Apple's New Vision for Apple TV 'Less Ambitious' Than Before

[dansix]

If Steve were alive, he would have tasked Eddy Cue with getting the deals done, just as he did before, and the result would have largely been the same.

Don't forget, Steve Jobs wasn't able to sign a deal with Verizon for the original iPhone, and AT&T (Cingular) was the fallback. And before that Apple had to capitulate to the record labels on variable song pricing rather than being able to keep it at $0.99 per song across the board.

How would you know... were you there at every step? I don't think so.

 

[CharBroiled20s]

Apple TV - USELESS Until AppStore Arrives

You can argue about how good or bad this supposed change is for AppleTV but the reality is that Roku and EVERYONE ELSE will continue to out perform Apple's offering until Apple execs remove their head from their bum and release an AppleTV AppStore.

There is absolutely no reason to buy Apple TV so long as more content is available at the same price or cheaper from Roku or the ever changing Google offerings. Apple needs to stop treating their little hockey puck with so much promise as a side job and provide the means for it reach its full potential.

RELEASE AN APPSTORE ALREADY!!!
WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR IT FOR YEARS.

 

[Dmunjal]

No I haven't. From their website it sounds like it's only available for pre-order.
http://www.tablotv.com/how-tablo-works/

Looks interesting. Couple thoughts:

-How are the recordings made available on Apple TV?
(I'm guessing the answer is: 1. Use the Tablo app on your iPad, and Airplay Mirror that to your ATV. If that is the case, I'm not interested. Airplaying for all our shows is a step of hassle above what I already have with my EyeTV --> iTunes setup.)

-$50/year for the electronic program guide subscription. My current TV Guide subscription through EyeTV is only $20. Not a deal-breaker, but a difference.

-$220 for the Hardware, which is basically a dual-tuner device with a USB port for external HD storage and the DVR software (scheduling) baked in. Compare that with $110 for a dual-tuner HD Homerun, plus $80 for the EyeTV software, and you come up with $190 total. Again, a $30 difference.

So Tablo costs $30 more up front, and $30 more per year than an HDHR/EyeTV setup, and probably requires use of airplay and tasking a separate iOS device to use with the Apple TV.

(Don't take that as a harsh criticism. It may be that the Tablo user experience is less of a hassle than my setup, which involves waiting for EyeTV to transcode a recording before it is available on Apple TV.)

Not worried about the criticism. Was looking for another perspective from an EyeTV user. The benefit of Tablo seems to be real-time encoding and cloud access.

 

[mantan]

Again, very respectful of the "dream". My push back would be as follows:

Do we really believe swapping Apple for a Comcast as video middleman will result in big savings being passed on to us? It seems we would be arguing that Comcast takes a HUGE margin and Apple would choose to take a less out of love for us consumers.

Do we really believe that- say- SATT internet will become a broadband competitor to cable internet to prevent Cable companies for making up for lost revenues on cable TV subscriptions by jacking up broadband rates? There's already a big, competitive SATT internet player in the market. Here's their rates & speeds: http://internet.hughesnet.com/plans-and-pricing.html#serviceable If we pay $50 for broadband now and $100 for cable but then an Apple takes the cable $100, I fully expect "new plans" and "tiers for heavier bandwidth users" (sound familiar?) such that the broadband rate would go toward that same $150. But I'll switch to SATT broadband for less? Where's the less? And what a drop in broadband speeds that switch would yield. To that $139 or $150, I'll now be paying Apple as the new middleman. So a Comcast or maybe a Hughes Net still gets theirs and now Apple is piled on top. And where are we going to go?

How exactly are content producers swayed to gamble on this change? What they will most need is to see how they are going to make MORE money- not less- in any new model. How are they going to make more money not less in this dreamed-about model where the source of the money (us) are getting to pay a lot less than we do now? Who is providing them with the "MORE"?

Will television be different 50 years from now? Of course. Will we be getting anything we want for much cheaper than we do now? Unlikely. If we consumers get a model where we pay a fraction of what we pay now, are the high risk-taker entrepreneurs who gamble on new shows "we" might love in the future able to see enough upside to keep taking those gambles? And so on.

