Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This will only work in the US. It has not got a hope in hell of succeeding in the UK or rest of Europe.
Well, Comcast just bought TimeWarner cable so that'll expand their reach. I don't know if it's universal but in my market (Toronto) we have multiple choices. All the major ISPs offer cable tv packages as well.
It sounds like it's different in Canada. In the US the cable companies basically agreed to not compete with each other and divided up the country themselves. AT&T and Verizon offer cable packages where they have installed fibre but it's not nearly as ubiquitous as cable and Verizon stopped expanding it's fibre network years ago.
Alright... just refresh the mac mini already. I'll get a used 2012 model for the TV, then install Plex... got the harmony remote ready to go.
Done.
I somewhat like the video mirror on the AppleTV, but, the usefulness ends pretty quickly after that.
Done.
I somewhat like the video mirror on the AppleTV, but, the usefulness ends pretty quickly after that.
I think the only 'pay for what you want' package that would work would be if it was set at some arbitrary minimum - like $30 or $45 or whatever was financially feasible - and then people would pick what they wanted for that $30 - let's say 5 channels, or whatever.
Even then it poses a lot of challenges, though. In Canada for example, we have regulations as to the amount of Canadian content that has to be carried because otherwise we'd get swamped by the content from elsewhere (mostly the US). And it could potentially mean that some channels or networks would take a huge hit because their numbers would dive just because some people wouldn't want to pay individually.
The pressure is building, though - just look at Netflix. They're able to do things like House Of Cards and Orange Is The New Black because they have many people willing to pay a small fee. We'll have to see if the industry keeps changing this way.
Even then it poses a lot of challenges, though. In Canada for example, we have regulations as to the amount of Canadian content that has to be carried because otherwise we'd get swamped by the content from elsewhere (mostly the US). And it could potentially mean that some channels or networks would take a huge hit because their numbers would dive just because some people wouldn't want to pay individually.
The pressure is building, though - just look at Netflix. They're able to do things like House Of Cards and Orange Is The New Black because they have many people willing to pay a small fee. We'll have to see if the industry keeps changing this way.
Keep in mind Netflix has been able to do what they've been able to do because of the movie studios and networks people seemingly love to hate. 99% of the content on Netflix is from the 'old media dinosaurs' that people wish would die.
I don't think very many people would pay $8/mo just for House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Lilyhammer and Hemlock Grove.
Yes, you make some good points. What you need is a Steve Jobs of new program content. Someone who can spot a great new idea for a show or series. Without some kind of "Bonus" why buy Apple TV when they have nothing different to offer than anybody else. Great shows would be an attracting force. Also, how do you know that "House of Cards" and "Orange is the new Black" haven't brought new subscribers to Netflix? The only reason I would subscribe to HBO would be for "HomeLand". I don't subscribe because one show is not worth it. I wouldn't expect to recoup the money directly, but I believe it would help sell Apple TVs. Think of it as a cherry on top of the ice cream sunday.
Because Apple makes you do it, by not supporting some of the most popular codecs and wrappers around.
The same people who defend Apple TV's draconian codec limitations would scream bloody murder if Google decided to arbitrary push only WebM on Chromecast, even though WebM is a more efficient codec than M4V.
BTW, my actual point was not why Apple TV doesn't support WebM, but why Safari doesn't support it, when it's considerably better than M4V, open source and supported by the other major browsers.
So, that's your argument? Can you get multichannel DTS in Apple TV? No? Oh, but that's the standard for much of Bluray's native audio. What about AVCHD, which is what many higher end home video is done in nowadays? No? Go transcode your home movie library and your BR library for a few weeks, because Apple has decided that it shouldn't be a problem for you. Oh, and half of your subtitled movies will get screwed up by the transcoders, so you actually have to recode (loss of both quality and time).
If Google did this, most of you would be up in arms.
But, the reality is that Apple is most likely losing the battle for home theater. Chromecast and Roku are the likely winners. I just wish I didn't invest the time and money in Apple TVs.
Agreed. I just didn't want people to think a single channel SHOULD cost $10 per month. I might pay that for all the ESPN channels or an HBO package. I ditched it all because I was tired of bills of more than $50 when most of what I watch is on broadcast networks and Comedy Central. I also got really tired of some other company decided which channel is going to cost me $60 and which will cost me $30. If you like something like Hallmark, you can get in there very cheap. But say you're like me and would love just NBC Sports Network because MLS decided to go that far down the dial. Wel, on Dish Network getting the package that included that channel was waaaayyyy up there at $60 or $70 per month.
I'm like most of you and tired with this system that hasn't made sense since we topped about 30 channels. The three or four companies who control about 95 percent of the channels -- which ones aren't owned by Disney, Viacom, Fox and Comcast? -- really want to push us to pay for garbage channels instead of letting them sink or swim on their own. I can watch the shows I want now by just waiting a few hours, so I hope they have fun not getting as much money from me.
