More Evidence for Apple TV Apps?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The networks are terrified of concepts like this because it kills cable, but as subscription rates drop they'll have to adapt.

I missed the announcement that cable/satt subscription numbers are falling. I believe they continue to increase... even through the last couple of years of economic "fun".

The networks don't care if something would kill cable (unless they own cable stock/companies). Like every company, they're afraid that change will result in a loss of revenues & profits. If a new way- such as this one- yields just as much revenues & profits as an old way, they'll do their best to keep supporting the old way while embracing the new way.

Unfortunately, the dream on the consumer end keeps revolving around cutting out the middle man (cable/satt) so that we get much lower prices for the same content. Often the kicker is that we want this without commercials, which put about $47 Billion in their pockets last year. Only, in this new new dream Apple becomes the new middleman if it's going to work through iTunes or Apps on Apple devices. Where do they get the $47 Billion from in that model? And where does the revenues they make now from their affiliations with cable/satt get covered?

In the end the path from here to there is accelerated if getting there yields more revenues & profits than staying here. But that's not what "we" (consumers) seem to be dreaming about. We're dreaming about going from here to there and paying a lot less for the same sans commercials. If you think that through, it should be obvious why it's not already in place... and why these players are not bending over backwards to give Apple all of their content via iTunes. Think!

 

[pjac]

FaceTime. I run a webcam off my Mac Mini HTPC and it's pretty awesome to have a 46" skype call with the whole family across the country for holidays and time to time.

I'd buy two - we currently do this with video Skype using a couple of Linux machines with webcameras hooked up to the TV by HDMI. It works but the UI sucks.

Just add a new 'iSight for AppleTV' accessory.

Exactly - a micro USB cable to an iSight camera with webcam and microphone to mount on top of the TV.

Plus I'd like the camera unit to include a minimal speaker and/or LED so it can make noise/flash when you get a call in case the TV is displaying another signal at the time (like your DVD player).

If AppleTV Apps could access the micro USB socket, we might even get video Skype on it. Of course, Skype haven't added video chat support to the iPhone 4 or new iPod touch yet, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[paradox00]

I missed the announcement that cable/satt subscription numbers are falling. I believe they continue to increase... even through the last couple of years of economic "fun".

The networks don't care if something would kill cable (unless they own cable stock/companies). Like every company, they're afraid that change will result in a loss of revenues & profits. If a new way- such as this one- yields just as much revenues & profits as an old way, they'll do their best to keep supporting the old way while embracing the new way.

Unfortunately, the dream on the consumer end keeps revolving around cutting out the middle man (cable/satt) so that we get much lower prices for the same content. Often the kicker is that we want this without commercials, which put about $47 Billion in their pockets last year. Only, in this new new dream Apple becomes the new middleman if it's going to work through iTunes or Apps on Apple devices. Where do they get the $47 Billion from in that model? And where does the revenues they make now from their affiliations with cable/satt get covered?

In the end the path from here to there is accelerated if getting there yields more revenues & profits than staying here. But that's not what "we" (consumers) seem to be dreaming about. We're dreaming about going from here to there and paying a lot less for the same sans commercials. If you think that through, it should be obvious why it's not already in place... and why these players are not bending over backwards to give Apple all of their content via iTunes. Think!

http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/en...while-satellite-telecomm-companies-see-boost/

Subscriber numbers for pay-TV slipped for the first time ever in Q2 2010.

Total subscriptions slipped by 216,000, compared to a gain of 378,000 in the second quarter of last year, according to a report by SNL Kagan. Economic factors such as a high unemployment rate contributed to subscriber declines for the quarter, said SNL Kagan analyst Mariam Rondeli (via The Wall Street Journal).

Cable saw its worst loss to date, down a total of 711,000 subscribers. Six of the 8 U.S. operators saw their worst quarterly losses.

Though the drop in subscribers was attributed - this time - to the economy, the article points out that options for online video entertainment are increasing, which give consumers a potentially cheaper alternative to bundled channels via pay-TV. Though little evidence exists that consumers are switching from pay TV to broadband video options, the risk that they will eventually do so is increasing as more options become available.

Peanut Labs research indicates that, while just 3% of 18- to 34-year-olds have canceled their subscription TV service, 25% have “seriously considered” doing so, because the internet provides sufficient viewing opportunities, writes Television Broadcast.

