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

bommai

macrumors 6502a
May 23, 2003
744
419
Melbourne, FL
Is your jailbroken? mine is not and i don't think the latest software can be jailbroken yet. Is it worth getting the 3rd gen instead of the 2nd? i don't care about the jailbreak

Mine was not jail broken and nor am I interested in jail breaking. However, lot of people online are interested in buying the atv2 and jail breaking then and selling them back. A few months ago I sold mine and two other friends' atv2 for $202 each on eBay. I am managing with a chromecast now and waiting for atv4.
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
816
Los Angeles, CA
Baseless article!
For one... Apple does not announce release date to engineers working on projects.

I'm sure they do to some point. After all they won't set a release date if they don't have a product. But it is likely that they aren't passing on this information about issues to the engineers. After all just cause they are having issues today doesn't mean they won't be worked out tomorrow. So why set it up so they don't have the product. Better to have it production ready and then perhaps hold if they can't possibly work out a way to just release it and add more later

----------

Apple should just buy Comcast, and become their own cable provider.

why do that if they could just get themselves deemed a cable provider. if they were, as they are, a cable provider they could do it via the
ATV set box and your existing ISP connection. You sign up for some say $100 a year package for the basic channels, toss in another $25 a year each for HBOGo, Starz, etc and be done with it
 

charlituna

macrumors G3
Jun 11, 2008
9,636
816
Los Angeles, CA
They really should just start to license content like Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime does, and then work on expanding that as needed.

Apple doesn't have the systems in place to produce shows and that can be costly to set up. And why bother paying someone else to do it when anyone can produce on their own dime and set it up in the iTunes stores. Zero overhead on the production costs for Apple so if it doesn't sell they lose nothing.

----------

Apple getting in bed with those scumbags will be worse and more heartbreaking than any past Apple partnership.

merely a rumor, lets wait until Apple actually announces it before we grab pitchforks and light fires

----------

The contracts [Animal Planet] already has in place with the cable companies expressly forbidding a la carte or online distribution.

course if those contracts were running out, Apple could launch Collusion the Sequel by conspiring with all the networks to screw over the cable companies with a new a la carte system. Judge Cote and the DOJ would probably explode with delight over getting to sue Apple again

----------

Just release an app store already!!!! I don't know why they are waiting for this media content BS. :mad:

You assume they are planning to ever have an App Store for the Apple TV, much less one beyond the video etc stuff they have now. They might not be

----------

Apple should just release their TV with regular over the air channels, hulu, netflix, youtube, and an app store. That is what most people are using these days anyways.

what would you say to something like this

----------

Nobody will get to transmit network tv for free. The only way would be for apple to include a digital tuner and a coaxial port to attach a terrestrial antenna

That is not a way that Apple is likely to accept so they would be pushing for finding another way. Which might be part of the issue in terms of a full range of tv station offerings but that doesn't negate revamped hardware and OS with what there is already set up having 'now'
 

philstubbington

macrumors 6502
So frustrating.....

... considering this is a software and content issue. I guess whatever hardware changes Apple have made, they don't want to ship until they know they've got the content.

Living in the UK, I use Netflix and Freesat (which, as the name suggests, is free to air TV via a satellite dish). I was looking forward to the new Apple TV as I have no intention whatsoever of getting Sky TV or similar.

Time for the cable and satellite TV companies to accept the inevitable, that people don't want to pay huge amounts of money (It's a minimum of £21, equivalent to $35 USD, for Sky) and unbundle!
 

zedsdead

macrumors 68040
Jun 20, 2007
3,404
1,147
To quote Steve Jobs in 2010:

"The TV is always going to lose because there is no go to market strategy."

This is still the case today, no surprise. Sad becauseI love the Apple TV, and really see it's potential.

And all the channels that keep getting added point to nothing coming in the near future.
 

handsome pete

macrumors 68000
Aug 15, 2008
1,725
259
Where can I pay for only the tv stations I want on iTunes?

Go to the TV Shows section of the iTunes store, then click the link to show Networks & Studios. Pay for the content you want, a la carte.


Obviously I know that's not what you really want. But the a la carte people want is vastly different than the a la carte you'd get in reality.
 

TheRealTVGuy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
708
1,158
Orlando, FL
Hold on there, cowboy!

Die, Comcast, MPAA, and broadcasters, DIE!

We traditional broadcasters only care about verifiable eyeballs. Something we can take to the local car dealer/grocer/ad agency/whoever and say "See! Advertise with us for X dollars and you'll be seen by Y many people!"

The cable companies invested (many times heavily) into the infrastructure (physical copper and fiber in the ground, the head-ends, etc.) and sold their subscribers' eyeballs to the networks. "See! Sign this agreement and we'll deliver X potential eyeballs and even Y amount of dollars to your revenue stream. Provided of course that you play by these rules which state you can't offer your services a la carte and cut us out of the deal."

