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

[LethalWolfe]

These media companies need to realize that what the WWF did is the most amazing service ever.

But you still have to pay for cable if you want to watch RAW and/or Smackdown when they air. If this experiment pays off then those shows (the biggest draws for the company I would assume) *may* be made available live but there is a lot of money on the table and it's guaranteed money. When going the direct-to-customer streaming route not only would the companies have to settle for less lucrative TV contracts they would also be taking on much more financial risk.

Less money, more risk... it's not a mystery why companies (especially ones that have annual operating costs in the billions) are treading lightly.

What Apple did with music and the labels was child's play compared to this. Apple became another music retailer like Best Buy and Walmart but just distributing via different medium. What's going on now is a core disruption to a ridiculously complex business model that's taken 60+ years to get to where it is today. That type of thing doesn't change overnight.

More to the point, cable companies need to realize what AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile realized, they are just dumb pipes for us.

AT&T et al were regulated into being dumb pipes (it wasn't a business model they willingly chose) and with Net Neutrality currently dead in the water ISPs won't be dumb pipes any time soon.

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.

Apple has clearly shown they want iTMS to be a store front and just take a cut of sales. They don't want it to turn into a record label, software publisher, movie studio or TV network. I just don't see Apple pulling a Netflix or Hulu and footing the bill to create their own original content.

One thing that makes TV more complicated is that the TV/Cable channels pay to produce their own original content. Production companies shop around ideas, not finished shows, to channels/networks. When they find a channel/network to partner with then the show gets made (there are some exceptions but this is pretty much how it works).

So, for example, separating The Walking Dead from AMC is difficult because the only reason AMC pays to make The Walking Dead is so people will watch AMC. And the more people that watch AMC the more money AMC can charge cable/sat providers to carry their channel and the more money AMC can charge commercial advertisers. Plus there's existing contracts in place so even if AMC wanted to launch their own on demand streaming app they might not be able to contractually.

 

[clibinarius]

[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]

Image​

Apple's plans for its revamped Apple TV have been scaled back compared to what the company had previously intended, reports The Wall Street Journal. According to the publication, Apple was originally approaching media companies directly to obtain content rights for an ambitious a-la-carte-Internet-enabled TV set-top box, but has since gone in a different direction.Apple had been trying to negotiate with companies like CBS and Disney to offer the networks' content directly to Apple customers over the Internet, cutting out cable and satellite providers like Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV.*However, the media companies consistently pulled out of negotiations, fearing that any potential deal with Apple could damage their revenue streams.

Apple's ambitious plans went even further, as the company hoped to erase the distinction between live and on-demand TV, allowing users to watch any show at any time via iCloud as well as being able to skip commercials. In addition, Apple explored the possibility of paying media companies more for ad-free TV.

Having abandoned those lofty ideas in the face of failed negotiations, Apple is now asking content providers for the last five episodes of any given show rather than an entire season. This structure is similarly used by Hulu and is considered a standard amongst TV show streaming services.The Wall Street Journal also suggests that it is unclear whether Apple will sell its own box or allow cable distributors to lease boxes to customers when the company is able to establish a deal for a television service.

Apple has long been in negotiations with Time Warner Cable for some sort of television-related product, with a recent report suggesting talks are ongoing. Apple may run into some trouble reaching a deal with TWC, however, as Comcast has reportedly inked a deal to purchase the company.

Apple may be planning to unveil a redesigned Apple TV box in April, which is rumored to include both app and game support, but it is unclear whether that product will also offer new television-related content.

Article Link: Apple's New Vision for Apple TV 'Less Ambitious' Than Before

I've been saying for years there will be no Apple branded TV, as it simply didn't make sense. Apple can make profits on the box. Why enter a competitive field with no profits? And the panels would be made by Samsung or LG anyway...it made zero-sense to anyone who actually thought about it.

I'm happy with this. I want an Apple TV box compatible with cable so I can buy my own and ditch their boxes-saving the cable company money since they don't recoup costs for the box even with their fees cause they replace them every so often-and saving me money after a year and a half. I'd be able to have cable in every room again (something unsolved since the advent of digital cable without paying hundreds per year). And I'll be able to afford to do it instead of spending $2000 replacing my TV that I bought already for $1200 years ago.

It just makes too much sense this way. And is no less ambitious, either.

 

[ggt]

Show some UK love

I'd be happy with BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD and Demand 5.

If they opened it up to Apps then TV Catchup on the ATV would mean never having to wait 5 mins for my Sky HD box (I cancelled Sky ages ago but still get terrestrial stations) to boot up again.

