Apple heats up living room TV war
The battle for the living room has been heating up for a while; now that Apple has reloaded its weapons, the fight just got more interesting.
Apple TV will also stream shows for 99 cents (64p), as well as a collection of HD movies for $4.99 (£3.24).
"Apple wants the living room and they are not ceding this market to anyone," says Michael Gartenberg, partner with research firm Altimeter Group:
"They need to change that consumer behaviour for TV watching, which is a 50-year-old activity that hasn't really changed. With Apple TV, they are looking to change it, evolve it and get the price point so it becomes more of an impulse purchase. And with their marketing and retail muscle, they have a good shot at driving this forward."
He added that the company had learned many lessons including the fact that people want Hollywood movies and TV shows and professional content. What they don't want, he said, is "Amateur Hour" - which is clearly a swipe at Google and YouTube.
Google laid bare its plans for the so-called third screen back in May by announcing an internet-focused TV in partnership with Sony, Intel, Dish Network and Logitech. The Sony-made sets are due to go on sale in the autumn.
In July, YouTube unveiled a product called Leanback which is in beta. It is aimed at creating a single channel that puts the user front and centre by streaming videos constantly while trying to learn what he or she likes so that it can customise the offering.
On the day that Apple held its launch, Amazon threw its hat into the ring with the news in the Wall Street Journal that it is working on a new subscription service that would deliver TV shows and movies over the internet.
And Sony did likewise at the IFA technology fair in Berlin with an offering that is set to challenge iTunes.
Content is always king in this kind of conflict; while Apple has only signed up ABC and Fox in terms of studios, Mr Jobs said he is confident others will soon follow.
"We think the rest of the studios will see the light and get on board pretty fast with us," he told attendees.
Analyst Mike McGuire of research firm Gartner says that, based on Apple's past performances, such an assertion is hard to disagree with:
"What I have been telling people is go back to the very first press release for the iTunes store in April of 2003. It is kind of quaint because they started with 500,000 tracks which wasn't representative of the entire catalogue of all the major labels.
"It won't happen with Apple TV overnight, but it will shift and I really think the studios won't have a choice but to start playing with this."
His colleague Van Baker isn't so sure Apple TV will be victorious, but he grants that, for consumers, the price is compelling.
"I think it stays a hobby for a while but it is going to be a much bigger hobby because, let's face it, $99 beats $299 hands-down - and if the other networks come around, I absolutely agree it moves beyond being a hobby."
So as web companies elbow their way in to control entertainment in the living room, what does this mean for the traditional players?
BK Yoon, Samsung's president of visual display business unit, didn't seem too disconcerted by the increased competition when I spoke to him earlier in the week:
"We are in the transitional period where we are witnessing a shift in the TV paradigm and I do believe we are at a starting point of seeing companies try to control the living room."
While Samsung may be the leader in TV sales, it is betting that smart connected TVs and 3DTV will be the next big thing: a two-pronged attack. But this week at its first-ever TV developers' conference in the US, Mr Yoon put the emphasis on persuading developers to develop apps for this nascent marketplace.
"When we talk about TV, it is something that the consumer perceives they just watch - but when we look at the smartphone, it is a much more personalised experience.
"The TV usually sits in the living room and it is for the whole family. So it is a very different environment, but when it is about 2012, I think we will see a much bigger change in attitude towards smart TVs."
Mr Yoon said he recognises that apps have been crucial to the growth of the smartphone market and he believes the same will be true for his company's smart-TV proposition.
Samsung is currently offering 87 apps in the US from the likes of Blockbuster, Hulu, Cinema Now and Amazon. The company has also developed a TV app with ESPN to give richer content like player statistics during a sports game. It is also working with Dreamworks on an app that will debut next month to show 3D movie trailers.
Samsung's aim is to have a stock of around 200 apps by the end of the year: a long way from Apple's App Store of 250,000. Co-founder Steve Wozniak said he likes both approaches:
"I was at Samsung's event and I am close to them for different reasons. They build it right into the TV, so there is the convenience factor - one less step. So I wouldn't rule out smart TVs.
"But remember stereos, where you could by all-in-one or different components. As far as the component device, Apple TV - you can use it on any display. Will it dominate? I don't know. But the formula for how the world is going to move to digital TV, I think it is finally here."
The stakes are high and Apple's reinvigorated entry has upped the ante a little.
Andrew Eisner, director of community and content at consumer electronics recommendation site Retrevo said that from a Silicon Valley perspective, there are two clear contenders set to duke it out:
"Again this is all about the apps. Apps make the world go round and everybody is interested in apps. Google is also interested in apps and this is another part of the war with Google for the living room.
"Personally I think as people migrate to getting their information from apps rather than going through a search engine, it is an area of concern for Google. People will get their stock prices and weather reports from an app rather than a search engine. Of course Google could address that too with their TV efforts."
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Another Apple ad...
Complain about this comment
Broadcasted by BBC
Complain about this comment
presumably this is only ondemand content? or will livestreaming be added into the mix?
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure of the techie comparisons with the options, but, overall, apps and content on demand on computers, smartphones and games consoles are used by people that really want that content. Is it the case that most tv viewers are too 'lazy' in that the content that tv companies already offer satisfies them without the need to go looking for other stuff?
