I visioned the Apple TV

Discussion in 'iOS 5 and earlier' started by Patrick J, Jan 8, 2012.

  1. Patrick J macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #1
    When Jobs said they cracked it, they had.

    Their TV will have “apps”, but not in a iOS sense. Each app will be a TV show you like with streaming, previous episodes, etc. You subscribe to your individual TV shows. This completely revolutionises the TV industry.

    You can already imagine the “grid” with rounded squares forming a menu. “Siri, watch House”.

    Content all via Apple.

    I wonder how they could get these content deals?
     
  2. dball4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Location:
    Illinois
    #2
    Heard this on TWiT

    They were just talking about this on TWiT, Leo Laporte just mentioned it. I was thinking the same thing. It would give us all what we want and at the same make some money
     
  3. verwon macrumors 68030

    verwon

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Location:
    Seattle
    #3
    He pulled it off with music...
     
  4. Patrick J thread starter macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #4
    Exactly! they started the topic and I had the vision and 10 minutes later Leo says it just like that!!!! Weird, right?

    But music was dead in the water because of piracy, TV isn’t like that yet.

    But it would be a miracle machine. Wow.

    1000$ for 50”, 2000 for 70”?
     
  5. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #5
    Music was never dead because of piracy. That doesn't make any sense.

    But back to topic. I don't know if I necessarily like the idea of subscribing to individual TV shows. Seems like it could be expensive, what I would personally like is TV channels, History, ESPN, Travel, etc.... that I could subscribe to for $X.99 per month. Now that would be revolutionary.
     
  6. Patrick J thread starter macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #6
    Why not both?
     
  7. AppleDApp macrumors 68020

    AppleDApp

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #7
    TV is definitely feeling some sort of impact. I haven't watch a tv show from a cable provider online in a while. Most of the time I just watch TV online. I have several friends who do not own a tv and also watch there shows online. I'm not sure how many people do this but it seems to be popular and probably creates an impact. I'm sure with icloud Apple will allow you to watch all your iTV shows on your other apple devices which would definitely increase user base.
     
  8. eric/ Guest

    eric/

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Location:
    Ohio, United States
    #8
    That works too. But they kinda already do that with season pass for TV episodes now ergo I don't see how them offering that in a TV format would be a good product at all since you can already do it with the Apple TV box, and it would be expensive as hell. It absolutely wouldn't be revolutionary.

    ----------

    Yeah, it's just dumb to pay $xx.xx per month for cable or satellite TV but not watch even 1/4th of the channels. I'd rather just be able to pick what I want. I don't want **** channels like QVC, the religious channel, and the Spanish channel.
     
  9. apollo1444 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    Location:
    mexico
    #9
    their new tv will be similar to sammy smartv aproach, those guys act like they invented it...they probably got there first but I bet Apple is going to have something up in their sleeve which Samsung will end up copying like they always do...
     
  10. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #10
    I just don't see how they can offer anything "revolutionary" because the pricing structure simply isn't there to make it work.

    Music could be offered in a sensible way digitally (by the track or as an album) and the pricing made sense. Consumers were not really losing anything overall by buying the iTunes album VS. buying a CD.

    But if you're asking people to pay several dollars (or whatever currency) for something they can already get elsewhere for free, why are they ever going to pick the paid option?

    None of the TV networks will get on board with a system that works for the consumer because it would never work for them (rightly so).

    Having Apps for each TV Show would be incredibly expensive and take a long time to develop. An App per network could work, and it's possible that they'd work something out where the content was free (with ads that you couldn't skip) - but I don't see why people would pick that over a (presumably cheaper) DVR.
     
  11. AppleDApp macrumors 68020

    AppleDApp

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #11
    how do consumers get TV channels for free? with ads, local OTA channels?
     
  12. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #12
    Well yeah.

    Most people in the world don't pay for the most popular (i.e. network) shows that they get.
     
  13. AppleDApp macrumors 68020

    AppleDApp

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #13
    Local OTA channels don't offer HD programs or things like ESPN or HBO or whatever the premium channels are. It has been proven with the itunes store. Apple will work out an agreement with networks and they will offer some kind of subscription.
     
  14. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #14
    They certainly do!

    They don't, but then people who subscribe to these services are in the minority. If they subscribe through their cable/satellite provider then they might subscribe through Apple instead - providing that there was a tangible benefit in doing so.

    What has been proven?

    The last Apple TV TV Show "rental" idea failed.

    People may buy TV shows on the iTunes Store, but it's very expensive. I'd imagine a lot of the sales come from people that forgot to watch a specific episode when it was on the TV.

    Why would you pay it? What does it give you that "basic cable" and a DVR doesn't?

    There are also concerns around things like broadband usage caps. If you switched all of your TV viewing to be over the internet, a lot of people wouldn't be able to cope with that.
     
  15. Spencie macrumors regular

    Spencie

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Location:
    The Mothership
    #15
    What would be revolutionary is being able to subscribe to single television networks, paying for only what you need/like. Everybody would switch over to Apple if they only wanted ABC, or ESPN. The only problem is how would they get all the agreements with all the big networks?
     
  16. Patrick J thread starter macrumors 65816

    Patrick J

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2009
    Location:
    Oporto, Portugal
    #16
    I reckon this is exactly what they have been working on, both single network and single show subscriptions.
     
  17. MonkeySee.... macrumors 68040

    MonkeySee....

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Subscriptions to Networks won't work in the UK.

    Most of the best content is on Sky (Sky1, Sky movies, Sky sports etc).
     
  18. elistan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Denver/Boulder, CO
    #18
    Here's my anecdotal situation:

    We have DirecTV at $95 month. That's $1140 per year.

    There are only about 8 shows we make a point to watch every week, and they're all available on iTunes. IIRC, the total iTunes price for them would be about $300 per year.

    I'm very, very close to cancelling DTV altogether. I'd miss the sports and racing, though.
     

Share This Page