“What is next for Apple? Customers, investors and also techies are all expecting the subsequent game-changing gadget,” Marcus Vilkas writes for The Motley Fool. “A few protest that because the iPod ended up being basically replaced by the iPhone, and also the iPhone and iPad have merely obtained incremental improvements, it is time for Apple to strike this marketplace away by having something totally new. That something might be the upcoming iTV.”
“Nowadays, television has comparable developing problems. ‘I am frustrated and I can not take it any longer’ is the struggle of customers who not only dislike advertisements, but far more, dislike purchasing countless channels although just watching a dozen or so,” Vilkas writes. “Forbes has reported that 82% of customers from the ages of 18 to 24 choose to watch channels on the internet rather than through TV. Apple’s iTV could possibly incorporate the social element of YouTube along with other web content providers with the new, top quality content of broadcast television. Apple, subsequently, would probably change the TV business in the same manner it did the music industry.”
Vilkas writes, “Imagine if all those high-dollar cable television ‘packages’ started to be a remote memory and consumers solely purchased the channels they desired? To borrow one more traditionally used saying, the opportunities are countless and Apple is aware of it.”
<strongThe full article, ludicrously headlined, "Exactly How The Apple TV Will Transform The Industry," here.
MacDailyNews Take: Imagine if consumers solely purchased the channels they desired? Okay: All “niche” programming and the networks they supply would vanish and we’d be back to channels 2-13 in no time.
only if Apple can ship it on time!
TV as we know it today is a turd. The shit programming appeals to a great mass of Americans. Its a cesspool. If Apple can fix it fine. Fix the fker.
Tourrett’s acting up today and you’re out of medication?
Tourette’s, you illiterate asshat.
Nice. Very nice.
Thanks for catching my typo. Are you back on your meds now?
You seem angry. Do you need someone to care about you?
Not at all. I just like swearing at you.
Interesting hobby. I hope you find it fulfilling.
yes TV is indeed a turd. Mindless crap for the most part (can you say Honey Boo Boo)? Reality shows are for morons and people with way too much time on their hands.
I would love to pick 13 channels only that mean SOMETHING
There ARE some occasionally great programs.
For five years the ONLY thing I watched on the otherwise deranged and worthless Fox network was Fringe. That program was genius and loads of fun. So that’s 1 hour per week out of all the crap on Fox that was worth watching. Let’s calculate:
1/(24×7) ≈ 0.6% quality programming; 99.4% crap.
DARN! 99.4% is statistically significant, meaning that it is accurate to say that “TV is indeed turd”! Never mind. 🙁
Apple alone cannot transform the entertainment business. If you want to improve the content, good luck.
The content from Britain is top shelf.
If the networks were forced to compete for the money from people willing to pay for content, that would improve the programing content.
Actually, there’s a citizen revolution going on in Britain regarding the BBC because an awful lot of their programming in recent years is NOT ‘top shelf’. The BBC is in a world of hurt right now as a result. They vow to change to fit the public will. But what’s going to happen is up in the air…
@ Derek: admittedly, the BBC has other issues right now that is not related to quality of content.
Essentially under-regulation in media distribution in the USA has allowed regional monopolies to offer crap channels subsidized by the few channels people actually wish to buy. This is a perfect example of monopoly power at work. There is no free market in media, nor does satellite attempt to compete with cable.
Apple has no power to change this, other than helping Netflix, Roku, Hulu, and others slowly transition the cable monopolies into ISP monopolies.
Analysts LOVE their imaginary Apple TV, that is always due by the end of the year. If only these analysts were half as accurate as gossip rags like digitimes.
And they blame Tim Cook for not delivering this product that they dreamed up. Off with his head!
The emergence of Apple as industry leader forced analysts to take seriously the idea of disruptive innovation. They jumped on a passing bandwagon, and ever since have been trying to forecast the next big thing.
That modus operandi does not work, however, with empty minds animated only by internet memes, rumours, hoaxes, and balderdash. It takes working in the field with rolled-up sleeves, not ivory-tower navel-gazing. It takes vision, not hindsight; they’re sightless in a mine field; their informants, algorithms, and rules of thumb ain’t cutting it, and beyond that, I’d say they got nuthin’.
I have an iPhone 4S & iPad 3. Both are fine,but I need both & a laptop to cover work & play. What I really want is one mobile device,bigger than 3.5 inch screen of my phone,which is way too small to do real work on & more portable than my iPad, so the obvious marriage of an iPhone & iPad mini would be perfect,with calls made via Siri/iWatch/Bluetooth/earpiece or some new set up. Then I only need to lug around 1 device,which through iCloud,connects to both my cloud stored content & my main computer/storage at home,seamlessly. I have many terabytes of content stored at home. Add in iTV or whatever,with TV & recorded program’s on the go & a proper, multi page OS, iPen accuracy and then you would have a killer system, that whilst cannibalising product,would be a huge leap ahead,bringing in more buyers,most of whom would buy the whole package,maintaining revenue. IPhone 4/4S could drop down to entry level,5 mid level,with new 6 offered in 2 or 3 sizes.
