How will Apple ‘iTV’ transform the industry?

“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.

36 Comments

    1. 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

      1. 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. 🙁

      1. 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…

        1. @ 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.

    1. 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’.

  1. 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 !

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

Add Your Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.