Network negotiations nix 2015 Apple TV streaming Fanbois hoping that Apple would disrupt the daylights out of television are, once again, going to have to wait to see what Cupertino thinks will make the idiot box sexy, with rights-holders proving the stumbling block. While Apple has long described its Apple TV device as a “hobby”, underneath that lies deadly intent – it …
Given that this year's TV schedules appear to be thinner and less 'content rich than ever' perhaps they no longer have a visions of endless riches from TV. If they spent a little of their cash pile on programmes it might be useful to spark some interest, but with the few watchers using largely off line personal devices, would a room style TV device have any traction anyway?
Since Apple are set against the one sure fire niche offering for video content, (and that is apparently being fuelled/satisfied by a torrent of DIY material), I am struggling to see any opening that this could aim at.
While I am not an apple lover, quite the reverse, I would welcome anyone who can breath some life and interest into what is fast becoming an entertainment desert.
I think part of it is that it seems to me that people are starting to change their preferences and it goes way beyond entertainment. People are moving away from the passive approach and have a desire to do things and TV in general doesn't really fit as well as it did. The days of the TV being on for hours at a time are fading fast since the internet and games have taken its place and I don't see it coming back regardless of the programming. Maybe the networks will try another hospital or mystery show since the cop shows and rom coms have dominated for a while. Oh, I know a mashup of Columbo and ER.
"Apple's design gurus are also said to be stumped at the challenge of finding anything exciting to do with an idiot-box ..."
You know, with the seemingly eternal re-runs on almost every channel and mindless overdramatization of most "documentaries" these days, I'm sort of struggling with that myself.
If you and I know how lousy today's TV shows are, then execs know it too. Why do you think they force you to buy a bundle of channels? The execs know that if a la carte was allowed, many channels will die. If they die, that means less ad revenue and less collected fees from cable subscribers. (I never understood why I have to pay a monthly fee for the privilege of watching at least 15 minutes of commercials per hour.) The content owners will do everything in their power to stop a la carte.
True. Also, Apple will decide on the user interface and that will be what you get.
Personally I prefer my mix of cable+Tivo and Kodi on a RasPi2 with various add-ons to let me watch pretty much what I want when I want and Kodi not only gets used the most but lets me choose not only the skin but I can decide what structure the programme/music lists take from a decently wide selection.
It's funny how as computers get more powerful the big OS makers and software devs make their products less customisable.
Cable/satellite providers mark up the content more than that. If Apple was able to buy it at the price big boys like Comcast and Directv do and deliver it at 30% markup, they'd seriously undercut cable/satellite providers.
I suspect that's the real issue, the networks have two problems - they don't want to risk the wrath of providers like Comcast and want to find a way to use the transition to streaming to increase their take by eliminating all middlemen. If they can stream directly to home users they can make a lot more money.
The problem is that cord cutters are mostly doing it because they want to save money, because the bills have got too big. So they're either getting by with less new/live content, or cheating by using someone's credentials who has a TV subscription (i.e. college student streaming using his parents' login for ESPN, HBO, and so forth)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
