Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

macUser2007 said:
I don't particularly care about having to run iTunes in the background 24/7. I doubt I am the only one.

I also don't feel I should have to convert all my legacy media just so I can import it to iTunes, which then has to run 24/7, so that I can watch something on my ATV. I did, but I did not like it.
Click to expand...

At this point I just want a device that can collect for UI, and play back:
1) iTunes content from any device - including NAS - on the network;
2) my MKV collection (all 100% legal, from disks I own) on my NAS;
3) my eyeTV recordings (the "transport" version of MPG2, I think) sitting on a NAS or sitting on a computer with eyeTV running to serve it up.

I don't also want to have to run a PLEX process somewhere to do transcoding. That just leads to all kinds of problems.

This is so very possible, if Apple would just allow for a flexible and open CODEC plug-in architecture. Don't assume I'm a pirate, or won't buy content from the iTunes Store just because I have content from other legal sources!
 
Wonder how the announcement that NBC Comcast is buying Time Warner will affect things for AppleTV now, since they were rumored to be working with TW.
 
Rogifan said:
Sounds like that's what Apple wanted to do and the media companies basically gave them the finger. People need to be pissed with the media companies and content providers for not getting with the times.

----------

yeah because the media companies won't allow them to facilitate cutting the cord.
Click to expand...

Realistically no media company is going to get with the times until the old model is no longer proditable, or seems less profitable than the new model. They care about making money, tons of money, and dont care how bad the user experience is - so long as they are making money. As nice as it would be for content owners to care about making my free time more enjoyable and easy - they dont, and never will.

At least you guys in the US have a chance of having some sort of middle ground. For the rest of the world - we are going to be stuck with whatever cr@p we currently have for a very long time.
 
AustinIllini said:
So this would be Microsoft winning. XBox One already does this stuff.
Click to expand...

LunaticSX said:
At 5 times the price, in a more complicated way, without AirPlay. Right.
Click to expand...

Figuratively speaking, ^ that is literally apples and oranges.:eek:

On topic: Deals with content providers was never going to happen. They all know Apple has a tanker ship sized cash pile. They all want a piece and would settle for nothing less than top dollar. Apple is a well run company and I doubt they would pay through the nose for content. The content providers don't care because they still get paid boatloads of cash without Apple. They don't need Apple.

The only thing Apple has to negotiate with is cash and it would take an awful lot of it to change the status quo.

Related: Comcast is going to be a beast if their acquisition goes through.
 
Honestly, with all the money Apple has in the bank, they could easily buy Time Warner as a whole. Then there would be less conflict and hard ache and apple could build their dream tv experience. The one Steve talked about right before he died.
 
For those of us here in the UK, there's already the perfect catch-up TV service. It's called BBC iPlayer, it's free, and it's available on every goddam platform APART from :apple:TV. :mad:

Apple should have just opened an AppStore for AppleTV years ago. At this rate I'll already be able to watch the BBC on my vacuum cleaner before it arrives on :apple:TV.

SL
 
Well, that's depressing. If Apple can't do it, no one can.

I don't really understand the advantage here. So there's ads, no fast-forwarding, all sorts of restrictions like viewing windows. And the cable cos still maintain complete control over the content and re-sell it to Apple, which means it will probably cost at least as much as cable does anyway, with lower quality and more restrictions. How is this any better than the other crappy ways we have to watch television now?
 
Last edited:
brentsg said:
If your legacy media is the issue then why should Apple, or anyone that's not trying to sell you a NAS, care about you?

I actually do run iTunes 24/7, but mostly because it really doesn't have a negative impact. I don't stream anything from iTunes locally.

I can't even think of anything to debate with you. Apple is looking at the future of televised content as it pertains to the traditional business model vs what is possible. You're worried about not having to stick a DVD in a player.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think you can think of anything to debate, since I don't even think you understand the debate.

When I say legacy, I mean "legacy" as in from other platforms. Including H.264 wrappers, like AVCHD, or MKV. I don't know what you know about the future, but MP4, or worse, M4V is not it. (As a side rant, why doesn't Safari support WebM?)

As far as the argument for streaming only from iTunes, it's just silly: you are not cord-cutting, you are simply exchanging one cord for another. Instead of paying $10 for a month of HBO, now you pay $2.99 per episode. Still from a single provider....
 
Last edited:
tbrand7 said:
Honestly, with all the money Apple has in the bank, they could easily buy Time Warner as a whole. Then there would be less conflict and hard ache and apple could build their dream tv experience. The one Steve talked about right before he died.
Click to expand...