I think back to Star Trek where the visual entertainment appeared to be either the officers putting on plays as unpaid volunteers, a computer creating an interactive (holodeck) experience or the crew watching old movies already long since in the can. I wonder if this "new model" where the source of the money flow is shrunk by 85% leads to something like that (other than the holodeck which seems beyond 50 years). And we already have that kind of (dirt cheap-to-free) new video production model via youtube or similar.

As I watch the credits roll at the end of productions, I think about how all of those professionals are paid to do what they do. Then, I think about their source of revenues getting cut 85% or more. How can all those people continue to get paid about the same? If they are expected to take the hit (because we should all recognize that an Apple is not going to take the hit to make our cost part of the dream come true), why are those people going to keep doing what they do? I know if our boss came in and proclaimed "new model" that involved employees taking an 85% haircut, I'm unlikely to stick with my job. If we stop doing our job, what we produce stops being produced. Or, for those at the production end of this particular chain, maybe they all become Star Fleet Officers and put on free plays to replace the production quality of what comes out of the current model?

I love the dream as much as the next guy but there are so many holes in it. The primary hole is in how it takes a MORE (money) to motivate model changes. Another big one is having the primary "villain" in the current model fully owning the pipes through which any such replacement must flow. Then, there's the "shoot ourselves in the foot" want with getting rid of commercials- a huge subsidy (about $54 per month per U.S. household) paid for by other people who are running the vast majority of those commercials on the 190 channels 'I' never watch. And it just piles on from there. The dreamers always ignore these kinds of holes, just imagining we can significantly cut our own costs and that somehow everything 'I' want to watch will keep being made at the same level of quality and everything 'I'll' want to watch in the future will still have the upside potential for the pilot entrepreneurs to keep taking the big risks. And on and on from there.

In short: we want to inject Apple in and let them take a big cut, we want everything at a huge discount and we expect it all to "just work."

Very true. The most naive part of this whole thread is how people somehow think Apple is going to give them everything they want for LESS money than what they are paying now.

Television is largely driven by economies of scale. The shows you like are largely funded by subscription costs for the network often funded by people who like DIFFERENT shows than you like.

Shows like Breaking Bad, True Detective, Mad Men probably wouldn't even get green lit in a world where you're relying solely on channel/program based a la carte subscriptions.

In that model you truly have to go for lowest risk/lowest common denominator programming to maximize your revenue.

 

[Dmunjal]

Very true. The most naive part of this whole thread is how people somehow think Apple is going to give them everything they want for LESS money than what they are paying now.

Television is largely driven by economies of scale. The shows you like are largely funded by subscription costs for the network often funded by people who like DIFFERENT shows than you like.

Shows like Breaking Bad, True Detective, Mad Men probably wouldn't even get green lit in a world where you're relying solely on channel/program based a la carte subscriptions.

In that model you truly have to go for lowest risk/lowest common denominator programming to maximize your revenue.

Wasn't this the music business for decades? Sell one or two hit songs on an expensive album full of duds?

The a la care, direct-to-consumer model works because it removes the inefficiencies in the existing model.

The problem is that the studios don't feel enough pain from piracy yet. At some point they will and will be quick to throw the cable companies under the bus. Just like the music studios quickly destroyed the retail music channels through their partnership with iTunes.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Wasn't this the music business for decades? Sell one or two hit songs on an expensive album full of duds?

The music business operates on a completely different business model that is not applicable to the TV industry. Apple just became another retailer when it started selling music and they were fundamentally no different than Best Buy or Walmart other than the medium used. What's happening in the TV industry now is a complete change to a fundamental business model that has been built upon since the 1940's and that kind of change doesn't happen in just a few years.

Basically, the goal of the music industry is to sell a finished product (the music) to consumers through a variety of retail channels. A music label doesn't really care if you buy the music at Target, Walmart, a gas station or the iTMS. On the complete opposite end of that spectrum is the TV industry. The goal of the TV industry is not to sell a finished product to consumers but to sell consumers to advertisers. They do this by getting as many people as possible to watch a specific program on a specific channel at a specific time. Every metric of revenue generation and success in the TV world is built upon ratings, not product sales.

People equate the TV/cable networks with retailers that sell a finished product but that is a false assumption. The TV/cable networks are the ones that foot the bill for the shows so that people will watch their channel. To quote myself from a previous post, "Put simply, the hurdle is that people want to watch Game of Thrones but they don't want to pay for cable + HBO even though the only reason HBO finances Game of Thrones is so people will pay for cable + HBO."

