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.
No New Apple Television Products Coming in 2012 as Content Negotiations Stall Once Again
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hey, another product that MR has been hyping up and proclaimed with certainty its coming only to back out at the 11th hour. Kinda like the iPad Mini that you guys guarenteed would be released 2 years ago and again last year?
In other news, the iPhone Mini is rumored to be in production. Here is a shoddy rendered picture. Trust us, its real....
They guaranteed it? Do you have a link? I'd love to see this
What if no one were to watch TV how much money would content providers make?
Old world television content providers that don't adopt/accept current modalities of technology provision will eventually be washed away by the tsunami of change. Resisting a new methodology of providing content for fear of reduced revenue streams doesn't mean that the method is flawed, it means the model for generating revenue is antiquated and a more viable model that capitalizes on new technologies must be explored.
The current infrastructure to support widespread adoption and complete transition to streaming content is in it's infancy at best - so TV content providers are content with the current methods of delivery. However, technological progress and change are forces no company, regardless of their content, can resist. They can either eventually get with the program and change on their own or be forced.
Old world television content providers that don't adopt/accept current modalities of technology provision will eventually be washed away by the tsunami of change. Resisting a new methodology of providing content for fear of reduced revenue streams doesn't mean that the method is flawed, it means the model for generating revenue is antiquated and a more viable model that capitalizes on new technologies must be explored.
The current infrastructure to support widespread adoption and complete transition to streaming content is in it's infancy at best - so TV content providers are content with the current methods of delivery. However, technological progress and change are forces no company, regardless of their content, can resist. They can either eventually get with the program and change on their own or be forced.
failing to realize
What they are failing to realize is that their delivery method is about to be abandoned. If they don't form agreements with the makers of the new delivery methods of content - they will risk being pushed out of the market forever.
Example: If no one signs a deal with apple before our generation wakes up, cancels cable and gets everything over the internet, those companies will go belly up or be left relying on only their internet fees. This is not a perfect solution for them - because they make millions more in advertising revenue on those live channels than the fee they charge for internet.
If apple creates a delivery method that allows companies like Time Warner to still distribute live video which include advertisements to our home in the way we'll want in the next 5 years - this segment of their business will survive. I believe it won't if they don't. They are being stubborn because they think the world will never change enough that the average household doesn't have a live cable connection on their tv. It certainly hasn't happened yet - but it will if they don't innovate.
What they are failing to realize is that their delivery method is about to be abandoned. If they don't form agreements with the makers of the new delivery methods of content - they will risk being pushed out of the market forever.
Example: If no one signs a deal with apple before our generation wakes up, cancels cable and gets everything over the internet, those companies will go belly up or be left relying on only their internet fees. This is not a perfect solution for them - because they make millions more in advertising revenue on those live channels than the fee they charge for internet.
If apple creates a delivery method that allows companies like Time Warner to still distribute live video which include advertisements to our home in the way we'll want in the next 5 years - this segment of their business will survive. I believe it won't if they don't. They are being stubborn because they think the world will never change enough that the average household doesn't have a live cable connection on their tv. It certainly hasn't happened yet - but it will if they don't innovate.
There is a difference between a phone and tv content. The analogy you're making doesn't even make sense in this context. The cable companies don't care too much about Apple's hardware or UI. Although I am sure they have or want input there if used on their system. But the issue here is CONTENT. And that goes beyond the cable companies. And the negotiations are a lot more complex as they include everything from the cable companies themselves, to all the studios, to all the unions because at the end of the day - everyone wants their cut.
Not even close to dealing with the cellular phone industry.
It is hard to see why Apple should want to get involved with "TV", when "TV" is dying a death. How many people actually sit and watch "TV" these days? Even when it is on, most people are using smartphones, tablets or laptops to do other stuff: the "TV" is mainly just used as background noise.
Having content (films, series to stream) is one thing, but "TV" itself is last century technology and it is time to move on. Kick it into touch along with the floppy disk, VHS, the CD player, DVDs, the stereo console, etc.
We're getting to a point where we're passing way beyond having to endure "TV" shows. Some high-end content is needed, but 99% of "broadcast TV" can and will be dropped in the years ahead.
We're all content creators now, even if we don't realise we are. TV was there when we couldn't interact with each other without being face-to-face. Now, with technology, we don't need "TV" to entertain us. We have LOTS of other things to do and can interact with people on a global scale to make our own entertainment.
TV is dead.
Having content (films, series to stream) is one thing, but "TV" itself is last century technology and it is time to move on. Kick it into touch along with the floppy disk, VHS, the CD player, DVDs, the stereo console, etc.
We're getting to a point where we're passing way beyond having to endure "TV" shows. Some high-end content is needed, but 99% of "broadcast TV" can and will be dropped in the years ahead.
We're all content creators now, even if we don't realise we are. TV was there when we couldn't interact with each other without being face-to-face. Now, with technology, we don't need "TV" to entertain us. We have LOTS of other things to do and can interact with people on a global scale to make our own entertainment.