Too late (maybe). Comcast beat them to the punch. Also everyone loves to say Apple should just buy X. Well X has to want to it to happen. No one in the industry wants Apple to get involved. They make too much money doing things the way they have always done. Why would they want to change? A lot of people on this forum want a la carte or some other new paradigm. Not a single one of them has come close to providing a reason why any content provider would even consider something like that.
 
levitynyc said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean, I have the 2nd gen Apple TV and Netflix works great on it. Far better and faster than on my TiVo HD.

I agree the interface could use some re-working as they add more and more content, but it's by far the best way to watch Netflix IMO, even on this older model.

The remote I find to be OK, the only thing I really don't like about it is it doesn't work well when you get off-axis from the front of the AppleTV, but it is nice and compact, durable (it's like a solid block of metal), and portable to match the unit itself. It's also still using the original battery even though we use it for hours every day.
 
levitynyc said:
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.
Click to expand...

what on earth are you talking about? I have an atv2 and it's no slower than the day i bought it. and it works with amazon prime, streamed off my iPad.

----------
bwillwall said:
There goes Steve's "finally cracked it" vision...

This makes me so mad. How could Apple settle for the Hulu standard!?
Click to expand...

why would you let a rumor make you mad?

----------
macUser2007 said:
As far as the argument for streaming only from iTunes, it's just silly: you are not cord-cutting, you are simply exchanging one cord for another. Instead of paying $10 for a month of HBO, now you pay $2.99 per episode. Still from a single provider....
Click to expand...

you have a unique definition of cord cutting -- and not mainstream. cutting a $100+/mo cable bill is nowhere near buying a season pass here and there. I save hundreds of dollars a year by buying the few shows I want on itunes. that's the savings of cutting the cord, and I've been doing it for years.
 
Rogifan said:
Sounds like that's what Apple wanted to do and the media companies basically gave them the finger. People need to be pissed with the media companies and content providers for not getting with the times.

----------

yeah because the media companies won't allow them to facilitate cutting the cord.
Click to expand...

Why would the media companies want to cut the cord? Unless Apple can make them more money than they are making now, what is the advantage? They're greedy just like Apple. Apple isn't trying to do this out of the goodness of the heart for their customers, their trying to do it to maximize their own profits. I'm making billions now, why should I give someone else a slice of the pie? And if owned the delivery system like Comcast and Verizon, why would I let Apple make all the profits selling the content on my system when I can sell it and keep all of the money myself?

Apple doesn't hold the cards and doesn't have leverage.
 
Last edited:
Apple just need to offer an app store and sdk and full gaming and peripheral support and they'll be on a winner. AppleTV could be offered in different storage sizes like the other idevices. Also an Apple TV optimised Safari browser, with Apple designed keyboard/trackpad combo again optimised for couch use. All the bits are there. Apple has to offer something more than the current version of the device.
 
The cable companies are like an animal that has been cornered by a predator. Lashing out with claws and teeth in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It may prolong their existence for a little while, but ultimately their fate is sealed.
 
APlotdevice said:
The cable companies are like an animal that has been cornered by a predator. Lashing out with claws and teeth in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It may prolong their existence for a little while, but ultimately their fate is sealed.
Click to expand...

Except they own the delivery system.
 
dansix said:
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
Click to expand...

ah how readily people forget that steve couldn't get his first wish of a verizon deal done with the iphone
 
EmbraceTheOne said:
Just give me a platform where I can pay a fee for the channels I want. $9.99 a month for discovery, $9.99 a month for AMC
$.99 for a day of TVLand to test the channel out, and if Like it, a $8.99 fee for the month.
Click to expand...

You want to pay $10/month for a single channel? :eek:

That's not progress.
 
Oh like this wasn't obvious. Apple was never going to get what it wanted for the Apple TV because the media companies are not stupid and not desperate for Apples cash to save them.
And when Steve WAS alive he too failed at striking any deals. This entire plan and real Apple television rumour has had dead horse written all over it for at least the last 2 years now.

Apple only has themselves and their greed to blame, the experience they wanted to offer was no where near worth the profits the media companies would loose.
 
dansix said:
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't go down in history as Apples biggest missed opportunity. Perhaps they should be outbidding for content rather than backing down. The Apple TV is amazing, but having to use junk like Freesat is like having an iPhone that doesn't make phone calls and still having to carry a brick phone around with you.
 
mdelvecchio said:
...

you have a unique definition of cord cutting -- and not mainstream. cutting a $100+/mo cable bill is nowhere near buying a season pass here and there. I save hundreds of dollars a year by buying the few shows I want on itunes. that's the savings of cutting the cord, and I've been doing it for years.
Click to expand...

Nope. But I do have an idea of what the competition is doing.

Here is a relatively good summary of the three main streaming box contenders today:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/google-chromecast-versus-roku-3-versus-apple-tv/

AirPlay is really the only thing that's holding me to Apple TV nowadays. Not only capabilities, but the UI of ATV's major competitors is actually mostly better, which is something I never thought I'd say about Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back