I agree with much of what you're saying, and I had pondered that exact possibility, and raised it in previous posts,
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15768704#post15768704
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15472273&posted=1#post15472273
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=17526036&posted=1#post17526036
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=16307372&posted=1#post16307372
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=17585488&posted=1#post17585488
but I'm still optimistic that these are problems that can and will be overcome.
At the moment, the cable/satellite conglomerate holds most of the cards. What is needed is more competition amongst ISPs. The Telecommunications industry is still evolving, and who knows what the future holds. I believe there is a reasonably priced future for residential broadband via satellite which would inject more competition in the overall internet connectivity arena, thus putting downward pressure on monthly rates, or at least prevent monthly rates from skyrocketing if cable cos were contemplating raising those rates to compensate for lost revenue as a result of shifting entertainment options for consumers, away from cable offerings.
If content creators or owners could be swayed to upload their programming directly to satellite, while collecting their own revenue, or to the servers of digital content distributors such as Amazon, Apple, Google, etc., for an iTunes-like distribution model, rather than sell it to cable and satellite companies, who then turn around, add their hefty margins --as well as tons of advertising--, and distribute it to us, that would have a 'music industry-like' potential to revolutionize the way we consume video content, be it movies, sports blockbusters, documentaries, sitcoms or whatever. Granted, that would still have to be administered by the likes of Amazon, Apple, Google, etc., and thus would not truly eliminate a middleman, but increased competitive market forces, should keep prices at a realistic level, and all this combined with true a-la-carte availability of entertainment options will give consumers more options, and control over their monthly entertainment budget.
I agree that this is a wholesale change, that will meet resistance from vested interests at every turn, but the industry will and must change; the genie is out of the bottle, the winds of change are here, and consumers will demand it.
I simply cannot fathom the status quo to last another fifty years.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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."
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."
Last edited:
And how exactly would Steve have gotten this done? The TV industry isn't in the same state the music industry was in back in the early 2000s.
Is this another case of Apple cooling down expectations?
There's been talk of a lot of good people transferring into the tv team over the last 6 months. 6 months isn't enough time to bring a product to market by Apple's standards. So what we might have here is Apple cooling down expectations for the next release, as they just haven't had time to put the whole plan into effect.
Same with all the health and biometric hires at the moment. The work they're doing won't be in a product this year, or possibly even next.
Apple's usual product cycle time is 2 years. Whatever you see going in now, won't pop back out for about 2 years, so don't get too excited.
As for doing deals with movie and television distributors hopefully Apple has a plan, because those guys are holding back reality with all their financial might at the moment.
"Piracy" is now cyber security and the province of Homeland Security. Free Trade Agreements bind foreign governments to police US distributors "rights". These guys are at the peak of their powers, right now. They have to be, because their lust for obscene profits is driving away customers rapidly. With all their remaining money, they're buying a huge amount of lobbying.
Eddie folded on 99¢ to get DRM removed, which doesn't augur well for tougher negotiations with video distributors. Sure they'll put Apple over a barrel to begin with, as if things aren't bad enough, now, but hopefully Apple will be able to claw back something for the customers, over time.
It would however, behoove Apple to wait until the hollywood money's gone and they're in a weaker position. And that means, no solution this year.
There's been talk of a lot of good people transferring into the tv team over the last 6 months. 6 months isn't enough time to bring a product to market by Apple's standards. So what we might have here is Apple cooling down expectations for the next release, as they just haven't had time to put the whole plan into effect.
Same with all the health and biometric hires at the moment. The work they're doing won't be in a product this year, or possibly even next.
Apple's usual product cycle time is 2 years. Whatever you see going in now, won't pop back out for about 2 years, so don't get too excited.
As for doing deals with movie and television distributors hopefully Apple has a plan, because those guys are holding back reality with all their financial might at the moment.
"Piracy" is now cyber security and the province of Homeland Security. Free Trade Agreements bind foreign governments to police US distributors "rights". These guys are at the peak of their powers, right now. They have to be, because their lust for obscene profits is driving away customers rapidly. With all their remaining money, they're buying a huge amount of lobbying.
Eddie folded on 99¢ to get DRM removed, which doesn't augur well for tougher negotiations with video distributors. Sure they'll put Apple over a barrel to begin with, as if things aren't bad enough, now, but hopefully Apple will be able to claw back something for the customers, over time.
It would however, behoove Apple to wait until the hollywood money's gone and they're in a weaker position. And that means, no solution this year.
Content creators don't foot the bill for making their own content. It's too expensive and too risky. They'll have an idea (maybe make a low cost pilot or a pitch reel as an example) and shop that idea around the cable and TV networks. If a network likes it the network will pay the production costs of the show. By cutting out the network you cut out the entity that ponies up the cash (and takes all the financial risk) to finance these shows. Who steps up to fill that void? An hour long network TV drama costs $3-4 million per episode which means $66-88 million per season. And that's just one show. Dramas on cable have 8 or 12 episode seasons because the budgets are much smaller.