 

[Dmunjal]

The music business operates on a completely different business model that is not applicable to the TV industry. Apple just became another retailer when it started selling music and they were fundamentally no different than Best Buy or Walmart other than the medium used. What's happening in the TV industry now is a complete change to a fundamental business model that has been built upon since the 1940's and that kind of change doesn't happen in just a few years.

Basically, the goal of the music industry is to sell a finished product (the music) to consumers through a variety of retail channels. A music label doesn't really care if you buy the music at Target, Walmart, a gas station or the iTMS. On the complete opposite end of that spectrum is the TV industry. The goal of the TV industry is not to sell a finished product to consumers but to sell consumers to advertisers. They do this by getting as many people as possible to watch a specific program on a specific channel at a specific time. Every metric of revenue generation and success in the TV world is built upon ratings, not product sales.

People equate the TV/cable networks with retailers that sell a finished product but that is a false assumption. The TV/cable networks are the ones that foot the bill for the shows so that people will watch their channel. To quote myself from a previous post, "Put simply, the hurdle is that people want to watch Game of Thrones but they don't want to pay for cable + HBO even though the only reason HBO finances Game of Thrones is so people will pay for cable + HBO."

Makes a lot of sense. But don't you think that HBO could easily offer their shows direct over the net? They do with HBOGo and don't seem to mind if people share passwords.

 

[mantan]

Lethalwolfe hit the nail on the head.

The music and TV industry are VASTLY difference. The iTunes model only works if Apple went after the movie industry. Piracy is a much bigger threat to the movie industry than the TV industry. Unfortunately there is a whole generation of consumers who think nothing of ripping off new releases on torrent. While it hasn't impacted the bottom line to studios yet...you could see it being more of a threat similar to what compelled change in the music industry.

But the TV market is completely different. Consumers who dream of getting customized selection of high quality shows for less than what they are paying now for cable/satellite are living in a dream world. There is no incentive for studios to give up the model they have now unless they are going to make more money. And for a true 'a la carte' model to work, customers are going to have to pay the freight to make up for the economies of scale the current system gives them.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Makes a lot of sense. But don't you think that HBO could easily offer their shows direct over the net? They do with HBOGo and don't seem to mind if people share passwords.

They could, but they'd turn the hand that feeds them into a competitor overnight and there's a serious amount of finical risk with that. I think HBO is certainly dipping its toes in the water with HBOGO but they aren't eager to rock the boat until they are certain that the new path will be more profitable than the old path.

Honestly I think the TV industry is doing a much better job adapting than the music industry did. I haven't had cable for nearly 4 years and between OTA TV, Netflix, Hulu and Amazon I'm pretty much able to watch what I want to watch. Sure, I have to wait until the next day for the latests Sons of Anarchy or Walking Dead episodes but it's not a deal killer and most TV networks stream full episodes of their shows on their websites. I think there are a lot more options out there than people realize but they aren't being marketed very heavily and there's still not an easy, unified way to access them from every screen in the house. At least not yet.

Lethalwolfe hit the nail on the head.

The music and TV industry are VASTLY difference. The iTunes model only works if Apple went after the movie industry.

Even the movie industry is a lot more complicated. With music, you make an album and then you sell that album at retailers. Sure there is radio but radio is basically just there to advertise music to get people to go to the store and buy the album (hence the existence of payola).

With movies though (traditionally), the movie is made, then it gets a theatrical release, then it gets a rental release, then it gets a retailer release, then it gets a VOD release, then it gets a broadcast TV release, then it gets a cable TV release. Add in digital sales/rentals like iTunes or VOD like Netflix and people's and that just adds even more complexity to the problem. And this exists in every market so you have to do this BS for every country you want to do business in which is why it's so difficult for Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., to offer a global streaming service.

 

[kd5jos]

Hopefully this makes more sense...

Hulu has an app just like ABC just like Time Warner Cable.

Why would Apple do away with TV shows in iTunes (of which there are a variety of networks providing content for) just because they are partnering with another company to put their app on Apple TV?

I don't need a cable account to access Hulu or iTunes. That's why I said the comparison does not work. HBO GO has an app too. I can not go to HBO directly to pay for access. Thus the comparison fails.