Sky Atlantic and the F1 would be nice too, but Sky would likely charge something ridiculous.

 

[hagar]

I want:
iCloud with unlimited storage, let iCloud record all channels for you to your own iCloud space. Go to a particular day of TV programming by using Time Machine for iCloud TV. Streamed to my iPad. Easily search for an episode by typing in "Breaking Bad s03e12" in Spotlight. Only $99/year.

You're funny. If Apple were to realize this, you would type in your search and nothing would happen for 4 hours. You'd stare at a black screen and then, just when you want to jump out of the window, your video would start.

iCloud and Time Machine are horribly slow and unreliable. Also, the lack of user feedback (is it stalling, loading, buffering, ...) is incredibly frustrating.

 

[Lesser Evets]

TV--modern, live broadcast, cable, serialized--is dying. It is a mere shadow of what it was 20-40 years ago. Apple is chasing a dying industry which is losing viewers almost as fast as many major newspapers. Same reason, too.

If Apple wanted to find gold within TV, it would need to orchestrate an ACTUAL channel which they provide. A channel with entertainment instead of commercialism and social propaganda. I doubt they understand that is what would revive and conquer TV. It looks like a dying industry from the outside.

Movies and movie rentals are a different story. However, Apple has their iTunes store and a way for content to be put on a TV. If they stay with that paradigm, they just need a minor upgrade to the ATV; then it should just linger in amber and be forgotten due to lack of needed development. Tim Cook has to change the paradigm if he wants to stay relevant in the market.

 

[the8thark]

WWE, the future of TV, has started
http://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork

Thanks.

 

[CartoonCat]

3 Words

Provide-Original-Content...
Instead of begging content providers for content, Apple needs to provide their own original content. Provide the next great show like "Breaking Bad" or "Mad Men" or name any other wildly popular show. This is the key to selling Apple TV's. Have excellent programs that can only be accessed on Apple TV. Just about every new TV sold can do what Apple TV does as far as programing is concerned. If Apple TV was ever a big deal it's not now. Wakeup Apple, take a few billion and get the best writers, directors, and actors money can buy. Have them create a ton of great new original content. Otherwise prepare for Apple TV to be mediocre at best and at worst fail miserably.

 

[obiwan]

I think Steve Jobs was wrong. He said 'Bluray was a bag of hurt'. - I think he really meant 'TV is a bag of hurt'.

I've got my own theory though why AppleTV has been in 'hobby status' at Apple for so long. I actually think this was part of Apple's strategy to get AppleTV into the home's of millions of users, without being seen as a threat to the Media companies (because Apple were not reported to be very serious about it). Apple were then hoping to set up a deal with the big media companies for content - hoping that it would go in their favour, so they could turn around and say 'look how big our installed user base is - all these willing customers you can charge for content'. Seems like it backfired to me, and the Media companies don't want to lose the power over their content to the likes of Apple.

 

[MellowFuzz]

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.

Doubtful. He had the element of surprise - the cable companies know there's a threat to their cartel stranglehold on the American public. Still, I wish Apple would think more global than their backyard problems. They could enter other markets first, with content like Borgen, and then when the American consumer sees this awesome product being sold abroad, the demand will put pressure on the cable companies to play nice.

 

[Smeaton1724]

I may get laughed out of the thread but couldn't Apple buy netflix, rename it iStream and integrate it as an app in to Apple TV. The bonus is it already has so much market reach its a rebrand only. Then take up/carry on the mantle of making their own content - just like netflix.

Then release an A7 equipped Apple TV to play apps natively, aka media apps and games - its partly there with airplay.

I don't care for 50,55 or 60 inch screens from Apple, a simple hockey puck box like we have at the moment is fine.

 

[Elbon]

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

OK, Michael Dell...

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.

I own two and use Netflix all the time with no issues.

 

[Carmenia83]

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 agree that the UI needs to be cleaned up, which I'm sure is in the works. But Netflix barely working is most likely an issue with your internet provider. I had Time Warner and when Netflix upgraded all their HD content to "Super HD" a few months ago everything went to ****. TW refused to use Netflix's Open Connect system to manage bandwidth. Unfortunately there's no option to disable Super HD on the Netflix app. I cancelled TW and switched to FiOS Internet and everything is running smoothly again. I have no cable now and am only using Apple TV and I really don't miss it.

 

[jonyive4]

You're funny. If Apple were to realize this, you would type in your search and nothing would happen for 4 hours. You'd stare at a black screen and then, just when you want to jump out of the window, your video would start.

iCloud and Time Machine are horribly slow and unreliable. Also, the lack of user feedback (is it stalling, loading, buffering, ...) is incredibly frustrating.