Amazon, Netflix and Hulu offer alternatives but they basically operate the same way when it comes to their original content. House of Cards Season 2 starts tonight at midnight and it's only showing on Netflix. Not fundamentally different than having to tune into FOX if I want to watch The Following.
I think that's more a riff on life aboard a military vessel where traditionally sailors were cut off from the world and had to find ways to entertain themselves. People living on planets still had access professional entertainment.
I think we'll just keep moving down the path we are on now but streaming as a delivery method will become much more common place. Networks will have apps that allow you to stream their content and it will exist alongside broadcast. I mean, we are 15 years removed from Napster and digital downloads aren't the only game in town. Streaming services, CDs, digital downloads all co-exist and even vinyl is making a tiny comeback.
What can Apple offer Hollywood? A streaming device? Those are a dime a dozen. A streaming service? That's easy enough to make in house and/or partner with one of the existing players. Apple was in a unique position with the music industry (namely Apple was willing to make peanuts selling music so it could make bank selling iPods) but that position doesn't exist here. There are a variety of competing hardware devices and streaming services that all offer the same movies and TV shows that people want to watch.
So, what it really comes down to is :- "Tim just doesn't have the b**s"
Is this all because Apple can't win ? I thought was always stuck to their guns...
For one, i'm sure most people were looking forward to this...
Seems content creators are much smarter then Apple thinks ..
(and more stubborn)
"allow cable distributors to lease boxes to customers when the company is able to establish a deal for a television service."
This, has much better since companies want control....
The issue, is the middle man = Apple...
Unfortunately, that will then, lead to further piracy.. something that they are also coincidentally trying to stop.
So either, its lease your own set top box, and Apple wins with content + piracy grows, or Apple never be able to do strike a deal..
I put my bets on piracy Its been 20+ years, and its still here..... ya, i can see the studios are doing THEIR part well
Is this all because Apple can't win ? I thought was always stuck to their guns...
For one, i'm sure most people were looking forward to this...
Seems content creators are much smarter then Apple thinks ..
(and more stubborn)
"allow cable distributors to lease boxes to customers when the company is able to establish a deal for a television service."
This, has much better since companies want control....
The issue, is the middle man = Apple...
Unfortunately, that will then, lead to further piracy.. something that they are also coincidentally trying to stop.
So either, its lease your own set top box, and Apple wins with content + piracy grows, or Apple never be able to do strike a deal..
I put my bets on piracy
Its been 20+ years, and its still here..... ya, i can see the studios are doing THEIR part well 
I don't know that it is "content creators" as much as the Time-Warner-Comcast protecting its monopoly, or did you mean Disney (ESPN)?
I would still welcome a new model of ATV if it used an A7 and could support HDMI 2.0 / 3840x2160p60.
I don't see why not. MS already has voice controls and unified voice search on the Xbox One and Xbox 360. For example, if I tell the Xbox to search for Law & Order: SVU it will pull up all the different streaming services that offer L&O: SVU (Netflix, Amazon, etc.,). Pretty handy when you want to watch something but don't know which service offers it.
Of course the real product is "less ambitious" than the original idea.
You don't go into a deal with your less ambitious ideas....you shoot for the stars, and when you only get the moon, you're happy, because that's more than you'd thought you'd get in the first place.
----------
Yes it would, because people love speaking out loud what they want to watch... :roll eyes:
FYI...you can do it now. Its called the Apple Remote App for iPhone. When you get to search screen where the keyboard comes up, tap your dictation button, and you've successfully completed the feature you're wondering about.
Obviously it could and should be easier than that, however.
What AppleTV NEEDS MORE THAN ANYTHING is global content search across Apps. Netflix is an app, Hulu, iTunes Store, ABC, etc. etc.
One search to rule them all. A Spotlight, if you will. And instead of typing on the iPhone keyboard, you hit the dictation button and there ya go..
You don't go into a deal with your less ambitious ideas....you shoot for the stars, and when you only get the moon, you're happy, because that's more than you'd thought you'd get in the first place.
----------
Yes it would, because people love speaking out loud what they want to watch... :roll eyes:
FYI...you can do it now. Its called the Apple Remote App for iPhone. When you get to search screen where the keyboard comes up, tap your dictation button, and you've successfully completed the feature you're wondering about.
Obviously it could and should be easier than that, however.
What AppleTV NEEDS MORE THAN ANYTHING is global content search across Apps. Netflix is an app, Hulu, iTunes Store, ABC, etc. etc.
One search to rule them all. A Spotlight, if you will. And instead of typing on the iPhone keyboard, you hit the dictation button and there ya go..
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?
Actually Internet Explorer does not natively support WebM either. Unsurprising since both Apple and Microsoft have patents [and therefor collect licensing fees] for the H.264 codec.
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.)