By the end of 2010, there will be about 27.7 million internet-enabled TVs in the market.

That was the first result in my google search. There is a tipping point, once we hit it, this will snowball. I never said we'd end up with cheaper service in the end (but who knows at this point), I said we'd end up with a better service.

Edit: To clarify, the networks are scared of change and uncertainty, which is what internet distribution represents. They'll have to be dragged into this model kicking and screaming, but they will be dragged in. AirPlay might really a ploy to bring internet streaming to the TV. We'll see when it launches, but it does let you stream video from third party apps to Apple TV, so content available on the iPhone will also become available to the TV without a cable subscription.

 

[Stelph]

In a lot of these responses people seem to be getting stuck on the idea of using an iPhone as a controller for some reason (you'd be looking at the screen ect) and I dont quite understand why people are having difficulty seeing the idea of using the Apple TV and iPhone as a games console?

Don't think of interacting with the iPhone as you do now, instead the iPhone could "show" a standard joypad so you would be controlling the game with the iphone but looking at the TV, or perhaps the screen isnt used at all and the iPhones accelerometers are used as you tilt the iPhone (driving games perhaps). More inventive developers could even go as far as using both the screen on the TV and the iPhone. Using the example of Driving again the TV would show the driving, iPhone would work as the controller and the iPhone screen could display switches/buttons/fuel levels/boost levels ect or even the rear view mirror. Or perhaps looking away from the screen could be made to be a big part of the game, for example a horror game where you would walk around but in order to open doors ect you would have to look down at the iPhone to do a puzzle, but youd have to keep looking at the TV to make sure no-one is sneaking up on you.

All these things would be possible, you just have to think outside the box and if apple really get behind it could really become game changing like the wii was (and the natal ect arent)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

First, the link you provided- while it does show losses to cable subscriptions- it's not saying they migrated to internet alternatives: the headline is clear: Total Cable Subscribers Slip while Satellite, Telecomm Companies See Boost

Cable subscriptions losing subscribers to Satellite and telecom services like AT&T uverse is all the same. Satt & services like Uverse are just other cable companies, selling bundles of channels with programming loaded with commercials by subscription.

The article is also not clear in terms of communicating the net loss. For example, was the gain of 378K subscribers in the same quarter last year the comparison, saying that cable added 378K - 216K for a net gain of 162K, or is it saying that last year cable gained 378K subscribers, but this year they actually lost 216K, for a net loss of 594K compared to last year?

This could be much like how the government & wall street spins economic news right now. Last year things were in a major dumper in about everything. This year things are still in a dumper, but compared to even worse numbers last year, we're up XX% over last year. Good news everyone!

The article does go on to isolate 18-34 year olds and say that 3% of them canceled their subscription (presumably to all subscription services, not canceled their cable subscription but switched to satt or something like uverse), it does imply that that tiny little segment may have switched to internet-only options.

As counter point consider things like this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS109754+11-Mar-2009+PRN20090311, which does say that alternatives to traditional cable are doing well... but those alternatives are just other cable-like services from DirecTV, AT&T, Verizon, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the popular dream in which we can get all we want via internet without commercials for a lot less than we pay for cable/satt now, but as long as the pipe that would flow that to our homes is owned by cable/satt/AT&T & Verizon, I just don't see how it can get done. The pipe owners are not going to allow an upstart alternative like the dreamed Apple iTunes $30/month all-you-can-eat subscription services to consume their lucrative video subscription model. Anything that gets any traction is going to result in higher broadband fees and/or tiered pricing for heavier users (which would be those people downloading all their TV content via their internet connections).

Now, if Apple or others announce a purchase that can cut out the pipe-controlling middle man, then there's potential for all kinds of very cool things. For example, if Apple bought DISH network, they could pump content direct from Apple to us consumers without having to go through a Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc pipe. That would add some very tangible fuel to those dreaming. But even then, in the end the content creators want to make more this year than they did last year, which doesn't happen if the middleman entity changes, the commercial revenues evaporate, and the other revenues that come from the relationship with the video subscription entities that dominate now also evaporate. Someone has to pay the bill. And in that on-demand via Apple itunes, the only someones left would be Apple or us. Who will it be?

