant afford for it not to catch on like the ipad/iphone/etc... the apple tv1-2 took a while to catch on but the price point was so cheap that customers could just pick it up and try it out...
if the tv isnt competitively priced, then i'm cool with a 4Q 2013 - 2Q 2014 release... its gotta rock the industry HARD...
it cant just be a tv, its gotta be revolutionary... :-/ i got caught using apple lingo
if the tv isnt competitively priced, then i'm cool with a 4Q 2013 - 2Q 2014 release... its gotta rock the industry HARD...
it cant just be a tv, its gotta be revolutionary... :-/ i got caught using apple lingo
And yet according to the faithful only Apple can create an intuitive user interface for the TV. LOL
What, Steve waves his magic wand and the content providers do what Apple wants? Not a chance.
I don't get it, just make bigger version of the cinema display with HDMI connections available and implement iTune in it.
Theirs no need to go and re-invent the TV, it doesn't need re-inventing, it works just well hence how we all have, most of us use different cable or satellite companies with different PVR's, and different games consoles all of which work for us. All we need is a display to put it on. If Apple wants to enter the TV market then just release larger version of the cinema display with iTunes built into it.
Whats so hard to do about that?
Theirs no need to go and re-invent the TV, it doesn't need re-inventing, it works just well hence how we all have, most of us use different cable or satellite companies with different PVR's, and different games consoles all of which work for us. All we need is a display to put it on. If Apple wants to enter the TV market then just release larger version of the cinema display with iTunes built into it.
Whats so hard to do about that?
Exactly. There is no need to create a "better DVR." Ever. Therefore Apple won't.
Live streaming and pre-recorded streaming are all Apple needs, all Apple wants, and all Apple will ever do in their future TV-related products.
...
I never believed Apple was in the television market to begin with
Regardless of what any rumours claimed.
so, it story is no surprise to me either. The only thing is the already UI is perfect. I don't get it when they said "They could make it better"
That kinda proves. Apple make is user-friendly, but now think it could be much More user friendly ...
Why not just let Apple TV order chicken and chips as well while your at it ...
I never believed Apple was in the television market to begin with
Regardless of what any rumours claimed.
so, it story is no surprise to me either. The only thing is the already UI is perfect. I don't get it when they said "They could make it better"
That kinda proves. Apple make is user-friendly, but now think it could be much More user friendly ...
Why not just let Apple TV order chicken and chips as well while your at it ...
It's pretty clear that the holiday season will be about the new iPhone and the iPad mini. There's no room in there for yet another focus.
If an AppleTV does indeed get launched, Apple will build buzz about it over a longer period of time, with a launch in the Fall before the holiday season. We're passed that point for this year.
I anticipate Apple getting in bed with telecom companies first via a $0 w/contract AppleTV box given as part of an internet/tv service. AT&T in the US and Rogers and Bell in Canada are great candidates because they already sell broadband internet and tv packages to customers.
With traditional TV subscribitions dropping dramatically with the introduction of online viewing options like HULU, iTunes, Netflix and the emerging YouTube rentals, these telcos will have to move with the stream and an AppleTV box is the next goldmine for these companies. Sell the data, sell the tv shows and movies and Apple takes a cut.
With that deal in place over a year, Apple can then release their own TV where they make the money on the hardware and take a 30% cut on the content just like the current iPhone and iPad market.
I anticipate a deal like this could happen as early as Q1 next year with an actual TV out in 2014.
Once Apple has flooded the market with tens of millions of AppleTV boxes and AppleTV's, there's nothing from preventing them from getting the same deal with content providers that the telcos get. They'll have leverage and they'll be able to take the market.
If an AppleTV does indeed get launched, Apple will build buzz about it over a longer period of time, with a launch in the Fall before the holiday season. We're passed that point for this year.
I anticipate Apple getting in bed with telecom companies first via a $0 w/contract AppleTV box given as part of an internet/tv service. AT&T in the US and Rogers and Bell in Canada are great candidates because they already sell broadband internet and tv packages to customers.
With traditional TV subscribitions dropping dramatically with the introduction of online viewing options like HULU, iTunes, Netflix and the emerging YouTube rentals, these telcos will have to move with the stream and an AppleTV box is the next goldmine for these companies. Sell the data, sell the tv shows and movies and Apple takes a cut.
With that deal in place over a year, Apple can then release their own TV where they make the money on the hardware and take a 30% cut on the content just like the current iPhone and iPad market.
I anticipate a deal like this could happen as early as Q1 next year with an actual TV out in 2014.
Once Apple has flooded the market with tens of millions of AppleTV boxes and AppleTV's, there's nothing from preventing them from getting the same deal with content providers that the telcos get. They'll have leverage and they'll be able to take the market.
Speaking of fuzzy math...
And we end up renting or buying per-show or per-movie through iTunes.
Just like Apple TV does right now.