I'm sure the sort of approach outlined in this blog will get a market that will be valuable and will have it's worth, but I doubt that will be a majority market share anytime soon.
If I'm write, then the content of this blog will interest those of us that like this sort of stuff but mostly, people will still watch tv the way they have for the last 50 years I think.
Complain about this comment
Now if an App could harvest programme content on a common theme from a variety of providers then I'd join the queue.
Anything that might dent Murdoch's bid for supremacy can't be all bad and would get my vote. Whilst benign dictators are still dictators, I'd probably choose Jobs over the Murdoch clan anyday.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I notice that the certificate for the apple iTunes download site has expired and both Firefox and Chrome are refusing to display the download window.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/
Oops.
Complain about this comment
Of course, this could be a conspiracy by Mozilla and Google to stop people getting the latest version of iTunes ...
Complain about this comment
Basically this is still another pull model system, rather than the broadcast push method. Though the pull model gives greater freedom it is at the cost of much higher bandwidth consumption.
Complain about this comment
I'm intrigued by your assertion that the battle "has begun". We were early adopters of Tivo in 1999 and that changed the way we watch TV in this family...so the battle has been going on for at least 11 years already. This is just another model as to where the content is stored and who provides and how you pay...
Complain about this comment
Take a story that has *nothing* to do with Apple such as Samsung releasing a new product and what is the headline on the BBC tech page?
"Samsung releases iPad competitor"
Sums it all up really. I guess there is no point in complaining any more, the BBC is obsessed with Apple and is hell-bent on pushing them and talking about them endlessly as if it's the only thing happening.
Complain about this comment
It's all well-and-good companies like Apple offering more and more web content ... but for people like me on the edge of telephone exchanges, it's totally irrelevant. My maximum available speed in half a meg. It's virtually impossible to watch streamed content at that rate - let alone HD material.
It's a joke and a disgrace that successive UK governments have allowed us to get so far behind in IT infrastructure.
Sorry Mr. Jobs. I'd like to subscribe to a wider choice of entertainment but my government wants 'market forces' to provide me with the means by which to receive it.
Complain about this comment
Of the 11 stories on the front of the BBC technology page this morning, 4 of them contain brand names owned by Apple.
"Samsung releases iPad competitor"
"Apple creates a social network"
"Sony rolls out rival to iTunes"
"Roaming iPhone glitch continue"
Complain about this comment
There are a number of tiers of user that aren't being considered here... those in the know already stream content to their phones/pc's/TV's from bit torrent sites or other 'not very well publicised' sites that host illegal content of all the latest shows and movies around. I am an apple convert but still refuse to buy Apple TV (or anything like it) simply because I use downloads to view the content I want - granted it isn't on demand, but it's very rare that I would want to watch a movie on my phone - let alone having the coverage and bandwidth to download the movie in it's entirety without any glitches or transfer problems.
Complain about this comment
I didn't think Maggie would be able to resist another Apple blog with the announcement of their revised product range. It would have been nice to have been proven wrong!
Still, with regards to the topic of the blog, I think this version of Apple TV will sell better than previous incarnations, but will not change the way people watch television.
Most people have physical film collections and aren't ready to go for the digital download option yet (in my view, it is arguable that physical media will cease to exist). This means that the Apple TV will not be seen as a replacement for a DVD/Blu-ray player and will need to sit alongside these units. What would have been more attractive for potential purchasers would have been an Apple TV unit with Blu-ray which could act as an all-in-one media solution. At the very least, this would have had the effect of attracting more consumers who are upgrading from DVD to Blu-ray players.
The pricing on itunes of movies, which is usually as much or more than a physical copy is also major weakness in my opinion. I will admit that Apple's film rental service is quite attractive, however Sony offer a similar rental service on the PS3, which is a much better all-round media player.
Whilst we're on the subject of pricing, why is it that YET AGAIN people in the UK have to pay a higher price than those in the US? $99 (£64), is a far more attractive price than £99 (UK RRP).
Complain about this comment
Let's take the "Apple" part out of the equation for a second.
Ok, now what's so new about this? Nothing!
It's another set-top box that delivers on-demand content. So really it's presenting the additional features of the PS3 and Xbox360 as a core feature but without any core programming for free.
Who in their right mind is going to pay $100/£100 so they can pay for programming on top of that? At least with other set top boxes like Freeview or Sky (to name just two) you can get core services for free.
Personally I think this is rubbish. I wouldn't pay for it and I cannot imagine anyone I know would buy it either.
Hold on though - lets put the "Apple" part back in. OK now some Apple drones (stand up Mr Fry) will buy it so that it looks cool in their living room.
------------------
In a side note - I am also getting sick of Maggies making out that Apple are innovating again. They are not innovating at all. They are just trying to prop up their failed projects with additional marketing and the BBC are falling for it. Shame on you BBC.
Complain about this comment
Whilst I don't have the same hatred for all things Apple that some suffer from, I do think Maggie needs to vary her blogs a lot more.