 

[G5isAlive]

In a lot of these responses people seem to be getting stuck on the idea of using an iPhone as a controller for some reason (you'd be looking at the screen ect) and I dont quite understand why people are having difficulty seeing the idea of using the Apple TV and iPhone as a games console?

Don't think of interacting with the iPhone as you do now, instead the iPhone could "show" a standard joypad so you would be controlling the game with the iphone but looking at the TV, or perhaps the screen isnt used at all and the iPhones accelerometers are used as you tilt the iPhone (driving games perhaps). More inventive developers could even go as far as using both the screen on the TV and the iPhone. Using the example of Driving again the TV would show the driving, iPhone would work as the controller and the iPhone screen could display switches/buttons/fuel levels/boost levels ect or even the rear view mirror. Or perhaps looking away from the screen could be made to be a big part of the game, for example a horror game where you would walk around but in order to open doors ect you would have to look down at the iPhone to do a puzzle, but youd have to keep looking at the TV to make sure no-one is sneaking up on you.

All these things would be possible, you just have to think outside the box and if apple really get behind it could really become game changing like the wii was (and the natal ect arent)

Bingo. People are wedded to the idea that controllers need to have 20 different buttons... for the most part that is just bad game design. Say what you will about the one button mouse, Steve got a LOT of mileage with it (okay since we all love two buttons that might be a bad example, but you get the idea, simplicity simplicity simplicity).

Some games no doubt need a Xbox style of controller which would be difficult to do on an iPod touch without looking, but many many games could be done using an iPod touch with a simple interface.

 

[paradox00]

First, the link you provided- while it does show losses to cable subscriptions- it's not saying they migrated to internet alternatives: the headline is clear: Total Cable Subscribers Slip while Satellite, Telecomm Companies See Boost

Subscriber numbers for pay-TV slipped for the first time ever in Q2 2010.

Total subscriptions slipped by 216,000

That includes the satellite and telecomm gains, I'm sure it would be more clear if we could read the Wall Street Journal article the story is quoting. Your article is from a year ago. Internet streaming is gaining momentum, and Apple TV will accelerate it. Not because it is better than other settop boxes, but because Apple can bring things mainstream.

I'm dropping cable, actually service through a telecomm, when I move and going to an independent ISP.

Edit: Misread your question, I suspect they would still have a net gain from two years ago, that's usually how these things work. They compare the numbers directly against the year ago quarter.

 

[Eric-PTEK]

Here is the amazing part.

Apple's new Apple TV will most likely do everything all the other media players do just as good or better.

Now the amazing part, they will do it the same price or cheaper, and I have no doubt more eloquently.

I've tried a bunch of the media players, they all are clunky and slow. If the Apple TV is even half as smooth it'll be a hit.

I'm waiting to buy one.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That includes the satellite and telecomm gains, I'm sure it would be more clear if we could read the Wall Street Journal article the story is quoting. Your article is from a year ago. Internet streaming is gaining momentum, and Apple TV will accelerate it. Not because it is better than other settop boxes, but because Apple can bring things mainstream.

I'm dropping cable, actually service through a telecomm, when I move and going to an independent ISP.

Edit: Misread your question, I suspect they would still have a net gain from two years ago, that's usually how these things work. They compare the numbers directly against the year ago quarter.

Understand then if the "edit" is true- and I suspect it is- that's not a loss at all... just a slower pace of sales (added subscribers in this case). I would expect sales to slow down in a recession. If the economy gets bad enough, I would expect cable/satt subscriptions to be near the bottom of the absolute non-essentials that people might choose to live without (if need be). I even wonder if it came down to home internet vs. video subscription which would actually win?

It's great that you see an application for things available to you that will let you cut the cable and go all internet. Of course, that's different than suspecting that the public at large is doing the same. Maybe you are a trend setter, but that still won't resolve the problem of the cable/telecom companies owning your broadband pipe when- if you really are a trendsetter- lots of people do the same and the broadband gatekeepers want to make up for the cable/satt revenue shortfalls. How will they do that? Raise those broadband rates and/or bill in tiered usage, which would still allow you to jettison cable & similar, while paying them just as much in monthly subscription dollars (for broadband). Then, you'll pay Apple or similar for your video replacement, so that you end up paying MORE than you do now when the broadband requirement is factored in.

