Look in the mirror pal. You post is full of immature name-calling, innuendo, etc. You are the definition of immature.
My apologies. I did not mean to come across as such, but sometimes I manage it.
This alone tells me you don't know an iPad from a stick. Apple already has the television shows in an ATV1 friendly format. The ATV is already set up to rent movie content. The only difference between a 'movie' and a 'tv show' from the ATV's perspective is a flag in the file. Relative effort to offer tv show rentals is negligible. It is a shopping issue more than a Gen1 hardware issue. They can copy/reuse a lot of code from the movies pane. It's a fairly minor modification. They would prefer you bought a new ATV2 regardless. They want all their toys to be iOS in the future. ATV1 is still using a modified Tiger.
The above doesn't lend well to how much I know about the iPad. I'm quite familiar with the device, but so be it. But what you wrote in addition is a terrific case for me being wrong as I mentioned above. I have never really rented products much from the AppleTV (I have both: an original in my family room and a second generation in my exercise room). When I read the original response about the rental issue it came across to me as if the original AppleTV did not support rentals. I thought it did, but I didn't realize he (?) was actually speaking specifically about
tv show rentals. I thought it odd but I didn't consider that Apple would allow movie rentals but not TV show rentals. In this case, my original response was wrong, I owe an apology*, and my opinion has changed. I don't think it would have been a horrible task for Apple to go back and make those changes. It would have required work but I think it would have probably been worth doing.
Edit: I realize that was you now. See the bottom of my reply.
The only reason Apple ever dumps hardware from their OS support list is to 'encourage' you to buy newer hardware, which is usually where most of their profit margin comes from (i.e. the iTunes store has always been meant to prop up hardware sales, not the other way around. Apple has said this in the past. iTunes sales are meant to be as cheap as possible and low margin, barely above breaking even. It sells iPods, iPhones, etc. It also is a long-term method of control once the market matures (i.e. why the record companies despise Apple despite Apple selling their albums, etc. for them).
This plays some role in the matter, but Apple has been pretty consistent in obsoleting their own products in the name of progress and their executives have been clear about this strategy for some time now. There's room to interpret this in a rage from intelligent company strategy to screwing customers (and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle) but I think most of the cases in which they have obsoleted products or elements of products have been quite reasonable. I can agree that the original AppleTV was treated harshly, though.
One more thought. The iTunes Store was originally proposed with the notion of more or less breaking even, which was a good business strategy at the time because that made life more difficult for competitors and helped to prop up their actual hardware. In recent history, though, it has become more profitable and we've also seen Apple make aggressive moves such as aiming for their 30% cut on subscriptions despite significant blowback from their customer base, media, and companies. This is also the same industry which Amazon is content to compete in for its inherent profit. The iTMS is not a big slice of Apple's cake, but it registers, and is a mighty delicious slice from the perspective of outside companies. In short, times have changed a little.
See what I mean about that mirror?
Pricing most certainly is NOT just up to the studios. Get a clue before you post. Prices for rentals are negotiated with the studios the same way music prices are negotiated for music (otherwise how do you explain the flat rental rates on ATV? They NEVER vary except for weekly specials and old versus new). Most studios refuse to even allow Apple to sell movies since they know where their bread is buttered (i.e. Blu-Ray). And let me tell you it's Apple that is leading the discussions or the movie studios wouldn't agree to same-rate flat-rate pricing. They rallied against it with music and Apple finally had to relent a bit for flexible pricing or you wouldn't have to pay $1.29 now for most music instead of 99 cents (the 69 cent rate was a joke from day 1; almost no one offers them).
The price range was negotiated with the studios, who in turn price their products within the provided range (remember this was originally in response to music, not other media with fixed prices). You could, perhaps, be upset with Apple for giving them the option to go up to $1.29 (remember, that was a pretty important concession in a tough negotiation), but you can't really be upset with Apple because studios aren't pricing their content at $0.69. As for the other media, Apple has been fighting to lower prices—not increase them—and that's not exactly an unfriendly practice to consumers.
I disagree somewhat with your perspective on the music/video industries. One reason why they've tried pricing things lower through competitors like Amazon is because they don't want Apple to have as much control of the market as they do. They
want Apple's competitors to be successful. Apple isn't afraid to use the strength they have in this market, so it seems like a very reasonable response.
I'd rather that you didn't respond. It'd be better to stay silent then post a bunch of fanboy malarkey and immature name-calling.
I was wrong. But this is not the proper way to handle it.
Edit: I went back to find the fellow who I had disagreed with in regard to it being a 'server/host' issue and the amount of work that would have been associated with the change on Apple's part, so I could apologize, and discovered that it was you. I apologize for misunderstanding your point about rentals of TV shows vs. movies and for being incorrect on my knowledge about the original Apple TV’s rental capabilities. I expressed myself quite poorly in that exchange.