Personally I'd rather see Tivo relaunch themselves over here. They do have a tie-in with Virgin but that is no use unless you are lucky enough to live in an area with access to Virgin cable. I still use a Tivo I bought cheaply when they pulled out of the UK market around 2001. Possibly the best gadget I have ever owned, and the software still beats Sky+ in some areas (eg learning what kinds of shows you like to watch and when free to do so, picking stuff to record that it thinks you might enjoy). Considering it's age I suspect the day will soon come when I have to bid a fond farewell and buy one of the many inferior hard drive recorders, or Sky+ which has improved since the early days but still lags behind Tivo's 10 year old technology in terms of reliability and usability.
Regarding the point about the UK getting ripped off in terms of pricing for the Apple TV, the US price would not include VAT as the different states have varying levels of tax, which is added at the point of sale dependent on which state you are buying from. The UK price will include VAT. Also the price of doing business is greater in the UK. It's partly why many products cost more here than the states. Not suggesting some companies don't rip us off though!
Complain about this comment
@#11 Aidy and #13Phil90125
My sentiments exactly. I have nothing against Apple or their products (generally pretty good) but I'm sick and tired of the BBC acting as if there's nothing else out there.
Complain about this comment
TVs have had PC inputs for use as a monitor for years.
I download and stream every day using my Mac Mini and watch it all on my lovely plasma screen.
Why do I need Apple or any other corporation setting my viewing agenda?
They are working toward a technological future that's already here but, crucially, want their slice of some as yet un-established subscription model.
Complain about this comment
Maggie, just to clarify, Apple's UK pricing for the new AppleTV is £99, not £64 odd like in your post. Thanks again Apple, not.
Complain about this comment
@ E6BadBoy
I agree. I have now made a complaint about the apparent bias the BBC and Maggie have for Apple. I urge others to do the same.
I would love to see some more reporting on the many other things that are happening in the tech world. Unfortunately the BBC (and especially Maggie) seem obsessed with Apple.
Complain about this comment
The only truly great thing about Apple is there marketing. Their products seldom do anything that competitors don't and usually don't do them as well. The constant cosmetic changes and remodelling of products is annoying, planned obsolescence has been around for a long time but Apple seem to be taking it too far. Instead of bringing out a product that is truly good and actually ready to be sold (iphone 4 problems) they just push new junk onto consumers over and over. The most annoying bit is that they have built up such brand loyalty that there are those who have given up on their own opinion and seem happy to let Apple tell them what they want the consumer to want.
It was always Microsoft and Bill Gates that came in for criticism for being the big evil cooperate business. But if you look at the contemporary situation, Windows based media is easy to use, simple and accommodating, where itunes and Apple’s systems require you to submit more to Apple controlled systems. Somehow though, while becoming control freaks (to a level that Microsoft never did) they have avoided most negative light, how? I wish I knew!
Too much razzle dazzle.(All Apple products)
Too short product life cycle that is replaced to put consumers under pressure to have the latest. (nee iPod nano every year)
Too little real R&D put in so that products are released with serious flaws. (iphone 4)
Products that create a niche not fill one and create the illusion that they are reinventing how we do things (ipad)
Over priced technology that comes with the bare minimum. (imac) I use both imac and pc for work. My pc was cheaper and considerably more powerful, and the option I would choose with my own money!!!
Complain about this comment
Sorry, but this is a rather poorly researched article, which was really meant to be on AppleTV with a small mention on Samsung and Google.
FYI, Yahoo is also in the running, and they made a big announcement following Google in May, but had been at it for quite a while before then. See here:
http://connectedtv.yahoo.com/
In fact there are a number of small niche players out there making devices which can turn your existing TV into something of an internet TV. I was researching internet TV earlier this year, that's when I came across what LG, Sony, Samsung, Yahoo, and another US based TV manufacturer were up to with this tech. Some of these are already selling internet TVs with Yahoo Widgets, just that there's little advertising for it. I wonder why? Perhaps it's still a niche feature, unlike stuff like HD which is now a huge selling point.
Complain about this comment
£99 quid in the UK http://store.apple.com/uk/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/apple_tv?mco=MTM3NTM1Nzk
Complain about this comment
Why is it an Apple ad?
This product was release yesterday and so the BBC are covering the release of it.
There are few 'big' names in the internet TV/movie business if you exclude the games consoles. So naturally a large company who are doing something in this market will generate some interest. Especially when it's Apple who are largely for people who want things that are simple to use and aren't designed for geeks.
It's not a product for me, I am a Mac Mini user and use Boxee. But for people who at this time rent DVDs and want an alternative to Sky/Cable it's worth a look.
Not everyone buys DVDs or Blu-ray and bothers to watch them again. They sit on the shelf and collect dust.
It's also a way of getting content onto your TV without having a noisy games console or home theatre PC whirring away in the background.
