I don't think so. If they have something ready for 2012, it's been in development for a long time already.
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.
Competitors Already 'Scrambling' to React to Apple's TV Plans
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think so. If they have something ready for 2012, it's been in development for a long time already.
Apple's business model has been to have full end-to-end control of the device: meaning to distribute, take payment, etc all directly. This is going to 'change the game' and will be the future method of distributing entertainment. I wonder what happens to local TV - news etc when this gets really big.
Not just the product needs to be revolutionary
Given Apple's track record, even if the new product is revolutionary I have serious doubts whether they will get the launch right. For example - Apple really lagged behind with the introduction of HD movies in the UK, and the Apple TV doesn't allow rentals of TV shows in the UK at all still.
For a new TV product it won't be good enough to have a revolutionary product if the services it provides are significantly impaired. They need to get the deals sorted with all content providers BEFORE the product is launched in all regions.
Given the closed nature of current TV services (eg. cable and satellite) - for Apple to come up with a a comprehensive single product it will need to provide a comprehensive range of TV channels, TV rentals, film rentals - all provided over the internet. This will only work if they sign up all networks.
Given Apple's track record, even if the new product is revolutionary I have serious doubts whether they will get the launch right. For example - Apple really lagged behind with the introduction of HD movies in the UK, and the Apple TV doesn't allow rentals of TV shows in the UK at all still.
For a new TV product it won't be good enough to have a revolutionary product if the services it provides are significantly impaired. They need to get the deals sorted with all content providers BEFORE the product is launched in all regions.
Given the closed nature of current TV services (eg. cable and satellite) - for Apple to come up with a a comprehensive single product it will need to provide a comprehensive range of TV channels, TV rentals, film rentals - all provided over the internet. This will only work if they sign up all networks.
That's what I thought too, but the launching of the product is a significant part as well. It does prove whether they can succeed independently to some degree.
My assumption is that the Apple TV set will be a single device that won't work with existing junk that clutters the living room. Throw away the blu ray player, throw away the satellite box - just get the Apple TV set, plug it in, have access to all live TV channels around the world (for a subscription fee) over the internet and the option of renting TV programs, and playing content from iTunes on Mac/PC. Wireless interaction only - with computer, iPad, iPhone. Simplicity.
Having said that - I can imagine people criticising if it didn't have things like HDMI inputs, just like when the iMac didn't have a floppy drive...
Having said that - I can imagine people criticising if it didn't have things like HDMI inputs, just like when the iMac didn't have a floppy drive...
can't wait to see Apple TV; Apple has always simplified and made daily objects more beautiful. We can't be disappointed.
I always been angry at all my TVs with their super complex menus, awful remote controls, tons of unnecessary options, etc. OK they are now thin, LED, 3D but still not designed carefully.
Apple TV: Bring it on !
I always been angry at all my TVs with their super complex menus, awful remote controls, tons of unnecessary options, etc. OK they are now thin, LED, 3D but still not designed carefully.
Apple TV: Bring it on !
Well remember when tv's started to get more than a 100 channels? That was mind blowing, but later people realized there was nothing on. Good tv starts with good content. Then Quality of visuals. Everything else is gravy.
Hey Siri turn on but wait till I turn on my NAD receiver. Please!!!!
Hey Siri turn on but wait till I turn on my NAD receiver. Please!!!!
Sports and Bandwidth
I have no clue what Apple will announce (if anything), but my gut tells me that it will be more than a piece of hardware but more along the lines of a service tailored to specific hardware.
As a service I see two major stumbling blocks for Apple. If Apple felt dealing with the 4 major labels difficult in order to get agreements for iTunes Match, it will be nothing compared to dealing with the hordes of IP holders on the television side. For starters, live HD sports broadcasting is a must for a very large percentage of the population to even consider cutting the cord. As mentioned earlier, it isn't like we are just talking about the NBA, MLB and the NFL either. You have the numerous soccer leagues around the world, cricket leagues, the NCAA here in the states (with most conferences negotiating their own television contracts).
And then you have the television shows. It isn't like you have to just make deals with a handful of networks. Take the NBC show Chuck for example. Right now the current season is unavailable anywhere legally other than the original airing. You can't watch it on Hulu, Netflix or NBC's website. You can't purchase episodes from iTunes, Amazon, etc. Why? Because of some strange hybrid ownership between Warner Brothers and other members. It won't be as simple as making deals with Disney, CBS (formally Viacom) Fox, and a few others.
No, sports and multiple owners will be hard to deal with.
Then you have the cable companies. They will not only try to strong arm the networks into NOT working with Apple, but also have the ability to really screw with the economic model of IP based television because they control the bandwidth. Data caps on your service puts a real hurt on the idea of internet television. They have wanted data caps for years, this is just the excuse needed to institute them in mass. Unfortunately, here in the states, most of our municipalities have granted quasi-monopolies to usually at most 3 corporations.
I hope I am wrong. I would love for Apple to provide a seamless television experience, complete with live HD sports and full content at a reasonable price, but I just don't see how it can be done.
I have no clue what Apple will announce (if anything), but my gut tells me that it will be more than a piece of hardware but more along the lines of a service tailored to specific hardware.
