DirecTV CEO Scoffs At Competition From Apple TV

Irony alert! by King_TJ · 2012-06-03 04:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

While DirecTV's Chairman is crowing about his viewers lacking an interest in paying for an "extra box" on top of what he provides? Viewers will continue to drop DirecTV service completely, once they use boxes like AppleTV and realize they're saving a lot of money by streaming video content and doing "pay only for what you want to watch" with iTunes store movie or TV series purchases/rentals. So yeah, he's right... They only want one set-top box. Increasingly, it won't be his.

Re:Irony alert! by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-03 04:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

But I consider the per-view charges of AppleTV very expensive. They're OK for movies, but for weekly television episodes, they're higher than I'm willing to pay.
Re:Irony alert! by rockout · 2012-06-03 04:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you only watch 2 or 3 TV shows regularly, is it more expensive than a DirecTV package?

--
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Re:Irony alert! by fiziko · 2012-06-03 05:00 · Score: 2

True, but that's largely due to Apple watching the market. Most people weren't "renting" TV shows, so they dropped the pay-per-view model for individual episodes. Instead of paying $0.49-$0.99 to rent an episode, you buy it for $0.99-$3.49 (all prices based on what I've seen in the Canadian store for shows I'm interested in; YMMV) per episode to watch as often as you like. It's expensive pay-per-view for TV episodes because that's not quite what they are selling, because that's not what most people were buying.
As someone with a collector's impulse, I like the prices. When I had cable, I'd pay each month for the HDTV feed, download episodes to the PVR, and felt that any show worth watching was worth owning, so I bought the DVD/Blu-Ray set later. Now, it amounts to paying for the DVD/Blu-Ray set up front and just watching the episodes when I get around it. Instead of finding storage space for one season after another, I found storage space for a 3TB external hard drive for the laptop and stream it all from there. By the time that puppy fills, a far larger hard drive will be available at a lower price, I'm sure. Even with the slightly limited offerings in Canada, I find the combination of AppleTV and Netflix covers everything I've wanted to watch in the past year with the exception of the Academy Awards. (Caveat: I have no interest in local news broadcasts or sports. As far as I can tell, cable is still king for those, although that is also rapidly changing.)

--
- W. Blaine Dowler
http://www.bureau42.com
Re:Irony alert! by Sponge+Bath · 2012-06-03 05:02 · Score: 4, Informative

I use my Apple TV mainly for playing music off my main iTunes library, but I looked at the video and saw $2.99 per episode for TV shows? I have Amazon Prime streaming and see similar stuff: $1.99/episode for a 4 year old How It's Made.
Everyone is talking about the merits of different technology, but the real road block to adoption seems to be an insanely broken pricing scheme. I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:02 · Score: 0

At the volume of TV we watch, it was obvious to give up even basic cable, let alone the premium subscription service. Frankly life is better when you watch a couple hours of TV a week instead of a couple a day, try it.
Re:Irony alert! by jo_ham · 2012-06-03 05:16 · Score: 1

This is true, but that's down to the content owners - Apple does not set the price. I'm sure if they could offer them cheaper to aggressively compete with cable TV they would, but the prices have obviously been set by the owners of said competing cable service to ensure they're not.
Maybe that will change.
Re:Irony alert! by mjwx · 2012-06-03 05:19 · Score: 2

While DirecTV's Chairman is crowing about his viewers lacking an interest in paying for an "extra box" on top of what he provides? Viewers will continue to drop DirecTV service completely,
This is inevitable, broadcast services are dying a slow death as multi-cast and on-demand services become more prevalent.

once they use boxes like AppleTV .
This made me laugh. Apple has had no success with AppleTV and for good reason, they are trying to follow the same "micropayment" model that is killing the other companies, when you look at it, paying $2 per episode is no different then pay-per-view. AppleTV has completely failed to take off and unlike Microsoft they are unable to bundle it with their other offering due to the fact it's a bit of hardware.

This "Direct TV" guy (they don't exist in Oz) is right about that, people don't want another box, his or Apple's. They want this shit built into their TV sets and not have it controlled by someone else. This is why Napster and Bit Torrent is such a huge success, not because it's free but because it provides people with what they want.