----------

Very true. The most naive part of this whole thread is how people somehow think Apple is going to give them everything they want for LESS money than what they are paying now.

You are correct. Naivety is thinking you are going to get something for nothing. The problem is the average person thinks their time is worth nothing. I get paid per minute. Being forced to watch ads costs me hella more money than paying for content that is ad free.

That is how Apple makes it cost less for me. The moment Apple devolves into forcing advertisement interaction, while charging a premium price, I find a new vendor.

It's cheaper for me to consume ad free media, than it is to consume ad laden media that does not cost me anything. That is a fact.

 

[Misaki]

At this point, Apple should just take Apple TV out back and shoot it.

I own 3 of them and they are really getting long in the tooth. The UI is terrible and slow. Netflix barely works on it anymore.

The Roku 3 can do nearly everything the Apple TV can do, plus it has a better remote and it works with Amazon Prime.

I don't think this is the problem. Have you seen the other cruddy devices out there? They all fail. Here's a list of everything supporting Amazon Instant Video
http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices

SmartTV's all fail, if you buy an app on one you can't use it on any other device, even by the same manufacturer. We've seen this story before. The Market has room for exactly two and a half competitors. Any more than that, and any new attempts to break into the market will fail unless there is a giant technological breakthrough. The pong wars, the pre-NES console environment, various attempts like the 3DO and CDi.

Customers do not want to buy a new box for every service out there just because none of these companies want to license each others content.

Apple's best bet to make a technological jump is to offer the same services but a better experience. So far the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Xbox one are failed devices because they require a second subscription, so nobody is going to buy these devices for television. The Wii/WiiU/PS3/PS4 on the other hand do not require a subscription on top. These devices already won a spot at the television. There is no room for Roku, GoogleTV, AppleTV, or any other device, since these services are already available on one other box.

Wait for someone to actually put out a part that easily beats owning a console just for netflix and youtube cat videos. Right now a PS3 at 199$ is a better investment than an AppleTV since you get a blueray player and DLNA support in the box. It's also a better investment than the Samsung upgrade kit to a 2012 model television, as there is simply no reason to buy it.

My worst fear with the SmartTV's is that the manufacturers (LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, etc) will hold updates to their systems hostage, forcing you to buy new models every year or upgrade kits, instead of actually upgrading the software by selling capable kit in the first place.

If one of these idiotic companies wants to put out something that people actually want, they have a long road ahead because I'm just seeing the "3D TV" fail being repeated.

 

[cynics]

Had a weird thought: what if this is a coordinated leaking to lower expectations so they can surprise with an actually full blown tv in April?

You mean an actual display? If so I'd say unlikely. Market is too saturated especially for Apples typical price point.

Be tough for Apple to make a decent profit when it would need to get other TV manufacturers to actually make the TV.

----------

I don't think this is the problem. Have you seen the other cruddy devices out there? They all fail. Here's a list of everything supporting Amazon Instant Video

http://www.amazon.com/gp/video/ontv/devices



SmartTV's all fail, if you buy an app on one you can't use it on any other device, even by the same manufacturer. We've seen this story before. The Market has room for exactly two and a half competitors. Any more than that, and any new attempts to break into the market will fail unless there is a giant technological breakthrough. The pong wars, the pre-NES console environment, various attempts like the 3DO and CDi.



Customers do not want to buy a new box for every service out there just because none of these companies want to license each others content.



Apple's best bet to make a technological jump is to offer the same services but a better experience. So far the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Xbox one are failed devices because they require a second subscription, so nobody is going to buy these devices for television. The Wii/WiiU/PS3/PS4 on the other hand do not require a subscription on top. These devices already won a spot at the television. There is no room for Roku, GoogleTV, AppleTV, or any other device, since these services are already available on one other box.



Wait for someone to actually put out a part that easily beats owning a console just for netflix and youtube cat videos. Right now a PS3 at 199$ is a better investment than an AppleTV since you get a blueray player and DLNA support in the box. It's also a better investment than the Samsung upgrade kit to a 2012 model television, as there is simply no reason to buy it.



My worst fear with the SmartTV's is that the manufacturers (LG, Samsung, Sony, Toshiba, etc) will hold updates to their systems hostage, forcing you to buy new models every year or upgrade kits, instead of actually upgrading the software by selling capable kit in the first place.