Complain about this comment
Stuff capable of all this has existed for ages. I wouldn't use Apple TV (or any other competitor) purely because my PC is set up for everything. I use it to game, watch films, browse the net, listen to music. However, I would say that £99 isn't bad value (particularly for an Apple product!) especially compared to the alternatives. What is really needed, is a more open but equally well integrated system. At the moment, although I can use my PC for all the stuff I have mentioned, it is still within a PC environment. People don't want to have to boot up a PC (ok mine is usually set to sleep so not really relevant) every time they want to watch a film. They don't want to have to use a mouse and keyboard and have to hunt through Windows explorer to find the episode of whatever programme they were watching. Currently media centres and the likes are cobled together from various places for each function which is fine if you are like me and like computers, but confusing if you are new to the market. Apple could really have a winning product if it met the following specs:
Blu-Ray/DVD drive
Large HDD
Owned and rented content
Ability to watch and record Freeview channels (even better give it
Sync with rest of home (ie. music, films stored on computers)
Now this is a product that would sell in huge quantities.
Home built using standard components would probably cost around £200 but would be rather bulky, as you would need something along the lines of a micro ATX sized motherboard and a small cube case (as you would need a discreet graphics card to be certain of the best playback). It would also be a bit overpowered in areas it wouldn't need to be (ie the processor) and is really a bit too complicated for non-geeks.
Apple TV has some of these features and is, in my opinion, one of their better products now, but give it all of the above and you have a product that could be to home TV, what the iPod is to portable music players. Having everything shrunk down to just one box under the TV would be brilliant.
Complain about this comment
Note:
You cannot use Ping without giving Apple your credit card information.
Complain about this comment
I suppose that the age of pull TV is getting closer, but then quality of picture let alone content will always be the stumbling block of all these boxes.
And then a freesat receiver, a recorder that allows watching while recording will give most of the 'choice' in the quality programs being broadcast.
Then the price of a DVD is always going to be cheaper that the subscription TV services.
I would like to see the quality before purchase of the boxes, but then again I am in a area were the broadband will never be high speed, high capacity so I can only dream ,,,,,,,
Complain about this comment
@Hastings,
Note:
You need a credit card for most online stores these days. If you feed cash into your PC, it will not be sent to the online store you are purchasing from.
Complain about this comment
@JimmyJammy
MySpace and Facebook don't need your credit card and you can use PayPal for transactions.
Just thought I'd point that out.
Complain about this comment
@nothins_ever_easy Quote: "The only truly great thing about Apple is there marketing. [...] The most annoying bit is that they have built up such brand loyalty..."
So you believe that Apple advertises superior products, but delivers something inferior? And consequently you are annoyed that they are enjoying both success and unsurpassed brand loyalty? This seeming paradox could have several explanations, ranging from the simple to the bizarre, and I'd be interested to know which you believe?
1) Apple's service and products are good value for money and the brand loyalty is well-deserved;
2) Apple targets 'stupid people', but you are one of the 'clever people' who won't be taken in;
3) Apple has drugged/hypnotised its users.
Complain about this comment
Bizarre, I have a great little App for my TV called BBC iPlayer, available on Freesat, and in my view probably better than anything Apple can offer because its free (well it needs a TV license).
Also Freeview and sky boxes have apps on them. They may not call them apps, but that is purely semantic.
This appears to follow the belief that if Apple does it, it must be good.
Complain about this comment
Sony has had native TV apps in their Japanese sets for many years, so it's not actually a new thing. Obviously Japan has more consumers that just lap this stuff up than Western markets. But I would contend that it's not about having the right devices with access to the right content and targeting them at the right consumer market, it's much more complicated than that. So all these analysts really don't know what will happen (and are therefore more of a waste of space then they usually are). I also notice the article doesn't mention Microsoft's repeated attempt at entering the TV market with alliances with DirectTV and then it's MediaCenter and IPTV on the XBox and look how far they have got.
If both Apple and Microsoft have tried and failed before then it's a good bet that there will be a few more failures before the market finds the solution it likes.
Complain about this comment
They seem to forget that more people are choosing to go online to watch streaming content than watching their TVs. It is absurd to think that they will want to buy a(n Apple) TV that will never have the technology to accommodate flash and therefor will neglect 3/4 of this streaming content on the web.
Maggies says: "...a long way from Apple's App Store of 250,000...." . right but what use will the location based apps be? or the touch screen games? or the apps that cache the web suitable for mobile use? or apps like that one that sings you to sleep? or the bbc iplayer that is already available on the web for better quality and soon if not already on all TVs for free anyway? or the flashlight torch?...
Well hopefully this means they will scrap the BBC license fee for good and all the Mac evangelists will disappear with it. Then the Steve Jobs will have to fund all his own marketing without my money. I am certainly not giving him my credit card number let alone my living room to pay extra for an already paid for TV service.
Complain about this comment
It may be $99.00, but it is also £99.00.
I don't like being ripped off - not even by a man in a black polo neck - so I am going to have to pass, yet again, on this offer from Apple.
Complain about this comment
Maggie Shiels.
Apple this and Apple that, but not a single word on the shocking waste of bandwidth incurred by watching TV over the internet.
I agree with those who voice their concern about your constant harping on about Apple.
Complain about this comment
My first post on the site and the irony of using my iPad to do so is certainly not lost on me!
