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

[Todd B.]

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.

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?

 

[nickgri]

Missing a boat

Apple still has missed the boat by not integrating something I have been saying for years. Make a remote with a "bookmark" feature. You can either go to a page now or later for something associated with the tv. Advertisers want you to go to their webpages right? Well duh make that happen and get a pay per click or something. Want info on an actor in a show-make that easily obtainable. The simple stuff always seems to avoid them while they go looking for the complex bells and whistles.
Yea just buy the dam cable companies and be done with it!

 

[LethalWolfe]

^^this

Of all the times over the last couple of years that people have said "if Steve were around...", THIS time it really is true. Steve had the charisma, persuasiveness, and saavy to not only get the potential partners excited about the next big thing, but he could make them feel like they would be missing out if they got left behind by Apple. Just like with the original iPhone deal with AT&T, the providers that rejected Apple ended up regretting it.

Even Jobs had problems (remember when NBC left the iTMS?). Apple's success with music downloads became a double edged sword. It was great for Apple as they became *the* hotspot for music, but the amount of power made movie and TV networks nervous. They already had to bend knee to the likes of Walmart in the physical retail space and weren't keen on dealing with an 800 pound gorilla in the virtual retail space too. And once Netflix proved that streaming was viable companies pulled their content from Netflix to start their own services and/or jacked up the price Netflix had to pay (the licensing fees Netflix plays jumped from $180 million in 2010 to $2 billion for 2014). Hence the big push by Netflix (and Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, etc.,) to create their own original content.


Also, and this seems to be the elephant in the room, what does TV really bring to the table that a SmartTV, video game console, connected blu-ray player or roku-type set top box does not? Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, the UFC, VUDU, the CW, the WWE, etc., all have streaming apps on a variety of devices because they want to reach the largest possible audience. What's the incentive to exclusively release your streaming on TV instead of going broad spectrum? TV used to be a unique product when it was hard to get content from the Internet onto your living room TV but those days are long gone.

In a realm where content is king, and ISPs are offering their own movie and TV streaming services, what's the 'killer app'?

 

[AppleScruff1]

TV? Why would I have a TV provider?

I was referring to cable, satellite etc. Does anyone here have an ISP only and a different company for cable, TV or whatever you chose to call it?

----------

Forget about cable companies Apple do the next best thing and become the next Netflix or Amazon Prime and start having you streaming service just imagine Apple streaming less buffering and more steady HD I sure would love to have it with Apple Cloud service would not mind paying $40 year.

And what do you think the cable companies will do when their revenue drops? I'm guessing they'll raise their rates. Apple has no way to deliver the content without using someone else's delivery system.

 

[JohnPhamlore]

Tim Cook is the content companies enemy, Steve Jobs wasn't

Here again is the big difference between Steve Jobs and Tim Cook: As the head of Pixar, Steve Jobs was accepted as a "made man" with the content companies. Tim Cook on the other hand is the enemy.

Steve Jobs could have pulled off the negotiations just as he did to persuade the music content companies to license their product for ITunes. Tim Cook simply can't.

 

[Rogifan]

Even Jobs had problems (remember when NBC left the iTMS?). Apple's success with music downloads became a double edged sword. It was great for Apple as they became *the* hotspot for music, but the amount of power made movie and TV networks nervous. They already had to bend knee to the likes of Walmart in the physical retail space and weren't keen on dealing with an 800 pound gorilla in the virtual retail space too. And once Netflix proved that streaming was viable companies pulled their content from Netflix to start their own services and/or jacked up the price Netflix had to pay (the licensing fees Netflix plays jumped from $180 million in 2010 to $2 billion for 2014). Hence the big push by Netflix (and Hulu, Amazon, YouTube, etc.,) to create their own original content.


Also, and this seems to be the elephant in the room, what does TV really bring to the table that a SmartTV, video game console, connected blu-ray player or roku-type set top box does not? Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, the UFC, VUDU, the CW, the WWE, etc., all have streaming apps on a variety of devices because they want to reach the largest possible audience. What's the incentive to exclusively release your streaming on TV instead of going broad spectrum? TV used to be a unique product when it was hard to get content from the Internet onto your living room TV but those days are long gone.

In a realm where content is king, and ISPs are offering their own movie and TV streaming services, what's the 'killer app'?

But Steve told Walter Isaacson he "cracked it" so apparently that means if he were still around he would have fulfilled people's fantasies and worked miracles.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

I was referring to cable, satellite etc. Does anyone here have an ISP only and a different company for cable, TV or whatever you chose to call it?

----------



And what do you think the cable companies will do when their revenue drops? I'm guessing they'll raise their rates. Apple has no way to deliver the content without using someone else's delivery system.

Well Apple should be their own ISP than I am sick tired of excuses.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Well Apple should be their own ISP than I am sick tired of excuses.

