Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

September Apple Event Rumor: "iTunes Unlimited", iPhone iDisk Access?

Why not compliment with an LCD TV with Built in AppleTV

This is merely speculation, but with the digital tv switch on the horizon and the potential of people buying a replacement tv to replace their analog sets. Perhaps with iTunes unlimited they are going to introduce a new LCD TV with AppleTV built in. Seems to me that with their media domination aspirations instead of just using your existing tv, why not sell a tv that has that feature built in. Then the iTunes unlimited with music and video would make more sense. It would also fit with a launch before Christmas.
 
Alx9876 said:
Don't care about either one. Give me the new Macbook now. I've waited since July of this year. Bring it out goddamn it.
Click to expand...

Mac mini users have been waiting since the intel switch for a proper update to the Mac mini. A CPU update and hard drive capacity bump doesn't count, it still has a GMA950 and no 802.11n. :eek:
 
phipsitn said:
This is merely speculation, but with the digital tv switch on the horizon and the potential of people buying a replacement tv to replace their analog sets. Perhaps with iTunes unlimited they are going to introduce a new LCD TV with AppleTV built in. Seems to me that with their media domination aspirations instead of just using your existing tv, why not sell a tv that has that feature built in. Then the iTunes unlimited with music and video would make more sense. It would also fit with a launch before Christmas.
Click to expand...

Too much competition from too many TV manufacturers and too many service providers (cable, satellite, on-demand, etc). It makes a lot more sense to sell :apple:TV as a simple external box.
 
Monthly vs Annual fee

whistler222 said:
honestly.
if u can't afford 129 dollars a YEAR
should really be paying 11 dollars a month?
Click to expand...

iTeen is not the only person who finds it easier to pay a small monthly fee. Many of us have trouble coming up with 120+$ all at once.
SUrely there are people at Apple who could devise a way for monthly subscriptions using the iPod music card
 
Yvan256 said:
Too much competition from too many TV manufacturers and too many service providers (cable, satellite, on-demand, etc). It makes a lot more sense to sell :apple:TV as a simple external box.
Click to expand...

Service providers have nothing to do with the ones who manufacture TVs. Its like apple building the ipod. You want to buy a new set of headphones. Headphones can work on any audio source not just ipods. Same goes for this. Service providers wont just work for apple TV or what ever. they do all kinds..

Personaly if apple did make a LCD/plasma screen TV they will need to compete with samsung vizio and sony as they are the largest TV makers.....
 
I would be perfectly fine with the $129.99 ($99.99 for me) a year unlimited music download. I use Rhapsody right now for most of my music so monthly-wise it would be the same price.
 
I want a cheeper MBP. You can get the same specs on a windows based notebook for less. Why must apple be more. because the name? because the casing? Please :rolleyes:
 
.Chris said:
and? A mac osx license is what? $129

That had nothing tondo with what I was talking about
Click to expand...

Why didn't it have anything to do with what you were asking? A cheaper PC with the same specs can't run OS X but a Mac can. A Mac can also run Windows. Probably two of the best reasons to pay the higher price and get a Mac.
 
.Chris said:
Service providers have nothing to do with the ones who manufacture TVs. Its like apple building the ipod. You want to buy a new set of headphones. Headphones can work on any audio source not just ipods. Same goes for this. Service providers wont just work for apple TV or what ever. they do all kinds..

Personaly if apple did make a LCD/plasma screen TV they will need to compete with samsung vizio and sony as they are the largest TV makers.....
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant. If Apple makes a TV with a built-in :apple:TV then it has to compete with the TV manufactuers (the TV part) and with the service providers (the :apple:TV part + iTunes content).
 
Yvan256 said:
That's not what I meant. If Apple makes a TV with a built-in :apple:TV then it has to compete with the TV manufactuers (the TV part) and with the service providers (the :apple:TV part + iTunes content).
Click to expand...

Not true because apple wont be selling cable or satellite packages.

We may try the new verizion Fios TV. We have Verizion fios internet, and the fios TV is really good from what I hear
 
This announcement is pretty cool and all, but I'm kind of on the fence. I used to be a HUGE downloader of illegal music. Ever since I got my imac it has been a little more difficult to procure free music without hassle. Coincidence? I think not. My music library is in the 27,000 songs range, and I am overjoyed with the fact that it is my music do do what I want with, delete, transfer to another computer, put on anyone's ipod etc.

While I do think unlimited music is cool, you still don't actually own it, and it's just one more fee Apple would have you pay.

What scares me is the fascism that Apple has incorporated into their business model. It's not like we just pay $129 a year and there's no strings attached. Just like Apps and 3G, its not like you just get these things without jumping through hoops, which as of late usually require some sort of fee, however minimal it may be. Many of us have not forgotten about the $9.99 ipod OS updates just so you can spendmore money in the itunes store. You can say it was a matter of accounting practices or whatever, but I just don't buy it hook line and sinker.

Now figure in the nearly $100 / month users pay just to operate the iphone 3G with AT&T and you will see it all adds up. Each conduit for media or services these days is charging more while offering less, even if only minimally less. Case in point: disk use has always been a free staple of owning an ipod. Now we may have to pay for it, despite having the most advanced and expensive mobile device in Apple's lineup. Something fishy there. Same thing goes with cellular laptop tethering on AT&T's network. Less is more in the eyes of these mega-corporations.
 
>>I would like to see all of itunes be 256kbps and drm free and i would be happy.
--
yeah-and @ 48Khz, 32 bit sampling (normal 'red book' commercial CDs are 44 and 16 respectively-poorer sound) But it was a repeat of the Beta vs VHS battle- the cr*ppier of them won
 
.Chris said:
Not true because apple wont be selling cable or satellite packages.