Firstly I think it is unfair generally to blame the BBC of being bias or accusing them of 'advertising' Apple. This news site and others alike simply reflect our current attitudes and desires. In the context of the technological market place it cannot be argued that Apple is somewhat of a phenomenon, offering a unique combination of software and hardware to the consumer that captivates the imagination like few others - naturally it could be said that I'm bias in this respect, but just walk past any Apple store in the country and just look how many young and old people alike are intrigued and excited by what they see! Consumers drive the market forward with their feet and wallets, so it is only justified that the BBC may acknowledge this in their reporting.
In regards to the specifics of the article, I am pleased that there is healthy competition in the market for alternative or improved products; each offering something different and potentially better. I am grateful for the choice and think it churlish to moan if they represent, or indeed are directly comparable too, an already successful alternative - imitation is the highest form of flattery is it not?
Apple of course is not the only choice for consumers and, as mentioned already, we should be grateful for that. However it remains successfulk and thus so frequently mentioned because it offers that rare combination of things that the customer actually wants; by which I mean that it covers all the main bases of operation of any 'quality' consumer electronics, in that it is stable, easy to use, flexible and looks good. In a world flooded with 'me too' products, any flaw or weakness in any one of these areas is most likely magnified in the comparison and hence why articles like this one mention the 'Apple' name in the first place - to take issue with the 'benchmark' is surely nonsensical or based on simply envy?
In terms of television watching habits and the proliferation of devices offering alternative services, including Apple TV and online service providers, I think this takes a slightly bigger leap of the imagination than most here have discussed. The black box in the corner of the room is indeed, for the most part, a passive device. But nobody ever said it should be or is best utilised only in that fashion. Obviously the issue of broadband and the actual infrastructure to deliver the content is a separate yet fundamental issue. However, all things being equal, then the TV is surely to become an integrated viewing platform for ALL content that is either natiive or translatable to a visual medium? The TV screen will become our portal to online content, a place to view our holiday photographs, to watch our favourite films, to freely choose and create our own TV channel based upon the content that we want to watch, when we want to watch it, to explore our music collection and view and control it's contents, to play games and purchase goods and services....I could go on (sorry I forgot 3D if that is of any consequence!),
I'm sure Sony, Samsung and of course Apple will play their part in this convergence, but the one that ultimately succeeds will be the one which delivers best what the consumer demands, not the one with the most 'bells and whistles' - I just hope they are listening!
Complain about this comment
@ #37 Andy63622
The thing is that Apple do not have the majority market share with most of their products other that the iPod range which have been incredibly successful, and the iPads which only have the market share due to being the only company to yet release a viable tablet computer. The fact is the BBC (and particuarly this blog) shove Apple products down our throats and make across like they are the only things on the market of any worth. The Apple phenomenon you talk of it actually just the media frenzy surrounding them and the marketing hype. I don't care if other news sources want to pander to Steve Jobs cheap marketing tricks, but the BBC is different, it is supposed to be neutral. This is quite frustrating for those license fee payers wanting an honest report about what's out there in the world of technology.
Other companies products get very little time on the BBC if any, despite the fact that they tend to offer greater functionality and often have a greater market share than Apple. Maggie Shiels is the worst offender here and is a disgrace to the license payer. Take this Apple press conference for example - they have done nothing innovative, nothing that isn't already out there in various product forms, yet the BBC are all over it. Think back to the hype surrounding the new iPhone release - do HTC get all that coverage at the release of a new handset? No they probably wont make it to this blog at all.
This Apple TV is nothing revolutionary and for Maggie to suggest that media streaming devices for the TV are only heating up now that Apple are involved is just stupid. There are plenty of alternatives on the market that have been for some time.
I am happy to see the occasional Apple related post here, as they do make some nice products. But they are not the innovaters the BBC portray them as - in fact I'd like to see something that Apple have released that wasn't already out there.
So please Maggie do your job properly, we don't need Apple advertising we want to see what new technology is really out there!
Complain about this comment
@Mark_M$FT,
emphasis on the following extract from my post:
"most online stores"
Thanks, and better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
I would not buy it, why?
Because Apple says instead of buying, just rent it. EXCUSE ME?
What if I want to have a classic collection on my Apple TV?
Nope, can't do that sir, you need to buy it on iTunes and save them on your PC, our TV is simply a fancy multimedia hub to broadcast from other sources.
You don't say...
That's all, folks.
Regards.
Complain about this comment
>>30. At 3:52pm on 02 Sep 2010, Mark_MWFC wrote:
>>@JimmyJammy
>>
>>MySpace and Facebook don't need your credit card and you can use >>PayPal for transactions.
>>
>>Just thought I'd point that out.
MySpace and Facebook are first and foremost Social Networking sites whereas iTunes is a store first with Social Networking added later. It also relies on your purchases to determine information on your profile. I think you will find that many online stores hold card details to make future purchases easier. Just thought I'd point that out :-).
That said I can understand why many people would not want to give their credit card details to Apple if they purely want to use the Social Networking elements of iTunes. If thats the case stick to Spotify, Last.fm or one of the other Social Networks designed with music in mind.
As for those complaining that Apple get too much media coverage, they probably do but they are good at keeping details of new products under wraps and so when they do release information it inevitably tweeks interest in consumers, an example of good marketing if you ask me. The media simply provides the information that consumers want. Lets also be clear that they are a market leader in the multimedia and computing field and therefore will attract a lot of attention regardless.