Someone can own all the cars and trucks and supplies. But if I own the roads, how are they going to deliver their product without me? Building a new set of roads in to cover the US in order to cut me out would be very expensive.

 

[LethalWolfe]

But Steve told Walter Isaacson he "cracked it" so apparently that means if he were still around he would have fulfilled people's fantasies and worked miracles.

Maybe he thought he did but it became 'uncracked' as technology and the industry marched on? This market place is vastly different than music and cell phones.

 

[ajfahey]

Set Top Box?

I don't want another set top box and related remote. I have enough trouble with cable companies insisting that they distribute content in this way. Netflix and Amazon have figured this out and are implementing content access directly on smart TVs. Apple better get on board with smart TVs if they really expect to be in the video distribution business either with a TV of their own or through an Apple app on the existing range of smart TVs out their. Otherwise, I suggest that they move on to something that they are or could be good at.

 

[Iconoclysm]

So this would be Microsoft winning. XBox One already does this stuff.

No it does not...at all...in any way shape or form.

----------

At 5 times the price, in a more complicated way, without AirPlay. Right.

And without those features. Plugging your cable box into your AppleTV would be no better than what we have right now.

----------

Figuratively speaking, ^ that is literally apples and oranges.

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.

Yet Microsoft has none of this either. The Xbox One can stream cable content if you're a cable subscriber through apps just like AppleTV, both have paid stores for movie and tv purchases, the only difference being that Xbox One can be a front end for your cable box which is nice as far as controlling TV channels goes but is absolutely useless for people who do not want cable. Which is the entire point of this article, Apple trying to get around cable.

 

[scoobydoo99]

I was referring to cable, satellite etc. Does anyone here have an ISP only and a different company for cable, TV or whatever you chose to call it?

----------



And what do you think the cable companies will do when their revenue drops? I'm guessing they'll raise their rates. Apple has no way to deliver the content without using someone else's delivery system.

Yeah, I understand that. But I don't have cable or satellite, or whatnot. Just cable internet. For content, I stream, download, iTunes, Netflix, etc. It's been years since I watched cable TV. Nowadays when I see a broadcast with a commercial, I'm like, "People still watch commercials?" I don't get it.

And yes, the cable internet providers have caught on. My monthly internet charge has gone from $49.99 to $53.99 to $59.99 in the last 18 months.

----------

I don't want another set top box and related remote. I have enough trouble with cable companies insisting that they distribute content in this way. Netflix and Amazon have figured this out and are implementing content access directly on smart TVs. Apple better get on board with smart TVs if they really expect to be in the video distribution business either with a TV of their own or through an Apple app on the existing range of smart TVs out their. Otherwise, I suggest that they move on to something that they are or could be good at.

I completely disagree. I can't stand "smart" TVs. They have terrible interfaces, they are outdated as soon as you buy them, and they come loaded with junk I don't want. A set-top box (Apple TV) is so much easier - it has a much more elegant UI and I can update it with a refreshed model for 85 bucks versus buying a new $3K television. Everyone I know with a smart TV says they either don't like it or have never even used the "smart" features.

 

[hansonjohn590]

• You need to have a machine capable of running PLEX always on and active on the network,
• then it has to be fast enough to run PLEX on 1080p high-bit-rate content,
• then it has to be not doing some other compute-intensive task that a server might be called upon to do,
• then you have double the traffic on the network since the PLEX machine is pulling data from the NAS and then re-encoded data is going to the box at the TV,
• then you have double the traffic on the network since the PLEX machine is pulling data from the NAS and then re-encoded data is going to the TV dongle,
• then you have the inevitable degradation in quality that happens when re-coding, or the hiccups that happen when changing container systems.

Sincerely,
Mr. Been There Done That

And it's plex's fault you are cheap to buy the proper equipment? That hardly qualifies as 'issues.'

I have an ancient computer with a Core 2 Duo with only 4 GB of ram running a Windows Server VM with IIS/SQL (for dev work) that also serves as my PLEX encoder. I have no issues with my blu ray rips.

I currently have a gigabit network but also used to easily run my equipment off a 5 GHZ router and had no issues.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Which is the entire point of this article, Apple trying to get around cable.

How is Apple 'getting around cable' by trying to ink a deal with the 2nd biggest cable company? At worst TV can act as a TWC cable box, at best TWC offers a streaming CATV service that lets users not in TWC's area sign up get TWC's services (assuming that doesn't violate already existing distribution contracts). Either way TWC is still in the picture.

 

[ToomeyND]

Steve wasn't a messiah... He was a man. There will be better and there will be worse.

I think Dansix's point was more that Jobs was the only one to bully people enough to get done what should get done. Most people take a business approach with considerations to the other company. Jobs didn't have a history of doing such things. He would demand until he got his way, or nothing happened at all. It was for the best, but it is not a reasonable approach for most people.

 

[Rot'nApple]

.
.
.
and I also want to touch Olivia Wilde.