One of the problems now is that the networks have grown accustomed to this revenue and ratings stream and are very nervous about possibly upsetting the hand that has fed them and provided for their growth for so many years.

Another problem is that cable is still an Oligopoly and, at least for the last-mile, its a monopoly based on who owns the physical cabling in the ground. Very little incentive for one company to change the business model when they're all enjoying the hayride.

Finally, the biggest reason Apple can't "just do what they did with iTunes, the iPod, and the recording industry", is that the cable TV industry has much tighter control than the recording industry did. You could copy tapes and CDs easily. You could import a CD, upload it to Napster, and share it easily. There really weren't many anti-copy safeguards because at some point, the audio signal had to become analog in order for an amplifier to push it through your speakers and into your ears. The record industry was losing their a$$e$ and couldn't see a solution until Steve came riding in on a white horse and saved them (while taking a nice % of each transaction, of course.) The result was a win-win situation, but more so for consumers. The record industry's sales were saved, but they weren't seeing the same rate of return as before. Meanwhile consumers could now choose their music a la carte, many times at a cost-savings. No more did you have to pay $15.99 for a twelve track album that included three songs you actually liked, just to have the one song you really loved.

I've been watching the cable industry very closely, especially the last few years. They are increasingly tightening their grip on the content, aided by the fact that the signal is now almost completely digital (and therefore much easier to secure) from start to finish. It started when satellite companies injected an FM frequency into certain channels that a tuner box basically filtered out (for a monthly fee of course). Now, with the system being completely digital, your cable box acts like a node. It has its own MAC address and can be seen and managed remotely by the cable company. Now some systems are going completely digital, with no analog service to the home. You're forced to rent a smaller node for each additional television in your home. This allows them the ultimate in secure control.

There is no earth shaking market disruption like Napster to interrupt the cable industry's way of doing business. (Yes, I know there are a few tech-savy folks who VPN or port their IP addresses and stream content from home, but it still requires a cable subscription.) But really, unlike the recording industry, the cable companies have no reason to negotiate or change their business model. They saw what that did to the bottom lines of both the record industry and Apple, and they don't want to share their $$. Why would they?
 

imlucid

macrumors 6502
May 3, 2007
298
0
Baseless article!
For one... Apple does not announce release date to engineers working on projects. Some dont even know how their projects and work are relevant to the big picture!
They have deadlines.. But only the top tier management knows whats scheduled for release and when .

Maybe some engineers don't know the final announce date but you definitely know the target dates you need to hit. Otherwise you'd never finish a project! This is from 21 years experience as an Apple engineer...
 

MrX8503

macrumors 68020
Sep 19, 2010
2,292
1,614
Go to the TV Shows section of the iTunes store, then click the link to show Networks & Studios. Pay for the content you want, a la carte.





Obviously I know that's not what you really want. But the a la carte people want is vastly different than the a la carte you'd get in reality.


I can buy music ala carte as they are released. What you're suggesting for TV is not the same as how music is distributed. I want to pay for a station and watch it when its airing and if I miss it, watch it immediately thereafter.
 

4Apples

macrumors member
May 21, 2013
88
8
Over the air? There's an antenna for that.

Well there should be an app for that too lol.. Using an antenna to try to find a signal if you can is very 1990's. Over the air TV is free and should be easily accessible instead of cable companies overcharging for basic TV. If Apple would make a TV that makes it easy to catch/access free channels I would buy it.. I'm not interested in paying for cable when I have netflix and hulu. Leave cable for the cable companies...
 

bommai

macrumors 6502a
May 23, 2003
744
419
Melbourne, FL
Well there should be an app for that too lol.. Using an antenna to try to find a signal if you can is very 1990's. Over the air TV is free and should be easily accessible instead of cable companies overcharging for basic TV. If Apple would make a TV that makes it easy to catch/access free channels I would buy it.. I'm not interested in paying for cable when I have netflix and hulu. Leave cable for the cable companies...

Research into aereo. They had the business model you are talking about but they got used by the broadcAsters and now the courts have ruled against aereo. They are screwed.
 

tongxinshe

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2008
1,064
651
Come on, stupid Apple, skip the US market this time, get the "ambitious Apple TV" flooded worldwide first except the US, to force the greedy, stupid US cable companies to realize the modern reality!!!
 

jimbobb24

macrumors 68040
Jun 6, 2005
3,348
5,376
I don't care about your stupid deals and contracts. I have netflix. Get apps and I can have everything I need apple. I don't need a content deal. I have content deals. Just make the device and stop worrying about these silly deals. Give me the apple tv with apps. I will buy 2 the first day!
 

mantan

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2009
1,744
1,042
DFW
I can buy music ala carte as they are released. What you're suggesting for TV is not the same as how music is distributed. I want to pay for a station and watch it when its airing and if I miss it, watch it immediately thereafter.