I must confess that I own a mac and a ipod but I do not feel biased in anyway and I will aim to keep these products without future purchase until it is vital to my needs. When I purchase a product I don't buy it for the wow factor but weigh the pros and cons. In my experience Apple make easy to use products with a reliable combination of hardware and software. As my products are kept for a long time many cheaper alternatives simply do not last as they are usually made of weaker materials (there are exceptions).
Also I do not buy new products simply to keep upto date I'll keep my macbook for as long as it fits my needs and not a minute before, I expect this to be several years as I don't use it for 'gaming' which requires a powerful machine and I'll skip the iPad as I have a laptop already (though the interface of the iPad is appealing to me)
There will always be fanboys for every platform going but its best to ignore their flaming and buy what fits your needs and is compatible with your existing hardware (unless you are ready to renew existing hardware).
Now can we all grow up and have an adult discussion, you may not agree with other peoples opinion but they have a right to present an alternative viewpoint.
Regards
DaveG
Complain about this comment
@nothins_ever_easy Quote: "The only truly great thing about Apple is there marketing. [...] The most annoying bit is that they have built up such brand loyalty..."
So you believe that Apple advertises superior products, but delivers something inferior? And consequently you are annoyed that they are enjoying both success and unsurpassed brand loyalty? This seeming paradox could have several explanations, ranging from the simple to the bizarre, and I'd be interested to know which you believe?
1) Apple's service and products are good value for money and the brand loyalty is well-deserved;
2) Apple targets 'stupid people', but you are one of the 'clever people' who won't be taken in;
3) Apple has drugged/hypnotised its users.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, Apple glossing up their products and creating hype around them so that many people can't have a bad word said against them coupled with turning a blind eye to competitors that offer similar products that do just as well if not better for less money is hardly a paradox. Just how did you come to that conclusion? You also say I'm annoyed, actually I don't care enough to be annoyed, I choose the products that best suit me and am not worried about what others choose to spend their money on. The fact that I have an opinion and choose to post something that is slightly critical off Apple hardly makes me annoyed.
As for the 3 points you raised, all are far too simplistic at best and distortion of what was to try to make a point at worst. It’s interesting that you try to control others response by locking their potential reply into 3 pre-ordained categories of your choosing, that best suit you, rather like Apple itself, that being, take control of everything.
If you want to have Apple products, that’s good for you, no one is attacking you or the choices that suit you. So take a break from the computer and repeat.... it’s only a phone/computer/music player, or whatever is most relevant.
Complain about this comment
daveg28 wrote:
I think you will find that many online stores hold card details to make future purchases easier. Just thought I'd point that out :-).
However, they do not ask for your card details before you have even decided to buy something, and you can remove your card details on most e-commerce solutions in your profile - you will simply be asked for them again next time you buy.
Apple, on the other hand, want everything upfront. That is showing a lack of trust in the customer and is, to be honest, just plain rude.
It is the same as going in to a supermarket and the security guard insisting on holding your wallet while you shop.
It also debases their own product Ping since it is obviously just being created as a way to pull people into iTunes Store and take their banking details. If Apple want to be seen as open and honest, they would not ask for financial details. I can only assume they feel they are now so powerful that they no longer have to worry about the niceties of customer relations. Pity.
Is that grown up enough for you?
Complain about this comment
@Hastings
It doesn't show a lack of trust. At all. How could it? What do Apple have to trust their customers for? It's all about making the process simple. You put the details in once, when you register, and that's it. No messing about with cards every time you need to make a purchase, etc.
I'd rather it wasn't that way, to be honest, but that's the way they've chosen to do it and there isn't a hope in hell of Steve changing his mind.
Unrelated to the above, I don't think this will go anywhere. Unless they're going to start signing up every content producer in Europe it's going to have about five minutes of appeal here.
Complain about this comment
@SuperG
"Who in their right mind is going to pay $100/£100 so they can pay for programming on top of that? At least with other set top boxes like Freeview or Sky (to name just two) you can get core services for free."
Me for one. I paid £250 for the original Apple TV and thought it was excellent value at that price. It is a mistake to regard it as a candidate to replace the traditional satellite, cable or Freeview box. Rather it complements them. The market for content is too fragmented right now for one box to do everything you might want.
I originally bought Apple TV for photos and music - as a permanent iPod for my lounge that used the TV as the display to make media streaming work properly in a lounge environment. The flat screen TV makes an excellent photo frame and I like to listen to my digital music through my HiFi without having to fiddle with a dock or peer at a tiny display from my sofa. I didn't ever expect to use Apple TV to rent movies but I do. It's a fantastic bit of kit. Reliable, spectacularly easy to use and I'm glad I have it.
I now rent movies on Apple TV in preference to Sky HD because there is considerably more choice, it is much easier to browse and before you buy there is loads more information available about the title plus a full quality trailer.
I rarely buy TV shows but have done occasionally. There is a huge choice available but the rental model would be more attractive to me. I hope that many more content providers start making their programmes available this way and at that point it might allow me to reduce my Sky subscription.