As a service I see two major stumbling blocks for Apple. If Apple felt dealing with the 4 major labels difficult in order to get agreements for iTunes Match, it will be nothing compared to dealing with the hordes of IP holders on the television side. For starters, live HD sports broadcasting is a must for a very large percentage of the population to even consider cutting the cord. As mentioned earlier, it isn't like we are just talking about the NBA, MLB and the NFL either. You have the numerous soccer leagues around the world, cricket leagues, the NCAA here in the states (with most conferences negotiating their own television contracts).
And then you have the television shows. It isn't like you have to just make deals with a handful of networks. Take the NBC show Chuck for example. Right now the current season is unavailable anywhere legally other than the original airing. You can't watch it on Hulu, Netflix or NBC's website. You can't purchase episodes from iTunes, Amazon, etc. Why? Because of some strange hybrid ownership between Warner Brothers and other members. It won't be as simple as making deals with Disney, CBS (formally Viacom) Fox, and a few others.
No, sports and multiple owners will be hard to deal with.
Then you have the cable companies. They will not only try to strong arm the networks into NOT working with Apple, but also have the ability to really screw with the economic model of IP based television because they control the bandwidth. Data caps on your service puts a real hurt on the idea of internet television. They have wanted data caps for years, this is just the excuse needed to institute them in mass. Unfortunately, here in the states, most of our municipalities have granted quasi-monopolies to usually at most 3 corporations.
I hope I am wrong. I would love for Apple to provide a seamless television experience, complete with live HD sports and full content at a reasonable price, but I just don't see how it can be done.
Last edited:
I see Satellite tv winning over everyone in the end. Rural areas just can't do HD with little bandwidth. Plus when you start adding up HULU and Netflix fees on top of whatever else you like. Satellite providers start to look good again. Especially if your a sports fan. These internet services are helping to bring down the Satellite prices. So that is great and it's a nice fall back if you need to tighten up the budget. I use both I am currently trying HULU+ and I am really liking the quality of it. But the loading times are crazy for my band width. I got to wait for a commercial to load. Now thats very close to a deal breaker for me.
Yeah, though floppies were already well on their way out when Apple abandoned them.
But nix that HDMI port, and suddenly you'll have a product that's only half assed in comparison to the competition. The high end A/V enthusiast can't hook up his Blu-Ray drive, which is one of the main justifications for buying a 40+ inch TV, and the gamer crowd can't hook up their Xboxes or PS3s.
The only market they'll have left are the people who use their TVs to watch the nightly news, or rent movies on the weekend. And they're sure as hell not gonna pay $1000-$1500 for a TV with a slick interface and internet connection. Not when their cheap ass Wal-Mart bought Vizio does exactly what they need it to.
For Apple to succeed in the TV market, they'll have to appeal to the high end crowd.
Well, Apple will never pull me away from my projector. Unless they make a better projector.
Bandwidth is always capped, usually we call that tiered. I guess you must mean usage caps, and the major players already have those. CenturyLink's begins in Feb.
I do that on my iPhone with the Tivo app, and the interface is not clunky or limited.
This has existed for years over RS232, just...people don't use it much because of one failing: not recognizing control as the main improvement they need. Harmony remotes have almost managed to bypass this issue without the more expensive full-duplex control. But still, I tell people all the time to buy a remote and they say, "$50 for a remote?! Are you kidding?" Morons. Presumably, this is part of what Steve "cracked". We'll see.
Frankly, this is starting to remind me of Mozart's Requiem.
Maybe that was the plan Steve cooked up?
1) Steal Underpants
drop an off hand remark that he finally worked out the secret sauce.
this implies it was a bit left field. with further hints like we where talking about Siri and 4G networks when it hit me.
2) ???
Let all the other companies stew on in for 6-12months.
Trying to pull something together.
3) Profit.
Apple turns up with a deal to license CloudTunes, an API that less TV's and HDMI device to broadcast remote control apps to iOS devices including Siri integration and an other missing piece that cuts the cord from the cable companies.
I would expect Apple's hardware to be quality but your analysis in your original post of the experience as the differentiator is spot on.
That may or may not be a new idea, but i think it's brilliant. It wouldn't cost much for a TV mfgr to add that capability. And apple would have to bring out a new
TV with dvr capabilities. No rocket science there.BUT who's to say the
TV would have to have DVR, though we'd all like that? The sets could attach to a conventional DVR in addition to TV. Then people would see how smoothly a siri-like voice control or ipad/iphone remote control worked with the set for the media the TV delivers, and the inconvenience of the DVR operation. Maybe that would be the final prod for networks to grant apple rights to movies and TV, and the dvr capability could then be added to appleTV. Sorta like adding video to an iPod, or FM radio to an iPod Nano, or apps to the iPhone. Step by step...
NO! What is irritating is the cable companies forcing "Blundles" on the consumer. Why pay for content you do not consume.
Kill the Cables. Let APPL unleash the dogs of better TV!
On cable, MLB costs 200$.
On AppleTV it costs 120$. With the appleTV version you can also access the games via mlb.com which has some nice extras when you are on your computer, and if you add another 15$ you can watch the games on your mobile phone.
This will be a decent product but not a hit. Apple will try to make the thing too locked down and rigid and that will be a disaster. You take a TV home and you want to turn it on play your game, not spend 10 hours signing up for Itunes and getting Apple ID and giving someone a credit card number. You have files on your computer you aint gonna be interested in a non-DLNA networking that cant play those AVI files youve had for3-5 years and love.Not after you piad 2-3 thousand bucks already!