We may try the new verizion Fios TV. We have Verizion fios internet, and the fios TV is really good from what I hear
Click to expand...

You think Apple aren't trying to compete with cable/satellite with the :apple:TV and the iTunes store?
 
Yvan256 said:
You think Apple aren't trying to compete with cable/satellite with the :apple:TV and the iTunes store?
Click to expand...

if they were they would be offering packages for cable, satellite etc like comcast. This means: Offer diferent packages, with diferent channels, on demand movie channels and more. itunes has nothin to do with them as they dont offer itunes like service.

what part of that dont you understand?
 
.Chris said:
if they were they would be offering packages for cable, satellite etc like comcast. This means: Offer diferent packages, with diferent channels, on demand movie channels and more. itunes has nothin to do with them as they dont offer itunes like service.

what part of that dont you understand?
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't have to offer cable or satellite, they have the iTunes store. It's about the content, not the technology used to deliver it.

Example: I want to watch a TV show. Either I pay a cable/satellite company 50$/month (or more) to get a bunch of shows I don't want or I pay Apple for exactly the shows I want and have them downloaded directly into my computer/:apple:TV.

I don't care if the show gets to my TV by cable, satellite, iTunes, DVD or whatever. As soon as two companies offer me the same content, they are in competition against each other.

Another example would be internet access: a DSL provider doesn't have to start offering cable access to be a competitor to a cable provider, they're both providing internet access even if they offer it via different technologies.

Apple already competes with cable/satellite with the iTunes Store. As you said yourself, what part of that don't you understand? ;)
 
Yvan256 said:
You think Apple aren't trying to compete with cable/satellite with the :apple:TV and the iTunes store?
Click to expand...

Yvan256 said:
Apple doesn't have to offer cable or satellite, they have the iTunes store. It's about the content, not the technology used to deliver it.

Example: I want to watch a TV show. Either I pay 50$/month (or more) to get a bunch of shows I don't want or I pay Apple to have it downloaded directly into my computer/:apple:TV and never miss a show ever again. Yes cable/satellite companies offer DVRs but it's another fee on top of your already high monthly fee.

Apple already competes with cable/satellite with the iTunes Store. As you said yourself, what part of that dont you understand?
Click to expand...

the only way they would be completing is if they offered what they do.....
 
.Chris said:
the only way they would be completing is if they offered what they do.....
Click to expand...

Any company that can offer me episodes of a TV show is in direct competition with other companies that can offer me episodes of the same TV show. It doesn't matter if it's by cable, satellite or internet.

By your logic, a DSL provider isn't in competition with a cable provider because they're not using the same technology to connect you to the internet.
 
Yvan256 said:
Any company that can offer me episodes of a TV show is in direct competition with other companies that can offer me episodes of the same TV show. It doesn't matter if it's by cable, satellite or internet.

By your logic, a DSL provider isn't in competition with a cable provider because they're not using the same technology to connect you to the internet.
Click to expand...

actully I have fios internet and may be getting fios TV from verizon. so YES it IS the same technology.

fios = Fiber Optic

http://www22.verizon.com/Content/FiOSTV/

http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/about+fios+tv/about+fios+tv.htm
 
.Chris said:
actully I have fios internet and may be getting fios TV from verizon. so YES it IS the same technology.

fios = Fiber Optic

http://www22.verizon.com/Content/FiOSTV/

http://www22.verizon.com/content/fiostv/about+fios+tv/about+fios+tv.htm
Click to expand...

First of all, there's no such thing as "Verizon" where I live.

Second, it doesn't negate the fact that Apple are now content providers (iTunes Store) and are competing with other content providers (cable, satellite, fiber-optic, internet-based or otherwise).

My original comment was never about the technology used to deliver content to its end-users, it was about the content itself. You then proceeded to try and contradict me, in multiple replies, based on the transport method used. Your last reply about Verizon and their services is completely off-topic, as my previous reply was trying to provide you with an example that technologies don't need to be the same for two companies to be in direct competition.

This is pointless as you're not even arguing about what I said in the first place: Apple are now a content provider via their iTunes Store and are in competition with other content providers. The technology used to deliver the content is of no consequence.
 
Yvan256 said:
First of all, there's no such thing as "Verizon" where I live.

Second, it doesn't negate the fact that Apple are now content providers (iTunes Store) and are competing with other content providers (cable, satellite, fiber-optic, internet-based or otherwise).

My original comment was never about the technology used to deliver content to its end-users, it was about the content itself. You then proceeded to try and contradict me, in multiple replies, based on the transport method used. Your last reply about Verizon and their services is completely off-topic, as my previous reply was trying to provide you with an example that technologies don't need to be the same for two companies to be in direct competition.

This is pointless as you're not even arguing about what I said in the first place: Apple are now a content provider via their iTunes Store and are in competition with other content providers. The technology used to deliver the content is of no consequence.
Click to expand...

.I only mentoned because you said
By your logic, a DSL provider isn't in competition with a cable provider because they're not using the same technology to connect you to the internet.
Click to expand...

So I gave you the links that i did...
 
Too many details, this rumor has no meat. However, $99/year for unlimited content from the iTunes store sounds great - right up to the huge freaking wall of BAD that it hits when you stop paying the subscription fee. What happens when this goes away? Of course, 6 years from now I'll have 90% of my library build on music I don't own, and it will disappear after I've payed $600 for the service. Absolutely not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back