How will they get away with this? They'll claim ever-greater demands on the network require increasing investments in infrastructure as increasing bandwidth to serve all this video, etc is brought online. Maybe the Gov/FCC will put on a show ranting & raving about higher prices, etc... then, they'll move on to the next distraction and let companies that put a lot of dollars into their re-election campaign coffers do what they want to do.

And what will you do? Switch to a broadband competitor (if you're lucky enough to live in an area with more than one player)? Isn't the alternative- if you have one- another one of these same companies in the cable-tv-like subscription business? Where I live, the broadband choices are Comcast vs. AT&T. Comcast likes their cable revenues. AT&T likes their Uverse revenues. Neither wants an Apple-like entity cutting into those revenues. And they're the only games in town for the broadband that Apple's solution would need to actually serve content to me.

See how this plays out?

 

[Mistrblank]

I would say this is more than likely, as iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch hardware all has a combination wifi/bluetooth chip.

They did that with one of the previous iPod touch generations and was enabled on the update to 3.0 I think.

I'd say it's likely and even more likely that we'll find it's sporting 4GB of storage too, 1 GB for the OS and 3 more that will open up storage for apps. Future AppleTVs will include the storage options up front, but for now this one is sold as-is until they open up to the devs.

I'm personally guessing that the big hurdle right now is nailing the interface guidelines and Xcode update.

 

[paradox00]

Understand then if the "edit" is true- and I suspect it is- that's not a loss at all... just a slower pace of sales (added subscribers in this case). I would expect sales to slow down in a recession. If the economy gets bad enough, I would expect cable/satt subscriptions to be near the bottom of the absolute non-essentials that people might choose to live without (if need be). I even wonder if it came down to home internet vs. video subscription which would actually win?

It is a year over loss. I don't think you would argue with me if I said CD sales were declining, but by your logic, we could go back 15 years and see lower CD sales than now and say that CD sales haven't decreased since then. Now it's only one quarter, too early for panic, but if subscriptions keep falling they will have fewer subscribers than two years ago.

It's great that you see an application for things available to you that will let you cut the cable and go all internet. Of course, that's different than suspecting that the public at large is doing the same. Maybe you are a trend setter, but that still won't resolve the problem of the cable/telecom companies owning your broadband pipe when- if you really are a trendsetter- lots of people do the same and the broadband gatekeepers want to make up for the cable/satt revenue shortfalls. How will they do that? Raise those broadband rates and/or bill in tiered usage, which would still allow you to jettison cable & similar, while paying them just as much in monthly subscription dollars (for broadband). Then, you'll pay Apple or similar for your video replacement, so that you end up paying MORE than you do now when the broadband requirement is factored in.

Why do you keep bringing up price? I've never argued it. Internet streaming brings better service, that is what I want. Waiting on timeslots is outdated. I think Apple TV will open a lot of eyes towards the potential of network streaming.

And what will you do? Switch to a broadband competitor (if you're lucky enough to live in an area with more than one player)? Isn't the alternative- if you have one- another one of these same companies in the cable-tv-like subscription business? Where I live, the broadband choices are Comcast vs. AT&T. Comcast likes their cable revenues. AT&T likes their Uverse revenues. Neither wants an Apple-like entity cutting into those revenues. And they're the only games in town for the broadband that Apple's solution would need to actually serve content to me.

See how this plays out?

I already said I'm going to an independent ISP. I'm in Canada, where the companies that own the pipes are required to rent them out to smaller ISP's. It's a more regulated system that allows for some competition, more so than what you get with televsion providers for sure.

One of the biggest advantages of internet streaming is the fact that it seperates your television service from your ISP. People would no longer get internet based on who their television provider is. they would judge ISP's on the merrits they should be judged on (bandwidth, data caps, reliability and price), even if the cost of TV plus internet doesn't go down, internet service will improve which is a victory intself. Furthermore internet streaming means you are not limited to the content provided by your local cable company. Niche shows that would never make it on cable, can make it on the internet, because they are not occupying a timeslot that could be used by a more popular show since there are no timeslots.