TV is dead.
Whatever spin the record companies want to put on it, ITMS Made purchasing music more attractive than using Napster, Limewire, torrents and the likes, for millions of consumers. The recording industries flaw was in forcing DRM, and putting limitations on how those consumers could use the files.
It's sad that Video, which is much more modern than recorded Audio, is stuck further in the past. It is 2012, and the industry still hasn't figured out (or agreed on) a somewhat universal method to make money, while also making content more widely available.
Hey, another product that MR has been hyping up and proclaimed with certainty its coming only to back out at the 11th hour. Kinda like the iPad Mini that you guys guarenteed would be released 2 years ago and again last year?
In other news, the iPhone Mini is rumored to be in production. Here is a shoddy rendered picture. Trust us, its real....
Starting to think that Steve Jobs faked his death and is now running MacRumors just to wind us all up for a bit.
The content providers need to look at the music industry and NOT BE AFRAID OF HOW THINGS ARE GOING. TV will end up like that as well. Just stop stalling.
I was gonna say, doesnt Apple have a boat load of cash, beyond that, they give out stock like candy now. If it really wanted to a hostile take over would be all it would take, some cash, some stock and bam as Steve would say and now you own Comcrap or TWC.
On one hand, I can see why as they would be giving up a lot of control that they're used to, but on the other hand, I see no future for these companies if they keep being run like they are today. They should just face facts.
It's crazy that we today buy packages of channels from companies, instead of picking and choosing, and not only that -- actually only able to watch the shows when they decide to, unless we record them. That's a big WTF when you compare it to how the music industry and apps work today.
Imagine tuning in to iTunes or Spotify for a song that is only played this Friday at 5:00-5:08 pm, which you will only be able to inconveniently listen to because you subscribe to a package of 10 artists where you like something like three of them. That's television today. And the only reason to why there isn't an uproar about it, is because people are used to have it this way since 1949. 63 years of age sounds like a good retirement age to me.
Last edited:
The general feeling I get reading most of these posts is that content providers and their distributors are dense, unaware of the shifts happening in the market, and completely unwilling to change. I think that's mostly untrue and just sour grapes because they won't give away content for free or a la carte. It costs money to create content and it has to come from somewhere.
HBOGo, WatchESPN - great examples of content providers working with distributors to allow people to watch their content where ever they are. Yes, you still pay a cable bill, but it's an awesome value add to no longer be chained to where ever there is a coax outlet in your house.
Hulu - a lot of content providers made a significant investment (NBC, Disney, FOX, and others) in this new technology - came up with 2 models free and paid, and are experimenting with how alternative forms of content consumption would effect their bottom line. A lot of content providers also cut deals with companies like Netflix.
Even 5 years ago these concepts and ideas would have seemed radical. But as technology changes so do companies. Some are more cutting edge than others, but change will happen. It won't just happen as quickly as Apple walking into a board room, shaking some hands, and releasing a new product. Even the iPhone didn't get the App Store (and SDK) until a year after it's release. This will take time but it will happen.
HBOGo, WatchESPN - great examples of content providers working with distributors to allow people to watch their content where ever they are. Yes, you still pay a cable bill, but it's an awesome value add to no longer be chained to where ever there is a coax outlet in your house.
Hulu - a lot of content providers made a significant investment (NBC, Disney, FOX, and others) in this new technology - came up with 2 models free and paid, and are experimenting with how alternative forms of content consumption would effect their bottom line. A lot of content providers also cut deals with companies like Netflix.
Even 5 years ago these concepts and ideas would have seemed radical. But as technology changes so do companies. Some are more cutting edge than others, but change will happen. It won't just happen as quickly as Apple walking into a board room, shaking some hands, and releasing a new product. Even the iPhone didn't get the App Store (and SDK) until a year after it's release. This will take time but it will happen.
Why not just put a cable card slot and coax input in the Apple TV, and spend the money lobbying the FCC to make cable cards even more readily available? No need to negotiate with the cable cos., which are obligated to provide cable cards already.
Tivo already does this, with far fewer resources. You get cable content on your Tivo plus the various stuff they load onto the Tivo box software.
You obviously did not get my point which was in response to a quote you did not include in your response to my post. I responded to the statement "Looks like Apples "our way or the highway" tactics aren't working here." and used the iphone as an example of how Apple not giving in has allowed the phones to become better. I was not comparing the cellular industry to tv content.
The BBC haven't used On2 VP6 for streaming for years...
The iPhone and iPad feeds are most certainly H.264.
Yes, this is what I'm apprehensive about. They already want our regular Internet services to look more like cable tv tiered packages...
No it's not. If you live somewhere without a clear line of sight, you're out of luck. I live in an apartment that faces into a wooded area, can't get it where I live. My brother once had the same issue. Of course they won't tell you that until somebody shows up to install it.
Though cable companies are required to provide cable cards, they are not required to do so for free. Also, even if you use a cable card, you're still paying a monthly fee for content that you may not want/need.