Phablet is the crap name they call this mix,but basically I am walking around with a computer in my pocket,4S,that is too small to utilise its full potential because of size and OS restrictions (single screen/pain in the ass way to carry simple functions).
There are no technological barriers to create something along these lines, so presumably it is just Apple’s desire to sell you 2 instead of 1,rather than 2 for 1 !
That sounds like a surface…
If Apple actually produced a television set where consumers could program it with subscriptions of individual selections from a menu of 150 or so channels (most of them a worthless joke) then we might have a breakthrough to put Apple back in the game. But, the cost would have to be such that you would save money from being forced to pay for crap you don’t ever watch to get one thing that you actually want to watch. We’ll see but Tim Cook has left us waiting for a mythical Apple television set seemingly forever – another reason he’s a lousy CEO of a once great company.
>>All “niche” programming and the networks they supply would vanish and we’d be back to channels 2-13 in no time.
And nothing of value would be lost.
I wouldnt mind only having channels 2-13 to watch. Spend too much time watching tv, get outside and do something…get off the couch.
Channels are so much of a thing of the past. What people really want is content delivered when they want with low cost options for delivery. For the lazy people who don’t want to choose what to watch and want it programmed, that is such an easy option to provide with ‘Genius’ selection based on their viewing habits.
If we had well targeted ads, none of us would be offended when the ads that paid for our content showed us things that we are just about to purchase. Advertisers wouldn’t waste money on hurting their own brand by forcing ads on those of use who are never going to be customers.
2-13 is all I will ever need. Bring it on!
AAPL may drop further as itv may show that Apple innovation has stopped and Apple growth is peaked . Apple is doomed .
Why not offer some sort of “tiered” system:
1) Tier One – Pay a basic rate for all 150+ channels
2) Tier Two – Pay a much lower flat rate and you could choose a limited number of à la carte channels per month.
3) Tier 3 – À la carte only, but the $$ per show would be higher than those offered in Tier 2.
That way I think the niche channels with a much smaller audience would still be able to survive.
I find I, from time-to-time, like some of those minor channels. I find I watch about 20 or so channels and nothing that is not HD (720p up).
When Apple does it, it will be something we didn’t see coming. Otherwise they won’t do it. I still think they will make it happen but they’re dealing with the studios here in Burbank, that ain’t record companies! Studios don’t get nervous when Apple walks into the room. Trust me. I think eventually everybody will get together and we’ll see something completely different.
Look, Apple can’t fix the content. What they can do is get rid of the remote completely.
Integrate Siri, talk to your TV, tell it what to do, what to record, on your own terms. Integrate it into the web, search, calendars and make phone calls for you.
By having Siri and all your TV’s and computers working off one central hub in the house, you could walk from room to room and have Siri follow you as you interact with it.
To me, thats what I need. My own personal assistant (AI) that follows me around my house and I can just integrate into my daily motions and not be tied to a desk or hand held device.
It can be done and Siri is the key.
+1
All that can be done without making a display.
The only things display wise that would move people are OLED for 1/4 the current price or glassless 3D.
Glassless 3D has those pesky laws of physics to deal with.
You all are gonna be mad at me for saying this, but…
I like having all the other channels. Sure I do most of my watching on a half dozen channels. BUT there are many times I am lipping thru and see a movie or other show that piques my interest and I can then watch it.
If I just had B-Y-O channels I would never have had that opportunity, or even that choice. I like having the package, even though I do not use ALL of it ALL the time.
John from North Pole
Millions of people flip through Netflix the same way as you flip through channels. The difference here is that it would be up to date current stuff with a social twist. People will “LIKE” shows based on what their friends are watching. Many people start watching a show because a friend or a workmate suggested it to them. Why not integrate social and tv?
Mini Channel Packages. Strong channels would team up with small niche channels. Buy NBC and get SyFy, Oxygen, and TBS, too. They make the deal with each other. NBC may get 90% of the profit, but they get 15% more people because of the other channels and the other channels get to exist.
It’ll be something like that. Which would be fine and good.
The Internet is now the a la carte programming source that customers have been begging/ranting for over the past three decades. Nothing is stopping it. Any aethereal ‘iTV’ device will be part of that revolution, that renunciation of the dumbass cable industry method of ‘TAKE IT ALL OR LEAVE IT’.
We LEAVE IT, dickheads. Now we can. So deal with it. 😕
The MDN take is total BS. Do you believe in a free market or not?
If consumers were free of the under-regulated regional media monopolies, then content quality would be much higher due to competition for the discerning consumer dollar. As it is, cable companies know they can just keep feeding endless channels of shit to the masses, and they’ll still receive their outrageous subscription fee every month.