Again, internet streaming is the better option, which is why it will win out in the end and the networks will grudgingly support it. The public at large just needs someone to introduce the concept to them. That's Apples specialty. Will Apple TV bring the concept to the public at large? I don't know, but it has the potential to. Internet Streaming will become mainstream, the only question is when. What will pricing look like at that time? I couldn't tell you, but you will have more options than you do now.

 

[Bevz]

Right now I have zero reason to get a new Apple TV, as my old Apple TV has more functionality.

However IF the new ATV gets an SDK and an App Store, I will be buying it.

+1

Also i suspect we may be waiting a long time for an ATV app store if it doesn't sell in the numbers Apple expects, which i'm not sure it will based on what i've seen...

 

[baryon]

But what would an Apple TV app do? The Apple TV has no touch or text input, all you can do is use the remote which has five buttons on it... So I can imagine weather apps, simple platform games, but nothing truly useful that would benefit a television set really...

Edit:
How about a new Apple TV remote that would have an accelerometer, and it would communicate by Bluetooth? It would be like the Wii remote. That would rock.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But what would an Apple TV app do? The Apple TV has no touch or text input, all you can do is use the remote which has five buttons on it... So I can imagine weather apps, simple platform games, but nothing truly useful that would benefit a television set really...

Take a look at the very relevant apps: http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore to get a feel for the basic possibilities for TV-oriented apps. A lot of this is NOT available with the new TV about to ship. However, if Apple opens up the options for Apps, some great ideas for some of what is coming is probably close copies of these.

Apps is not a synonym for games. Apps is short for applications. Anything that might be cool, informative, fun, entertaining, lucrative, etc played back on your HDTV would be great fodder for an app. Games is just one category. But spend some time looking at the Samsung apps (go through all the categories) and you'll get a feel for how things could be beyond the limited world of just iTunes and the non-iTunes connections bundled with the new TV.

And that would just be for starters. It would be terrific to see what third party minds could come up with for this "hobby".

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It is a year over loss. I don't think you would argue with me if I said CD sales were declining, but by your logic, we could go back 15 years and see lower CD sales than now and say that CD sales haven't decreased since then. Now it's only one quarter, too early for panic, but if subscriptions keep falling they will have fewer subscribers than two years ago.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I think it's only a quarter comparison, not a year. And the comparison is one year to the previous year, not cherry picking any past quarter to make a point. If we want to invent stuff to support our points, I'd like to compare the quarter in 1850 to now. There were 0 cable subscription in that quarter, so cable is growing at an infinite pace.

Yes, CD sales are indeed declining in favor of services like iTunes. Apple won the race. The Video companies won't allow themselves to get into the same kind of relationship with Apple. They don't want Apple telling them how their products should be priced, etc. That's why you have Amazon selling episodes (to OWN) for 99 cents vs. Apple's 24 hour rental for 99 cents. Nobody wants Apple to be the God of all media distribution (except maybe Apple, but even they don't seem to expend as much energy on this as would seem logical if they want to own video like they are owning audio).

Yes, it's way too early for established dominant forces like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. to panic. Even if your assertion proved true, I do recall seeing recent numbers showing record REVENUES for the pay-TV business. Until that starts feeling the pressure, they don't care if guys like you dump their services for an all-internet alternative. But, as soon as they start to notice (via pocketbook metrics), things will change. Broadband prices will go up (in the U.S.A., maybe Canada will be different).

Again, internet streaming is the better option, which is why it will win out in the end and the networks will grudgingly support it. The public at large just needs someone to introduce the concept to them. That's Apples specialty. Will Apple TV bring the concept to the public at large? I don't know, but it has the potential to. Internet Streaming will become mainstream, the only question is when. What will pricing look like at that time? I couldn't tell you, but you will have more options than you do now.

I've owned TVs for 4 years now. I keep waiting for the Apple solution to prove to be the better solution. I also have a subscription to DISH network. The particular subscription I have has all of the channels I watch in HD, the vast majority of which are at higher resolution vs Apples (choice) of 720p30fps. The content looks sharper on my 1080HDTV than I can get out of my TVs. The DVR lets me timeshift at will, I can take whatever time I want to begin- then finish watching anything on the DVR (no 24-hour requirements), I can download movies on demand in up to 1080p, and if I want to give a few new shows a try, it won't cost me 99 cents more for each show to see if I like it. Furthermore, when there's nothing on at any given time, I can hunt for something sampling all kinds of shows for however long I want to try to find something worth watching. I also like live sports and local news & network sports- all in 1080i. Apple's solution needs to cover some more of these bases.