If one of these idiotic companies wants to put out something that people actually want, they have a long road ahead because I'm just seeing the "3D TV" fail being repeated.

To touch on the PS3 being a better investment.

It really depends on intended use. If you don't have and want a Bluray player and/or to play games then PS3 is better.

If you want to share your Mac's display to a TV, AirPlay, rent/buy iTunes media, photostream, etc. then the AppleTV might be better.

 

[LethalWolfe]

SmartTV's all fail, if you buy an app on one you can't use it on any other device, even by the same manufacturer. We've seen this story before.

What apps are you buying in the context of this discussion? All the streaming apps are free though you have to pay for an account to get access to the content. I have a 4 year old mid-range Panasonic plasma (at the time it was their lowest end model that was Internet ready) and it streams Netflix, Hulu+ and Amazon just fine. It has other apps available but those three are the only ones I use.

Sure the Netflix app on the TV is different than the one on my phone which is different than the one my 360 but it's a none issue because they all access the same content.

Apple's best bet to make a technological jump is to offer the same services but a better experience. So far the Microsoft Xbox 360 and Xbox one are failed devices because they require a second subscription, so nobody is going to buy these devices for television.

There are over 46 million Xbox Live subscribers (there was nearly a 20 percent increase in subscriptions between 2012 and 2013) and as of 2012 Xbox Live was used more often for media streaming than for gaming. I think your 'fail' assessment is a wee bit overstated.

If someone just wants to stream media then there are vastly cheaper options than a video game system but if someone wants to play video games then video game consoles, including the Xbox One and 360, are certainly viable options. The 'best' choice just depends on which games you want to play.

 

[Carl Sagan]

You mean an actual display? If so I'd say unlikely. Market is too saturated especially for Apples typical price point.

Be tough for Apple to make a decent profit when it would need to get other TV manufacturers to actually make the TV.

----------




To touch on the PS3 being a better investment.

It really depends on intended use. If you don't have and want a Bluray player and/or to play games then PS3 is better.

If you want to share your Mac's display to a TV, AirPlay, rent/buy iTunes media, photostream, etc. then the AppleTV might be better.

Yeah and actual display like I said was random 'hang on a minute' thought!

 

[tshrimp]

I have a vision for Apple.....

ADD MORE CHANNELS!!!

 

[vomhorizon]

Focus on NEWS, KIDS, SPORTS and I'll ditch cable for good

 

[Dmunjal]

I have a vision for Apple.....

ADD MORE CHANNELS!!!

What good is it if you still need a cable subscription to activate it?

 

[tshrimp]

What good is it if you still need a cable subscription to activate it?

What are you talking about? Why would I need a cable subscription for more channels to be added to my ATV? I have not had to have one yet.

 

[Dmunjal]

What are you talking about? Why would I need a cable subscription for more channels to be added to my ATV? I have not had to have one yet.

Sorry, I meant that some channels on ATV like ESPN and HBO and others require you to login to your cable or sat provider. I'm sure others will also require this.

 

[tshrimp]

Sorry, I meant that some channels on ATV like ESPN and HBO and others require you to login to your cable or sat provider. I'm sure others will also require this.

Got you. I wish I could subscribe to HBO Go without having to have it on the cable/sat side . Some series I would like to watch .

 

[awarlock]

I work for a small MSO and a la carte programming is not being held up by Cable Operators. A la carte is only feasible in an all digital environment. In an analog/digital hybrid world it just isn't technically possible. The simple fact is that the big hurdle is the Programmers themselves. Many programmers, if not most, force cable operators to take a bundle of channels to receive the "good channels". The other tactic used is that Programmers force cable operators to "pass" a specific percentage of its subscriber base, usually in that 80% range. In other words, the cable operator cannot carry a channel unless 80% of the customers receive it thus forcing the whole concept of a la carte out the window.

The MSO that I work for has actually been in contract battles with some programmers that would say to us "you only get the rest of the channels when you agree to add this one channel to your Expanded Basic lineup.

The point is until the Programmers (ESPN, Viacom, NBC/Universal, Fox, etc.)
begin to contractually offer a la carte to cable operators and I assume Dish Operators, it will never happen.

Steve Jobs may have had the right idea with a la carte programming, if that is what he was working for, but I am sure he ran right into the Programmers who said, no way.