The new Apple TV doesn't have any local storage so it won't do my photos and music without a computer running to stream it from. I would have put up with that to save £150 though.
Happily, those who don't like Apple TVs features or philosophically object to the logo on the box have a choice. They can buy something else that suits their needs better.
Someone else commented elsewhere that the new price point puts Apple TV into both an impulse buy and gift category for many people. I think Apple will sell a lot more of them and it will start to become something more than a hobby for Apple.
Complain about this comment
@Hastings and tomjol
This is looking like it could escalate into a flame war so I'll post this last comment and leave it at that.
I think tomjol is right that it isn't a trust issue. They are a business after all and they probably feel if you can easily buy things with the click of a button that you will do. And as I said in my previous post if you don't want to hand over details they are asking for don't sign up, there are plenty of alternatives to Ping but for those that have accounts its a welcome addition.
Also tomjol is right that it makes the buying process much easier in that everything is entered once and then updated only when needed, the usual simplicity ethos at work as usual.
I certainly wouldn't want to have a security guard to ask for proof I can make payment for potential purchases as it would create queues into the store. However, online this doesn't bother me it causes me no delays and in fact means I pay for things quicker. Many people who use Amazon store their card details on their account but this isn't usually frowned upon. You can still browse the iTunes store without an account, listen to previews and subscribe to podcasts without an account before you decide if it worth signing up.
As I stated previously the functionality of Ping is tied into an iTunes account, it wouldn't be practical to have Ping without an account, how else would you recall your data. I reiterate that if you disagree with how something works don't use it, no one is forcing you, and if you and regret you only have yourself to blame.
Regards
DaveG
Complain about this comment
You know what irritates me more than anything, the USA get charged $99 (£64) for the Apple TV, I don't know if tax is included in that, but say it is at 25% so therefore it comes out as $125 (£81).
Now to the UK Apple store and the UK consumers get charged £99 for the same thing...
APPLE, STOP RIPPING OFF UK CONSUMERS!!!
Complain about this comment
It has been the case that the retail pound is equivalent to the retail dollar for as long as I have been visiting the States. It may not be a coincidence that the Federal minimum wage is about $5 and the UK one five quid. McDonalds 99c menu items there are 99p here, etc etc ad infinitum.
Complain about this comment
I don't just want Hollywood films - most of which are utterly banal, save a few absolute gems - I want global films and tv programmes. The problem with British TV media is that it is so insular, and if Apple can't offer something more to the UK market then I'm not buying.....
Complain about this comment
I can just picture Maggies living room! A photo of Steve above the fireplace!
Nothing remarkable about this or to be fair about many of the other on demand/push technology. In one way it's all a good thing because competition means cheaper pricing.
I've noticed that some people have mentioned that Ping requires a credit card, I've not had a look but if it is linked to iTunes there is an easy way around handing over your card details. When you register for iTunes just use an iTunes gift voucher. No credit card needed! It doesn't tell you this but a bit of lateral thinking gets you around the Jobsian data harvesting!
Complain about this comment
Firstly, thanks 'Jizzlingtons' for your response to my post and secondly... how did this whole thing end up talking about Apple's Ping!...does anybody actually care about this Ping thing?
Lets take a brief step back her and address the key aspect of this blog and the gripe about the BBC, and in particular Maggie's, bias towards promoting / advertising Apple products. As I made clear she is only reflecting the social buzz that surrounds Apple (and yes it may be of their own creation, but you surely can't knock a manufacturer from being savvy and successful when it comes to creative marketing and product roll outs!), so it is unreasonable to rest the blame at her feet entirely.
NO reporting is unbiased or exists in a social vacuum so that its comments and 'news' remains totally objective rather than subjective; thats just wishful thinking - like the idea that Facebook is all about 'social networking' rather than spying on your friends or looking up old girlfriends!
We live in a world that has shared ideologies so for better or worse we are bound to see some common denominator issues, stories, and in this case products, that crop up via the major news networks. The BBC is not immune to this and I'm sure for every Maggie out there, there is another site and another blog flying the flag for the opposition...excuse me, alternative!
Now briefly back on to topic for a moment...
Apple TV and the 'hiring' of content over 'purchasing' is a problem that every manufacturer faces when offering a legitimate and legal solution to the access and distribution of content - this is not the fault of Apple or Samsung or Sony or any manufacturer for that matter, but entirely down to the restrictions and limitations thrust upon them by Big Brother in the form of TV corporations and movie studios who wish to control the media... obsessively so! If you wish to see the extent to which this paranoia affects the free flow of products and services to us, the paying (and willing to pay!) consumer, then take a case in point and look towards the company Kaliedescape who successfully went through court battle after court battle just to offer you a DVD server that, hey - only played all the discs you already purchased legitimately - not a big ask surely?! And then to add insult to injury, made them jump through all the same expensive and time consuming loops again when Kaliedescape decided to release a Blu-ray version of their product! At the end of which they stopped them from releasing the product unless the customer stored all his or her Blu-rays in a carousel that checks you have the disc 'manually' before allowing you to watch the 'ripped' version...of your disc!!...one word MGM, FOX, Warner Bros et al - pants!