Because my timing happened to be good, I get all these HD channels for only $29.99/month. Yes, there's a number of channels I pretty much never watch, but I couldn't match that price for what I do watch in any way with TV, even if I would settle for 720p or less resolution. Even if all video on iTunes went to a 99 cent rental model. The math just doesn't work.

Now, like you, I'm in a bit of a special circumstance. You've got laws in your country better supporting what you're trying to do, and I happened to luck out with a long-term deal not available today to the general public.

I love the idea that you endorse. I'd love to see it happen. But down here in the states, we choose to allow the same companies that make so much money on cable subscriptions to also dominate our broadband options. Thus, if they are making $100/month now, they can still make $100/month if we drop cable feeds from them, but still depend on their broadband service to make Apple's replacement solution go. We don't have laws (or laws that are enforced) to keep this from happening.

So congratulations on your opportunity. Like my own special opportunity, you should enjoy it while you can. It is unlikely to be replicated in the U.S.A. unless Apple finds a way to break the dependency of feeding it's service through pipes owned by the Comcasts, AT&T, Verizons, etc.

 

[WilliamLondon]

Right now I have zero reason to get a new Apple TV, as my old Apple TV has more functionality.

However IF the new ATV gets an SDK and an App Store, I will be buying it.

My thoughts exactly - don't know about you, but Netflix is useless for those outside the US (and let's face it, there *is* life outside the US!<smirk>) and my hacked ATV is far more functional than this new device. That said, if apps are allowed (which I believe they will be), then that ups the game a whole lot and the new device becomes more interesting than my most loved Apple device (my gen 1 ATV).

 

[paradox00]

Because my timing happened to be good, I get all these HD channels for only $29.99/month. Yes, there's a number of channels I pretty much never watch, but I couldn't match that price for what I do watch in any way with TV, even if I would settle for 720p or less resolution. Even if all video on iTunes went to a 99 cent rental model. The math just doesn't work.

That's a pretty impressive deal. I will say this though, you are focussing on the wrong thing by looking at only Apple's rental options. That is not what internet streaming is about. It is about choice, if Apple TV had apps, you'd have that choice. Even with the closed box you can choose between netflix, iTunes rentals or movies saved on your computer whenever you want to (not whenever the show is on).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

That's a pretty impressive deal. I will say this though, you are focussing on the wrong thing by looking at only Apple's rental options. That is not what internet streaming is about. It is about choice, if Apple TV had apps, you'd have that choice. Even with the closed box you can choose between netflix, iTunes rentals or movies saved on your computer whenever you want to (not whenever the show is on).

I appreciate that. And the new TV would be incredibly more appealing if it is opened up to third party apps. I might even buy replacements for the ones I own now just for that.

However, note that apps will come with their own costs. So not looking at it via only Apple's rental model would involve considering the cost to have access to Netflix's option, the cost to have access to HULU+, etc. If I have 10 shows that I like to regularly watch as well as a selection of live sports, etc, there is no legal combination of online services- apps or not- that will get me to $29.99. Besides, I do like >720p since I own a 1080HDTV.

Again, I'm with you on the concept. It's a great concept. I'm completely with you on the dream of all the great apps coming to TV. I'll even go farther and wish for the USB port to be normalized so that there can be some optional hardware add-ons (like stuff from Elgato) to expand the functionality of the device further beyond what can be accomplished in software alone.

But there are still a lot of challenges to take down the entrenched options. Even cable boxes are beginning to go down the apps path. And look at that Samsung Apps reference which has a lot of desirable apps coming bundled right inside of the TV: http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore I'm just about to replace my old 1080HDTV with a new one. One of those Samsungs might be my new TV.

BTW, congratulations on the announcement yesterday about the Netflix launch in Canada. Hopefully, their streaming service will be available to you as well via TV. I didn't see that explicitly included in their announcement, but maybe.