Olivia Wilde, talk about your 'dumb pipes'… :roll eyes:
/
/
/

 

[AppleScruff1]

Yeah, I understand that. But I don't have cable or satellite, or whatnot. Just cable internet. For content, I stream, download, iTunes, Netflix, etc. It's been years since I watched cable TV. Nowadays when I see a broadcast with a commercial, I'm like, "People still watch commercials?" I don't get it.

And yes, the cable internet providers have caught on. My monthly internet charge has gone from $49.99 to $53.99 to $59.99 in the last 18 months.

Here's an article about cable tv penetration dropping although it is still about 83% in the US. As the number of subscribers decreases, the rates are bound to increase if their main revenue stream comes from being an ISP.

http://www.cepro.com/article/cable_tv_penetration_continues_to_drop/

 

[alent1234]

And it's plex's fault you are cheap to buy the proper equipment? That hardly qualifies as 'issues.'

I have an ancient computer with a Core 2 Duo with only 4 GB of ram running a Windows Server VM with IIS/SQL (for dev work) that also serves as my PLEX encoder. I have no issues with my blu ray rips.

I currently have a gigabit network but also used to easily run my equipment off a 5 GHZ router and had no issues.

for a lot of use there are lots of other things to do than spend all day ripping blu rays and watching them all. lately i'll watch maybe a movie a week

----------

^^this

Of all the times over the last couple of years that people have said "if Steve were around...", THIS time it really is true. Steve had the charisma, persuasiveness, and saavy to not only get the potential partners excited about the next big thing, but he could make them feel like they would be missing out if they got left behind by Apple. Just like with the original iPhone deal with AT&T, the providers that rejected Apple ended up regretting it.

Without Steve, this endeavor didn't have a chance.

----------



Getting subscribers IS how Netflix recoups - they don't have advertising revenue!

And yes, it has worked spectacularly. From CNN:
"Netflix's blistering rate of growth continued in the fourth quarter of 2013. More than 2.3 million new American households signed up for the streaming service, its best quarterly performance in three years."

2.3 million times 8 bucks a month is a helluva recoup, I'd say.

10 years ago the music biz was imploding as people turned to p2p and ripped their old music. the music biz always made money on catalog sales and mp3's killed that.

the TV market is completely different since there is no way to get some of the content on your TV in good quality other than paying for cable

 

[AppleScruff1]

for a lot of use there are lots of other things to do than spend all day ripping blu rays and watching them all. lately i'll watch maybe a movie a week

----------



10 years ago the music biz was imploding as people turned to p2p and ripped their old music. the music biz always made money on catalog sales and mp3's killed that.

the TV market is completely different since there is no way to get some of the content on your TV in good quality other than paying for cable

Even if there was good quality content available elsewhere you still have to pay the cable company for your internet connection to deliver it. I personally don't see where Apple is in any position to dictate terms.

 

[macUser2007]

People forget that one of the biggest sticks Jobs had in his arsenal when negotiating with the music industry was piracy. If not the biggest stick.

Media is unique, since each piece is at least partially different from any others. Which means that if an end user wants a particular piece, they have no individual bargaining power relating to the seller.

The big stick for the buyers is piracy: If the seller sets the price high enough to make scouring the dark side, with all of its drawbacks, worth the effort for a critical mass of the potential audience, the seller will reconsider.

This was the argument Jobs used against music executives demanding $2-$3 per song.

If there was no piracy, I really doubt we'll have streaming services like Mog, Spotify, etc.. As pipelines get more robust, the same goes for video: at some point, taking a title off Netflix and asking $12 on VOD will simply result in this title being pirated much more vigorously.

That's why the content provider lobbies run to Congress and want to make this the new War On Drugs.

 

[hansonjohn590]

for a lot of use there are lots of other things to do than spend all day ripping blu rays and watching them all. lately i'll watch maybe a movie a week

What does that have to do with plex? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Dmunjal]

As Disney's largest shareholder, Jobs would have got it done.

Cook should just buy Disney and show the other studios what's possible.

You say that would create conflict? So what? They're already not wanting to work with Apple.

 

[mccldwll]

Maybe he thought he did but it became 'uncracked' as technology and the industry marched on? This market place is vastly different than music and cell phones.

More likely, he was jerking Isaacson around knowing it would appear in his book and get all the rumor sites buzzing. Not sure why anyone would believe that SJ would ever give away aapl's roadmap.

 

[Wild-Bill]

This new merger means that Comca$t will suck ten times worse than it already does, as it soaks in TWC and it's industry-bottom customer satisfaction rating....

Not to mention controlling a third of the US market.

 

[Antares]

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.

This way I'm only paying for the channels I watch.

Wow! So, that would be like $100 for just 10 channels. That's pretty steep. This only makes sense if you want one or two channels....which, I'd wager that most people would want more. At $9.99 a channel, you're better off just paying for full cable.