Your math is fuzzy. Netflix is $7.99 / month. For thousands of "channels."
And we end up renting or buying per-show or per-movie through iTunes.
Just like Apple TV does right now.
Your math is fuzzy. Netflix is $7.99 / month. For thousands of "channels."
What exactly is the issue with user interface? I have DirectTV and have no issue with the user interface. I can easily search for shows or browse the guide. And they have great apps for the iPhone which allows me to schedule a recording when away from my TV. Not sure where Apple would improve from a purely UI standpoint. I don't want to talk to my TV.
who said Siri was the solution to the TV problem space? nobody, youre speculating.
----------
why would one take the time & trouble to make a new placeholder mockup when the existing one serves its purpose just fine?
if you have the time & its no trouble, how about posting yours?
The current TV interface is very poor. People have multiple remotes, or a remote that has to be in one mode to control one device, and a different mode to control another. If you have guests over, you have to give them a tutorial on how to turn it on.
You get used to how to operate your own TV, but go to someone else's house, where you use the playstation remote to select an icon in order to watch a BluRay disk, and you might end up fumbling around a while.
TV in 1975 had its own challenges. There was a dial to change channels, and once you got your channel selected, you might have to turn the "fine tuning" outer dial to get a clear picture. Also, you could select an option on the dial for UHF, but then you had to turn a different dial to select a UHF channel. Still, once you had mastered these basics, you could operate just about any TV you might encounter.
Once VCRs and game systems and cable boxes came along, and TVs had multiple inputs, the usability plunged. There's plenty of room for improvement.
Apple TV box is not live and it won't be live at first. If you buy the TV, your channels will be live.
Think of the new TV as a hybrid without requiring a cable subscription. It will be industry changing.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Is that a joke? I have netflix. There is some good stuff on there and a "ton of stuff I never watch" too. The dream is "whatever 'I' want," which is not all available on Netflix. Where's the live sports I watch? Where's the local HD channels? Etc. So I have Netflix and DirecTV and
TV. Between all 3 of those, I have the ability to watch "whatever I want." Take away DirecTV and there's too many shows I watch that I won't be able to watch. In fact, in my household, it would be the last of the three to get cut if "whatever I want" was the dominant decision-maker.Furthermore a Netflix-like model is a model focused heavily on shows created in the past. You need lots of profits in a replacement model to motivate the new show entrepreneurs to take the gamble on new shows. If the risk for them is too great, there are no new shows backed. Old shows will get old fast if that was all there is.
If you are trying to imply that since netflix can charge $8/month, so can Apple's replacement and all will be fine, you're missing the point that the "dream" is for just about everyone to switch away from cable/satt to this new replacement. If the bulk of the crowd moved from paying out $100/month to $8/month AND the revenue from commercials went away too, the $8/month business- be it Netflix or Apple's- would be quickly killed off. An industry dependent on about $100/month from us subscribers plus about $54/month per household from OPM (as commercials revenue) could not persist the quality and volume of just the shows that all of us individuals like at $8/month and commercial free.
Why don't we argue that Apple should cut it's revenues by 95% and yet still make all the stuff that it makes now? It would be the same kind of naive dream.
Probably too busy suing everyone in court to bother with innovation.
I am wondering, without SJ at the helm, whether there is anyone at Apple that could push this through the resistance that is likely what is stalling them.
I am wondering, without SJ at the helm, whether there is anyone at Apple that could push this through the resistance that is likely what is stalling them.
+1. I'd agree here hole-heartly... Thats been going on too much as of late.
Its time to buckle down and make products.
What I want first...
ATV with OTA that talks to my time capsule, and a fuller remote on my ipad/phone with ultimately wan capabilities.
OTA with live pause and replay, dvr with time capsule storage, apps with time capsule storage. Don't make me have cable, I don't want cable. But I would love better OTA.
ATV with OTA that talks to my time capsule, and a fuller remote on my ipad/phone with ultimately wan capabilities.
OTA with live pause and replay, dvr with time capsule storage, apps with time capsule storage. Don't make me have cable, I don't want cable. But I would love better OTA.
Based on these comments, I predict we'll see the Apple Television within 2 years. Almost every time Apple has gone so far as to flat-out deny something, they've eventually released it.
-Denied they were working on a phone/PDA
-Denied there would be a Mac App Store
-Denied they were interested in the eBook market
-Denied they were coming out with a video iPod
-Denied there would be a camera on the iPod touch
-Denied they were working on a tablet
-Denied there would be an SDK for third-party apps on the iPhone (web apps were enough)
So, looks like that Apple Television is real.
-Denied they were working on a phone/PDA
-Denied there would be a Mac App Store
-Denied they were interested in the eBook market
-Denied they were coming out with a video iPod
-Denied there would be a camera on the iPod touch
-Denied they were working on a tablet
-Denied there would be an SDK for third-party apps on the iPhone (web apps were enough)
So, looks like that Apple Television is real.