 

[paradox00]

I appreciate that. And the new TV would be incredibly more appealing if it is opened up to third party apps. I might even buy replacements for the ones I own now just for that.

However, note that apps will come with their own costs. So not looking at it via only Apple's rental model would involve considering the cost to have access to Netflix's option, the cost to have access to HULU+, etc. If I have 10 shows that I like to regularly watch as well as a selection of live sports, etc, there is no legal combination of online services- apps or not- that will get me to $29.99. Besides, I do like >720p since I own a 1080HDTV.

Again, I'm with you on the concept. It's a great concept. I'm completely with you on the dream of all the great apps coming to TV. I'll even go farther and wish for the USB port to be normalized so that there can be some optional hardware add-ons (like stuff from Elgato) to expand the functionality of the device further beyond what can be accomplished in software alone.

But there are still a lot of challenges to take down the entrenched options. Even cable boxes are beginning to go down the apps path. And look at that Samsung Apps reference which has a lot of desirable apps coming bundled right inside of the TV: http://www.samsung.com/us/appstore I'm just about to replace my old 1080HDTV with a new one. One of those Samsungs might be my new TV.

BTW, congratulations on the announcement yesterday about the Netflix launch in Canada. Hopefully, their streaming service will be available to you as well via TV. I didn't see that explicitly included in their announcement, but maybe.

I don't see any reason why Netflix wouldn't be available on Apple TV at launch. Obviously we won't agree here. I'm personally not worried out short term problems like Apple's 720p limitation. I do believe there will be a long term shift towards internet streaming. You bring up a good point about cable boxes getting apps. They already have some on demand options, maybe in time, everything they have will be available on demand, just like internet streaming. In essence, they will themselves become their own internet streaming settop boxes. As I said before, timeslots are outdated.

 

[jp102235]

The networks don't care if something would kill cable (unless they own cable stock/companies).

Timewarner!

Like every company, they're afraid that change will result in a loss of revenues & profits. If a new way- such as this one- yields just as much revenues & profits as an old way, they'll do their best to keep supporting the old way while embracing the new way.

I think its called return-on-investment. its real dollars at play, especially with the corporate accounting (if some finance person can chime in on this, that would be great) - that could easily sway balance sheets, stock prices, and bond ratings.

the corporate dream: build a cash cow and milk it until it dies. Anything new requires further investment (read: risk) and lower profit (in the short term).

let's hope for stiff competition to keep them on their "innovating" toes.
j

 

[WilliamLondon]

Sports is the reason I could never cancel cable. But, if MLB, NFL, NHL, etc released an app for some price each year to watch any game using the ATV, I could save myself hundreds of bucks a year being cable less.

Or, you could just stop spectating competition - problem solved perfectly.

You know, someone always wins and someone always loses - the theme never changes, it's sort of the dullest thing ever to watch, because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. How stupid this society is to sit on the edge of their seats not fully knowing what the outcome will be.

Just saying.

 

[steviem]

Lol, the problem is the action before that score. I can watch a rugby match finishing 3-3 and it would still have been entertaining if the teams are playing to a high level and are well matched. The scoreline means very little.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I don't see any reason why Netflix wouldn't be available on Apple TV at launch. Obviously we won't agree here.

I'm guessing it will be, but it would have been good to see them confirm it in the announcement. Lots of countries already have TVs (for years) but they don't have any movies or tv shows to rent/watch via iTunes. While I would think that netflix launching in Canada yesterday means the whole thing (including the streaming service), it would mean that the Netflix deal with the Studios for the streaming service must apply to Canada as well. Just like Apple can't get ANY movies & TV shows for sale via iTunes in other countries, so too must Netflix jump through the hoops to do so. Apparently, those are challenging hoops as just about every country requires different agreements, approvals, etc.

 

[MattInOz]

I don't see how this is proof of anything.
We know Apple builds hardware to run software, the old TV had a set of private API's which where then cracked for the HackTV.

The main interface is just an app browser. Each feature is already an App triggered by the browser. There would need to be programmers in Apple working on those Apps and the private API. Knowing some intern is working on those really doesn't do anything to suggest it'll be made public any time soon.

 

[jgunn]

it does have bluetooth for what it's worth.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/01/new-apple-tv-hits-the-fcc-with-bluetooth-dual-band-wifi/