Had Time Machine stall numerous times, but it's more responsive now in Mavericks.

The iCloud API is terrible, which makes it hard for developers to implement it well. If implemented correctly, iCloud works fine.

 

[haravikk]

Working with cable companies is a huge mistake, as it's the very thing that the majority of consumers want to get away from. The single worst thing about watching TV shows is when you have to watch them in 10-15 minute segments that kill all pacing, just to be bombarded with advertising seemingly designed to be as irritating as possible. Maybe irritating does mean memorable, and maybe I'm in a minority, but I will actually go out of my way to never buy a product if its advertising is irritating enough.

I mean under the current model people are paying a monthly subscription fee seemingly for nothing besides the connection and set-top box, and the privilege of having hundreds more channels with nothing on them, and which are riddled with advertising.

The future is in changing that monthly subscription to simply enable access to whatever shows we want, when we want, and how we want. I'll happily pay a slightly larger monthly fee for ad-free programming if it has the shows I want to watch, let others pay less for ad-subsidised shows if they want, but I want ad-free.


But yeah, the whole point of an Apple TV should be to get as far away from cable companies as possible, unless they're providing your internet of course, as TV channels may have been the best way to get content in the past, with fast internet it's a medium that simply should die out.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I get your point, but dude, your numbers are off. ESPN, the mother of all channels, costs you about $4 per month in a package. So as standalone services, $5 per channel would probably be the ceiling for any given network.

No EmbraceTheOne is on the right track if any kind of al-a-carte dream could come to play. You (and others) are thinking unbundle channels but charge me less than or equal to the (forced on the whole) group rate. That's not going to happen. None of the players want the first link in the chain- us subscribers- to cut our monthly bills. If we pay less (and many of us often dream of paying much less for "just the channels I want"), all of the other players in the chain receive a lot less. We rationalize that 100 different ways such as "the better channels will survive" etc but the reality wouldn't play out like that.

While I too love the dream of al-a-carte, I recognize that the only way a new model replaces the current one is if the source of the money is willing to pay MORE- not less- than we pay now to motivate that change. We keep spinning this dream of getting everything we want for a fraction of what we pay now- and often mix in commercial free (which strips the machine of another big source of revenue that we don't even pay for out of our pockets)- but there's no way to cut the average cable bill by 85% or more for everyone and still have the money flowing through the machine to keep the shows or channels we do like going.

We do the math wrong: I pay $100/month now for 200 channels. I only want 10 channels. 200 channels/$100 = 50 cents per channel. 10 channels times 50 cents = $5. I should be paying $5/month for the 10 channels I want. If everyone went that way, the revenue (which is not all profit) in the model would go from $100 per subscriber to $5 per subscriber. If Apple plugs into this model they will want their cut too. If we get to give it a 85%+ or more revenue haircut, who takes that HUGE hit elsewhere in the chain?

Some say they're doing this now because they already cut that cord. But if the masses follow that lead, $5/month (or $10 or $15) won't keep the "good shows 'I' want to watch" being made. It won't keep the new shows I'd be interested in watching in the future coming in the pipeline. I suspect that model would indeed yield a lot less channels filled with production quality that fits the slice of the much discounted revenues the production houses would receive: stuff like cheapest reality TV, etc. We sort of have that already with youtube ("programming" produced for dirt cheap or free, readily available for dirt cheap or free). If we all manage to go from $100/month to $5-$15/month, the programming would reflect that change.

 

[whooleytoo]

How is less ambitious good? These media companies need to realize that what the WWF did is the most amazing service ever. More to the point, cable companies need to realize what AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile realized, they are just dumb pipes for us.

A less ambitious product which is realised is better than a more ambitious product which never sees the light of day.

Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that Apple didn't get its way. Knowing Apple's past they probably would have focused the device solely on Apple-controlled content, edging out any competitors from the platform.

Now, they're more likely to focus on what they excel at: a superb user-experience.

 

[WilliamLondon]

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 TV.

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 TV.

SL

Me too, I can't understand why the iPlayer isn't on the ATV, is it Apple not approving it, or the BBC not submitting it? It's such an obvious omission for those of us in the UK, but at least you can airplay shows from the iPlayer on an iPad (only if you have one) or a Mac (or even Windows machine), which is some consolation (but not a solution, the app should be on the ATV!). I don't want to have to turn on my PS3 just to run the iPlayer. Without iPlayer (on my iPad) I wouldn't have seen Kangaroo Dundee recently!

 

[Popeye206]

Hummmm… reading the comments I hope people here know that these sort of negotiations are very complex… especially since Apple (and others) are basically all threatening the existing businesses for distributing TV content.

This is a huge metaphor change and it's not going to be all free and a channel surfing free-for-all right out of the gate. But it's heading in that direction.

We'll just have to wait and see… if we're lucky, networks will start doing what HBO is and eventually they will just cut the ties with cable companies and sell us access directly once they see there's enough user base out there to do this. Comcast and other cable companies have to see this coming and I'm sure are trying to delay this as long as they can.

 

[Carmenia83]

Unfortunately, a la carte TV isn't going to happen until the cable companies do it. Even if Apple were to make it so, we still have to pay our cable providers for high speed Internet and they're going to recoup their losses that way. Just like the wireless companies did after iPhone came along and upset the business. You're going to see data caps on home Internet and tiered pricing. Don't think that they're going to sit back and let Apple put them out of business. They're already taking a hit from people like myself that have cancelled cable and are only paying for Internet. I have an Apple TV plugged into every TV in my house.

The real problem right now is that the content that is available on iTunes is too expensive. With services like Netflix and Hulu, people don't want to pay $17.99 for a movie anymore. I would like to see them implement a subscription based streaming iTunes service. You pay monthly to stream anything on iTunes via Apple TV, then pay an extra $5-$10 per title if you want to purchase the movie for download to your devices. Then add an App Store for games and stuff, and update the hardware to 64-bit A7 with Bluetooth game controller compatability and I think that would be a win.

Just my two cents

 

[FlatlinerG]

Apple just needs to dig deep into their massive pockets and purchase a cable company. Might as well snag up a wireless carrier while they're at it.

 

[TheGraphicMac]

And now Comcast is buying TimeWarner Cable, so negotiations are completely hosed. Again.

 

[kd5jos]

How this effects me....

I was going to buy a nest. The day I was going to pull the trigger I found out Google bought the company. I'm not anti Google, just not interested in their being responsible for something I'd mount permanently in my house.

If this is true about the AppleTV, I'll throw mine away. The reason, the sole reason, I bought AppleTV was to get access to media WITHOUT THE DAMNED COMMERCIALS!I am not interested in the slightest in supporting cable companies. I hope, and I REALLY hope, that this is not true. I was so getting used to watching movies and TV shows uninterrupted. It was truly nirvana.

 

[Todd B.]

How is less ambitious good? These media companies need to realize that what the WWF did is the most amazing service ever. More to the point, cable companies need to realize what AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile realized, they are just dumb pipes for us.

The WWE Network might be good in the future but, until it's launched, hailing it as the most amazing service ever is a little much.

So far I don't see a reason to get rid of cable as I get so much more from them then I would if I had to subscribe to a bunch of third party services (or buy season passes from iTunes).

Until that changes, cable will be the best choice.

I was going to buy a nest. The day I was going to pull the trigger I found out Google bought the company. I'm not anti Google, just not interested in their being responsible for something I'd mount permanently in my house.

If this is true about the AppleTV, I'll throw mine away. The reason, the sole reason, I bought AppleTV was to get access to media WITHOUT THE DAMNED COMMERCIALS!I am not interested in the slightest in supporting cable companies. I hope, and I REALLY hope, that this is not true. I was so getting used to watching movies and TV shows uninterrupted. It was truly nirvana.

Do you think they'd get rid of all the other options if they added TWC integration? I don't get why you would throw away your entire AppleTV just because they added another feature?

Apple just needs to dig deep into their massive pockets and purchase a cable company. Might as well snag up a wireless carrier while they're at it.

If they bought a wireless/cable company, they'd have to maintain everything from infrastructure to customer service to accessibility. I don't see how Apple wants to be in that game.

 

[thekeyring]

This sounds like features they'd add to the existing Apple TV product. Very disappointing.

The main issue with TV is to watch a few football games you have to buy an expensive 'Sports' package which largely goes unwatched.

In the UK I only want the BBC + free channels + Comedy Central and Comedy Central Extra. To get those two extra channels, I'd have to sign up for Sky or Virgin Media... Expensive considering the channels also play adverts. Being able to pay only for what you watch would be a great thing.

Also, having ONE remote control your TV and nothing else would be a bonus. Not one remote for TV, one for Sky, one for DVD player, etc, etc.

 

[maflynn]

Sounds like Apple is struggling with some aspects of their plan and now its better to release something even if its less then what they first imagined - too bad