Have a look at http://www.kaleidescape.com/
Basically there are bigger things to get concerned about than whether Apple is 'dominating' the market or 'hijacking' the news. The bigger picture is that all publicity is good publicity at the end of the day and if it pushes the market forward for everyones benefit, then I'm all for it!
Complain about this comment
Apple are trying to divide and conquer. Steve said 'people have a laptop and a desktop, they don't want one on the tv' (ish) and apple tv is just a single stream. Having seen the demo of google and logitechs solution they have over complicated. I don't want to do an internet search every time I crash out in front of the tv. I don't need to surf the web on a 50 inch tv.
My preference is the kit I and most people already have, my games console. It's already under my tv and feeding HD. But the content is key. Iplayer on the ps3 works really well, if it had the other tv channels I wouldn't consider google or apple.
Complain about this comment
Aidy wrote:
"Take a story that has *nothing* to do with Apple such as Samsung releasing a new product and what is the headline on the BBC tech page?
"Samsung releases iPad competitor""
Excuse me? But what is Samsung's "new product" competing against? That new product for the time being will have only one other competing product, a product that has defined the tablet market and for the time being completely dominates it.
The iPad being mentioned is obviously reasonable, not to mention the obvious copy cat the Samsung is with not only its styling, hardware and software, but also in the way the interface is designed. They have no shame when it comes to copying Apple.
"Sums it all up really. I guess there is no point in complaining any more, the BBC is obsessed with Apple and is hell-bent on pushing them and talking about them endlessly as if it's the only thing happening."
If the BBC was so obsessed with Apple then how come I can't view video content on its site with my iPad like I can with many other news sites?
Complain about this comment
SuperG wrote:
"Ok, now what's so new about this? Nothing!
It's another set-top box that delivers on-demand content. So really it's presenting the additional features of the PS3 and Xbox360 as a core feature but without any core programming for free."
What is it that you expect "for free?"
Apple TV is attractive to those who have plenty of content to stream from their iTunes libraries and from their iPhone, their iPod Touch and their iPad. That's quite a lot of people out there, including me.
I normally watch a lot of video and listen to a lot of music through my iMac but now with the every inexpensive Apple TV I can also do that on my big screen TV and stereo system.
"Who in their right mind is going to pay $100/£100 so they can pay for programming on top of that? At least with other set top boxes like Freeview or Sky (to name just two) you can get core services for free."
You need to properly distinguish and compare what is and isn't free and why. You are confused.
"Personally I think this is rubbish. I wouldn't pay for it and I cannot imagine anyone I know would buy it either."
Surely they will make up their own mind after they impartially and objectively evaluate what it offers and what it can do for them.
"Hold on though - lets put the "Apple" part back in. OK now some Apple drones (stand up Mr Fry) will buy it so that it looks cool in their living room."
Now do you see why I included the words impartially and objectively?
Mr Fry is also a grown man who I am quite sure is long past trying to impress people with the kind of electronics that he likes and buys.
When I buy the Apple TV it will actually be hidden, like most of my electronics are. When I was a teenager that might have been different.
Complain about this comment
RangerWillRobinson wrote:
TVs have had PC inputs for use as a monitor for years.
I download and stream every day using my Mac Mini and watch it all on my lovely plasma screen.
Why do I need Apple or any other corporation setting my viewing agenda?
They are working toward a technological future that's already here but, crucially, want their slice of some as yet un-established subscription model.
_________________________________________________________________________
A person streaming with a Mac Mini, or any other HTC computer, connected to their TV is not the average consumer. Apple TV is not meant to get in the way of you doing exactly what you are doing. In fact, Apple made it even easier to do just that with their new Mac Mini including an HDMI out.
No, the Apple TV is meant for the average consumer that wishes to stream content from their computer's iTunes library and store, and other partner sites, like Netflix in America, but who also wish to stream from their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, and to do it in a very simple and inexpensive way.
For $99 it's a very attractive and useful device. Those wishing for no limitations that all of these type of set top boxes have can simply buy a new Mac mini or any other small home theater computer designed to be connected to your computer. No one is stopping you from doing so, certainly Apple is not trying to stop you.
Complain about this comment
alan_addison wrote:
It may be $99.00, but it is also £99.00.
I don't like being ripped off - not even by a man in a black polo neck - so I am going to have to pass, yet again, on this offer from Apple.
_________________________________________________________________________
You are not being "ripped off," you are simply paying for a product where the market that it is being sold in, and all the variables that come with it, determines the price set by the manufacturer.
Guess what? That's the case with every product you buy! There are only two choices after that, you either buy it or you don't. Again, like any other product.
Complain about this comment
The BBC seems to ignore, not surprisingly, that one of the most likely providers of TV 'apps' in the UK is going to be BSkyB.
Just because Apple, Sony or Samsung enable apps to run on the TV doesn't change who owns the content. Of course the apps will provide an alternative to traditional TV channels, but if you want to watch any normal TV content via some sort of app, then it will still be Sky who own that. No one is going to be watching Premiership football on Apple TV for example without still paying BSkyB for the privalage.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS