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

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 don't usually play the Jobs alive game but on this one I believe its right. THIS literally would never have happened under Jobs...
 
That's OK, I'm watching less and less TV anyway. Let the networks and The Cable Company screw up the medium completely. I'm finding better ways to spend my time.
 
I've had intermittent trouble using Amazon Prime video with my Apple TV. It can disconnect and require several re-tries to get it back on screen. It works most of the time.
 
Todd B. said:
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?
Click to expand...

The problem is, they would be getting their content through Cable providers. If the rumor is right they would stop adding new stuff to the iTunes store. No incentive. They would likely have to sign an agreement with the cable companies that in essence says "new stuff comes from us." If this rumor is true, cable providers don't want to compete with Apple. So why would Apple be allowed to shop for content from AMC (Walking Dead) when the cable provider gives access to the channel? Answer: Cable wouldn't allow it.

At that point I have lost the reason I own an AppleTV. It's a paperweight without new content. I can watch the old content on my iPad.
 
So basically Apple TV will be a set top box that you'll need an existing cable account to use. Not the level of innovation I'd expect from Apple. They have the billions to flat out buy Time Warner if they wanted.
 
barkomatic said:
So basically Apple TV will be a set top box that you'll need an existing cable account to use. Not the level of innovation I'd expect from Apple. They have the billions to flat out buy Time Warner if they wanted.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the xbox
 
FlatlinerG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which one? I've thought about this myself before. The only target that might make sense seems like it would be Dish network so that Apple would have the potential to reach all of the U.S. (but even that would be small for a global company). Buying a regional cable company doesn't make sense and buying a hodge podge of regional companies to somewhat replicate the reach of a Dish is probably a can(s) or worms Apple wouldn't want to take on.

Either way: for what purpose? To take on the burdens of maintaining the cable or satt infrastructure but then generously giving us consumers a hugely discounted bill? When does Apple acquisitions lead to hugely discounted bills?

Which wireless carrier? Again, Apple probably needs to target national reach rather than regional so that seems "big 3" or "big 4". And then for what? To take on all of the burdens of maintaining the wireless business but then generously give us consumers a hugely discounted bill?

I get the idea and can even rationalize it with you. Having a direct link between us Apple consumers and iCloud that bypasses the middlemen named Comcast or Verizon makes much conceptual sense. After all, even in some's wildest al-a-carte dreams where Apple is able to overthrow all players and be our sole Comcast or AT&T-like provider, who owns the pipes through which some Apple replacement solution must flow? And why will they just roll over and let Apple have their cable business? Won't they make up for the loss of that revenue with tiers for broadband through their own pipes?

Personally, I don't think the answer is in Apple buying a Dish or Comcast or buying AT&T or Verizon. I also don't see al-a-carte+commercial-free as often dreamed about here working out as dreamed (where we all pay a lot less but still get everything we want). Whatever the answer is probably has to be rapidly and easily scalable to the whole planet while being able to motivate us consumers to switch away from whatever we use now AND give Apple the Apple margin. That's easy to type but hard to execute.
 
barkomatic said:
So basically Apple TV will be a set top box that you'll need an existing cable account to use. Not the level of innovation I'd expect from Apple. They have the billions to flat out buy Time Warner if they wanted.
Click to expand...

So Apple spends $40B on time warner and then what? It sounds like Apple was trying to bypass cable cos all together and do deals directly with the content providers but the content providers basically said no thanks. To me what Apple was attempting to do would have allowed people to cut the cord. Blame CBS and
NBC Unversal and Disney for the lack of innovation.
 
kd5jos said:
The problem is, they would be getting their content through Cable providers. If the rumor is right they would stop adding new stuff to the iTunes store. No incentive. They would likely have to sign an agreement with the cable companies that in essence says "new stuff comes from us." If this rumor is true, cable providers don't want to compete with Apple. So why would Apple be allowed to shop for content from AMC (Walking Dead) when the cable provider gives access to the channel? Answer: Cable wouldn't allow it.

At that point I have lost the reason I own an AppleTV. It's a paperweight without new content. I can watch the old content on my iPad.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about that.

It's not like having ABC, etc. on AppleTV hasn't stopped them from offering it in iTunes. Things are still in iTunes and Hulu and any other service.
 
Todd B. said:
It doesn't say anything about that.

It's not like having ABC, etc. on AppleTV hasn't stopped them from offering it in iTunes. Things are still in iTunes and Hulu and any other service.
Click to expand...

Your comparison does not pan out. ABC is a public broadcaster. In order for me to access ABS on my AppleTV I am asked for information about my cable account (I do not have one). The Hulu/Netflix thing doesn't count because neither delivers to televisions directly. Cable has a captive audience (TV users). So, pardon me for not buying your explanation.
 
I cut cable TV a few years ago, but need it to use iTV2 - which works fine for viewing Netflix, Hulu Plus and not to forget, iTunes rentals ...

so, between the local stations via antenna with iTunes, NF and HP, I get plenty of choices to totally waste my time sitting on my couch ... some good stuff, some bad ... Mostly waste of time stuff ... but, every once in a while you get a real good one. Now re-watching 'Breaking Bad' for the second go-round ...can't get enough of WW and Jess, quasi-father and son battles ... House of Cards soon to begin ... drat, more time on the couch ... So, what's the issue again ... Apple, just stick to what you do best INNOVATE, Bit&*^s ....
 
Waaahhh!

Music Industry: Don't sell our music online because no one will buy our CD's
Movie Industry: Don't sell our movies online because no one will buy our Blu-Rays
Publishing Industry: Don't sell our books online because no one will buy paper books
TV Industry: Don't sell our shows online because no one will watch cable

It's like none of these execs can extrapolate successes from other industries to their own.
 
pjwal said:
Move forward with the actual content providers...writers, producers, etc. Open a studio!. Distribute original content, buy Netflix and AMC for crissake, continue to license AMC's shows to the cable providers. The distribution rights to Walking Dead alone would line up these old school utility companies rather quickly.

Get in the driver's seat and then you can get in the living room. If the established market foundation isn't flexible enough for you, build your own for the consumer.
Click to expand...

If they do that they will be just another channel in the mix. This will help them how? Nobody is going to cut cable and watch one channel...
 
Personally - just fix the UI for Apple TV and make a better remote app for the iPhone/iPad. Give me alerts when a new tv show is ready to stream and that's all I really care about.
 
obiwan said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that alternate universe it probably went like this...

Apple: "Look at how big our installed user base is - all these customers you can charge for content"

Media: "Nice list. Coincidentally, 99.99956% of your user base is already our customer. We need you... why?
 
LunaticSX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. Also let's not forget Apple tried to bypass the cellular companies all together and create their own network.

Would love to say "Apple should just buy Comcast," but at an enterprise value of $189B that ain't happening.
 
Maybe I don't understand all this business but...
I do use my Apple TV just as a AirPlay device to play app content from my iPhone or iPad.
Rest - I'm not interested in that what Apple TV is for the offer.
Why don't Apple basically creates Apple store and all those content companies will write an app for it - sorted.

Theoretically Apple TV is the same piece of hardware as iPhone or iPad, why I suppose to use 2x devices to do one thing.
That's like using iMac as a display to MacMini...
:confused:

Regards,
Kr15
 
Not really a huge issue, if the device is a success the content providers would be pushed to just release free apps which would then allow people to untie them selfs from the cable companies.
 
There might have been a time when Apple copuld have captured the SmartTV/Boxset market. But with both the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 making big strides in that direction, it is very unlikley.

Then again, the iPhone proved such thoughts in the past wrong. So I guess we'll see.
 
Rogifan said:
So Apple spends $40B on time warner and then what? It sounds like Apple was trying to bypass cable cos all together and do deals directly with the content providers but the content providers basically said no thanks. To me what Apple was attempting to do would have allowed people to cut the cord. Blame CBS and
NBC Unversal and Disney for the lack of innovation.
Click to expand...

Then what? Then they'd have assets like HBO (owned by TWC) and agreements with several other channels from the get go. Apple could then parse out content in a variety of ways. The reason the content providers don't want to deal with Apple directly is because they are worried about protecting their relationships with companies like TWC.

It looks like Comcast and Time Warner are merging anyway.
 
barkomatic said:
Then what? Then they'd have assets like HBO (owned by TWC) and agreements with several other channels from the get go. Apple could then parse out content in a variety of ways. The reason the content providers don't want to deal with Apple directly is because they are worried about protecting their relationships with companies like TWC.

It looks like Comcast and Time Warner are merging anyway.
Click to expand...

Do you truly see Apple, a company that is very specific in where they focus their time and energy, purchasing TWC and becoming a content owner and managing a cable TV network?
 
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