But would you be willing to pay what that costs a la carte? The big fantasy everybody has about piecemeal programming is that you'll get the programs/stations you want for a fraction of what you pay today. If stations aren't getting the guaranteed revenue of being on a 'bundled' programming package, they are going to charge more money per subscriber. Oh, and don't forget Apple is gonna want their cut.

People are dreaming of a world where they get the 10 channels they like for $20 a month when it would likely be more like $120 a month.
 

MrX8503

macrumors 68020
Sep 19, 2010
2,292
1,614
But would you be willing to pay what that costs a la carte? The big fantasy everybody has about piecemeal programming is that you'll get the programs/stations you want for a fraction of what you pay today. If stations aren't getting the guaranteed revenue of being on a 'bundled' programming package, they are going to charge more money per subscriber. Oh, and don't forget Apple is gonna want their cut.

People are dreaming of a world where they get the 10 channels they like for $20 a month when it would likely be more like $120 a month.

What Apple did for the music industry is what they need to do for the TV industry.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
What Apple did for the music industry is what they need to do for the TV industry.

The music industry and the TV industry have polar opposite revenue models which is a big problem that most people over look.

What Apple did with music was basically just become another music retailer (like Best Buy or Walmart) that sold MP3s instead of CDs. The iTMS wasn't a very big departure from the status quo. TV, on the other hand, is an advertising based business where the goal isn't to sell an end product to a consumer but to sell as big an audience as possible to advertisers.
 

mantan

macrumors 68000
Nov 2, 2009
1,744
1,042
DFW
What Apple did for the music industry is what they need to do for the TV industry.

Lethalwofe nailed it. They are totally different animals. TV is advertising based and the revenues are strong. Any a la carte solution would have to equal that revenue...or the networks are not going to have an interest in it.
 

MrX8503

macrumors 68020
Sep 19, 2010
2,292
1,614
New Apple TV Likely Delayed Until 2015 Due to Negotiation Difficulties

The music industry and the TV industry have polar opposite revenue models which is a big problem that most people over look.



What Apple did with music was basically just become another music retailer (like Best Buy or Walmart) that sold MP3s instead of CDs. The iTMS wasn't a very big departure from the status quo. TV, on the other hand, is an advertising based business where the goal isn't to sell an end product to a consumer but to sell as big an audience as possible to advertisers.


iTunes brought the $1 per song model which was a big deal at the time. Apple just didn't become like best buy, Apple convinced the music industry that they can still make money on this model.

TV has a different revenue model but that doesn't mean that its distribution model can't be changed to paying for certain stations.


Lethalwofe nailed it. They are totally different animals. TV is advertising based and the revenues are strong. Any a la carte solution would have to equal that revenue...or the networks are not going to have an interest in it.


Doesn't matter if its different. Apple would have to work out a deal.
 

iOSaddict

macrumors regular
Jun 3, 2014
198
0
I have little to no desire for an Apple interface overlaid onto traditional cable service. I cut the cord three years ago, and have yet to have a compelling reason to reconnect. And dare I say, Apple isn't going to be my reason to go back...

Obviously you care enough to comment.
 

scapegoat81

macrumors 6502a
Oct 7, 2012
758
148
Philly
If this next gen ATV is supposed to work in tandem w/ Comcast, I think this delay is from the pending Cumfast Time Warner merger
 
Last edited:

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,370
124
Los Angeles
iTunes brought the $1 per song model which was a big deal at the time. Apple just didn't become like best buy, Apple convinced the music industry that they can still make money on this model.

The iTMS added a couple wrinkles but the basic model was unchanged. Artists singed with labels to fund their albums. The labels partnered with retailers (from Apple to Walmart) to sell those albums/singles to customers and everyone got a cut of each sale. The record labels just had to get over the concept of legit digital deliveries while they were still in the heat of fighting illegitimate digital deliveries.

TV has a different revenue model but that doesn't mean that its distribution model can't be changed to paying for certain stations.

I'm not saying TV's model can't be changed because it is changing. I'm saying that the change happening in TV land is exponentially larger than what happened in the music industry. The entire history of the industry is about getting people to tune into a certain channel at a certain time to watch a certain show. The more people you get to do that the more money you make. Now there's a push to let people watch on any device at any time and that completely torpedoes their business model which has been maturing for the last 70 years or so. Many companies try and straddle this line by not allowing streamers to see shows until they day after they have aired.

For a quick and dirty analogy, if the music industry was like the TV industry then retailers (Walmart, Target, Amazon, Apple, etc.,) would be their own record label and retail store wrapped into one. The music wouldn't be sold but given away to the public as an incentive to shop at their store. If Walmart made music for the explicit purpose of getting people to shop at Walmart how keen would Walmart be about making its music available to Target shoppers?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.