“On the homepage for the new Apple TV box, which you can buy at Apple stores from today, it says boldly: ‘It’s all about apps. Apps are the future of television,'” Neil Midgley writes for Forbes. “But Apple is wrong about that – traditional linear TV channels continue to have a bright future, and Apple TV is part of the very simple reason why.”
“Unlike pretty much every other device that Apple sells (iPhone, iPad, iMac), Apple TV doesn’t stand alone. You need a separate TV set to use it,” Midgley writes. “That’s right, the traditional TV set in the corner of your living room. As long as people have those traditional TV sets – which Apple TV means that they still need – most of them will continue to watch traditional linear TV channels.”
“And that means that the future of TV, thanks in part to Apple TV, is not just apps. It’s traditional channels, on traditional TV sets, as well,” Midgley writes. “Apple TV will, of course, lead to more people watching telly via apps. But, as long as Apple TV requires a TV set to operate, it helps keep traditional linear TV channels alive just a little bit longer.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Until Apple TV takes over Input 1, that is.
SEE ALSO:
New York Times: All-new Apple TV invigorates the set-top box – October 29, 2015
Paczkowski: Yes, the Apple TV you’ve always wanted is finally here – October 29, 2015
Apple TV’s Siri search soon to include Apple Music – October 29, 2015
Apple TV review: Channels are dead. The future of TV is apps – October 29, 2015
Mossberg reviews the new Apple TV: ‘This is the one I’d buy’ – October 28, 2015
Apple TV was already input 1. Not that it matters. My TV allows me to rename inputs to whatever I want, so my 3 input options in the UI are: Apple TV, PS4, and Comcast. They appear in the order which the connected device was powered up, and cannot be selected unless the device is powered on.
It is not required to have a TV, another mark of ignorance by this want a be expert. You need an HDMI port- Hello. I use a monitor with the Apple TV at two locations and have no access to a tuner.
Short, no TV or tuner required… Get a better level of staff Forbes.
A large TV is typically much cheaper than a large monitor and you get a tuner built in. I use my Apple TV for the vast majority of my viewing, and I’ve had every iteration, I’m a fan, but I still watch live tv, I still just leave it on as background, or all day to watch sport. I think broadcast still has a future, I just think we need a system that makes it irrelevant where the material is being sourced from.
In our house we have 3 SKY satellite boxes, all are capable of recording/watching 2 channels, so 6 for the house, and the dish is capable of providing more. The boxes connect to the internet and can download material and the interface is not bad. What would be cool is if a SKY app could connect from Apple TV to those boxes and give access to live HD material without eating into my internet bandwidth – perhaps with interactive stuff overlaid in some form.
ibid re NCG598. An HDMI capable monitor in the den with an Apple TV box is more than satisfying. Linear tv channels are going away and we don’t miss them.
I think broadcast TV will remain until the entire population has internet connections fast enough to support multiple TV’s in one household.
I will typically have Sky Sports on most of the weekend, often just in the background, but I’m not going to effectively tie up my internet connection for no tangible benefit.
I’m not buying that premise.
It’s a real stretch to go from “needing a TV or video monitor with HDMI input” to compelling people to pay for a subscription to cable, a subscription to satellite, or using an over the air antennas.
Why am I going to pay extra for some third-rate source of videos that’s full of advertisements? What would owning a TV that can connect to the Internet make more likely to do that?
I already have the Internet – we all do – and it’s a compelling source of more video content than I could ever want.
Linear and live events tv can broadcast via apps alongside vod. No need for traditional monopoly cable subscriptions, Neil, and that has nothing to do if you use a TV or computer montor for viewing.
It would be really nice if I could “log into” my AppleTV from my iPad and have the TV interface show up. Same on a Mac. Kinda like a reverse AirPlay. Whatever would now showup/play on your TV is, instead, on your iThing/Mac. I’m sure it could be done (think Air Video HD) Apple is just too lazy to really integrate their devices, or they are cow-tow’ing to someone holding a license for something — those that don’t want to play should be thrown out of the party.
I’m still trying to understand the revolution in entertainment that people say is going to happen when we ditch cable or satellite TV. Most people in the world get their internet from either cable or DSL. Most people still are required to pay for, whether or not they actually use them, basic television channels, mandatory land line telephone service,etc, in the case of rural customers, in order to get broadband. So if we ditch cable and DSL to rid ourselves of those rascally entities, how is it that we receive our broadband in order to utilize any “box” to be included in our entertainment armamentarium to actually receive its signal to express its output?
His whole argument is pretty much undermined by that final ‘for a little bit longer’. After all not even the most optimistic of box supporters would suggest that broadcast TV is going to disappear any time soon.