Not yet. I'd go ahead and update it. I have jailbroken ATV 2 and I can't really say I use much on it that I don't use on my ATV3. Plex occasionally, but there's workarounds for unjailbroken ATV's as well.
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.
CBS Open to Talks on Apple TV, Depending on "What We Get Paid"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you really think you will spend less if Apple controls your tv content? How much do you think you saved buying songs on iTunes for a buck a piece? I know people that have spent thousands of dollars on iTunes music, much of it on whim purchases. There is a big difference between quantity and quality in a music collection, IMHO. And also in the quality of the music itself, ie, 128k, vs full lossless.
Indeed.
People bitch about 50-100 dollar a month Cable bills, Apple services would be FAR more expensive, Apple doesn't do cheap. And it seems they require at least 50% percent profit margin on well, everything.
If I were CBS I'd tell Apple to shove it, and go somewhere else.
Can't wait for Viacom to get burned by their lack of digital participation. I hope Les gets bent over. He's such a pompous ass and clearly has never seen the writing on the wall. The only thing good about him is his wife, thanks Julie!
Agreed. It's time to stop the arrogance shown by Apple in so many situations. CBS doesn't need Apple at all. Apple needs them.
Before iTunes there was really only two options 1. Steal it (free) 2. Buy expensive CDs.
If anything iTunes drove the price if music down. Hopefully apple can drive the price of tv and movies down.
Indeed, CBS doesn't need apple at all. People need to realize that.
----------
As I was corrected, Viacom no longer owns CBS.
The fact stands, CBS does NOT need Apple to survive, and you need to be a complete idiot ( not you personally ) to think that they do.
Apple currently charges prices, where if you only watch a couple of shows and you buy every episode, you'd be 500+ each month, easily if you watch a decent amount of TV.
ATV also offers no local stations, or local news.
Kinda sounds like the people who said Sat radio would kill AM/FM
Kinda sounds like the people who said Sat radio would kill AM/FM
FM Radio Station valuations have plummeted in the past decade.
AM/FM radio isn't going anywhere. Sure the value has gone down.
Where is satellite radio? Oh yeah. As of a few years ago?
Almost bankrupt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/technology/companies/11radio.html
And right now its not doing much better.
When it comes to JUST APPLE, CBS does not need Apple, its not a hard concept to understand,
When Apple has hundreds of local stations behind it, over the air transmitters, contracts with Cable/Sat providers, and a strong tie to each community they broadcast in ( via location stations ), then they can have some weight to throw around in that industry,
Last edited:
I hope the price of tv and movies go up. I want the networks and studios to make at least a 45% net profit like Apple does. I hope everything goes up so that all companies can be as profitable as Apple. See how that works?
If TV networks had the same profit margin Apple did, same with cable companies, You'd be paying 500+ a month for 30 channels.
Indeed, CBS doesn't need apple at all. People need to realize that.
----------
As I was corrected, Viacom no longer owns CBS.
The fact stands, CBS does NOT need Apple to survive, and you need to be a complete idiot ( not you personally ) to think that they do.
Apple currently charges prices, where if you only watch a couple of shows and you buy every episode, you'd be 500+ each month, easily if you watch a decent amount of TV.
ATV also offers no local stations, or local news.
Kinda sounds like the people who said Sat radio would kill AM/FM
Corrected about Viacom, but you're mistaken about CBS not needing Apple. The moment Apple introduces apps on the ATV, CBS, without a participating app, would be finished.
Locals would offer local content, and every other media conglomerate would offer their wares. Can you think of one major studio who doesn't have their catalog in the iTMS? Right, because it's suicidal.
And then I could join a Comcast forum and brag about how much profit Verizon made.
You must be a huge share holder!
( Joke in reference to iSheep who see massive Apple profits, then think they benefit/had something to do with it )
----------
How does CBS NEED Apple? Apple is a large player in the media business, but compared to CBS's Cable/Sat/Over the Air ( this is a HUGE one in cities ), their base is tiny ( Im talking people who actually are stupid enough to use iTunes to watch TV ).
Lacking an App on the iTunes/ATV isn't gonna keep CBS, at all.
Go to Best Buy, Amazon.com, Target or Walmart and you can find CD's that are basically the same price as iTMS album downloads (maybe a dollar more maybe a dollar less). If all you want is one song off an album the yes, $0.99 or $1.29 is cheaper. If you want the whole album iTMS is rarely cheaper and never has been.
So, you are blaming Apple's for people's poor purchasing decisions?
No, but Apple offers the poorer quality downloads. iTunes didn't give the consumer the same quality music as a cd.
Cable/Sat/OTA will be unneseccary very, very soon if content providers release their content online without many of the current restrictions as they're beginning to do. Think WatchESPN , Disney Jr, HBO GO. If you don't see the trend, you're not paying attention. Look at any other traditional media if the pattern escapes you.
Ah, I see. Your reasons to hate Apple continue to change as you are introduced to facts.
1) To begin with you contended that they have never made anything cheaper for consumers - you are then introduced to the fact that music and mobile applications are now much cheaper as a result of Apple's influences. There's no reason to assume that television would be any different. If the introduced services were more expensive than what we have now, it wouldn't catch on.
2) So then the problem was that they didn't offer these services for "good reasons" - no one cares; things are still cheaper as a result.
3) Now the problem is that iTunes downloads are inferior in quality to CD's.
I see a pattern here, and your arguments about objectivity don't seem to correlate with this type of behaviour.
Last edited:
You get what you pay for. To suggest that iTunes matched the original music quality is not true. I am quite objective. To me there is another world besides an Apple dominated one.
Who cares about loss-less FLAC anyways? Very few people have advanced sound systems to take advantage of it.
No, i meant the way his arguments were changing. If Apple sells millions of low quality mp3s on itunes, is that Apples fault or are the consumers just ignorant or don't care?
Just because it doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it isn't true. Some of us care about the differences and do have the systems to notice.
Ahh...understood.
Obviously if people buy it, Apple is meeting someone's needs. I'm glad that they do.