Apple TV is a failure. A successful on demand service will integrate with what people already have and provide access to what they want without asking for payment every single time.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Irony alert! by SomePgmr · 2012-06-03 05:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

I worked the math on this for my usage not so long ago. I could do Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime and pay to watch something like 2 regular shows assuming one show per week, and it was still less than I was paying for TV. The exercise was to see what I could get legally for what TV costs... no torrents.
That was with AT&T though, and when I asked about cancelling my TV service they were quick to remind me that my internet service would get more expensive. And now they're capping usage. Those folks know what they're doing.
Re:Irony alert! by gstrickler · 2012-06-03 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?
Multiply that by the number of subscribers (not actual views) and you'll find that CC is getting a hefty check. Even people who never watch CC are paying that monthly fee. Compare that to the actual revenue from episodes sold (and "sold" is a 1 time payment, not monthly or per view), and I think you'll find it makes sense. Also, episodes "sold" generally don't include commercials, so they're giving up that revenue stream too. Completely different business models.
Rental is yet another business model, one that's closer to the cable/satellite model.
Cable/satellite = all you can consume, but only as long as you maintain your subscription. When your subscription ends, all access ends with it. Pay the same whether you watch 1min or 500hrs per month.
Per show rental = Pay per view (or a window of xx hours). Access ends after xx hours (or one view).
Per show purchase = Pay more per show, but pay only once, and watch it whenever you choose, as many times as you choose.
Either way, the content creators and/or distributors will want to make ~ the same amount of revenue. So, you will pay more up-front for a purchase, but you don't have the recurring fees.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:36 · Score: 0

To some people, two bucks is a trivial amount of money.
Re:Irony alert! by milkmage · 2012-06-03 05:41 · Score: 2

actually, that's not PPV.. Apple killed rentals (for TV shows) last year because nobody was renting.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1161983/apple_axes_tv_show_rentals_for_itunes_apple_tv.html
so when you consider it a sale, it's about the same as getting the discs with the added benefit of getting the latest episode the day after it airs. (except for really popular shows like Game of Thrones)
Apple season pass for Sherlock S2 is 19.99 (vs. 6.99 per), the DVD from amazon is 19.96, amazon (digital) season pass is 15 bucks (no freebies for Prime).
PBS is also streaming Masterpiece Mystery if you haven't seen S2 yet.
Re:Irony alert! by RKBA · 2012-06-03 05:41 · Score: 1

I recently inquired with Comcast about my cost savings if I were to eliminate television from my subscription. They told me that my cost would actually increase because I would no longer be getting the XFINITY "Triple Play" discount (TV, telephone, and Internet). It sounded like BS to me, but that was the story I was given by their service rep on the telephone.

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Re:Irony alert! by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-03 05:43 · Score: 1

2 tv shows per week at AppleTV rates is about the same as DirecTV's introductory rates. 3 is a little more. You'd be at twice that compared to DirectTV's standard rates. But for Americans that's a very low rate of TV-watching, especially if you have a family with diverse viewing preferences. Of course, if you also have over-the-air access you're getting a lot more than that for free -- or could be if you chose to put up an antenna.
Re:Irony alert! by Lije+Baley · 2012-06-03 05:44 · Score: 2

It doesn't matter who delivers it, Hollywood will eventually get $100 per month out of you. It happened with cable, then later with satellite, and in another few years it will happen with streaming. Just wait and see.

--
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Re:Irony alert! by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-03 05:46 · Score: 2

Either way, the content creators and/or distributors will want to make ~ the same amount of revenue. So, you will pay more up-front for a purchase, but you don't have the recurring fees.
Correction: each way they want to make AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
Re:Irony alert! by phoomp · 2012-06-03 06:03 · Score: 0

If you watch a lot of TV, you're absolutely right. However, I find that lately there is very little on TV that is interesting enough to be worth my time, never mind my $.
Re:Irony alert! by AmiMoJo · 2012-06-03 06:12 · Score: 2

I've never used the iTunes store but I wonder if the price difference is due to the downloadable/steamable shows not having (as many) ads.
I'd like to know how much the people making the shows get per viewer. I bet is is close to what we are willing to pay.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Irony alert! by xs650 · 2012-06-03 06:13 · Score: 1

"I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?"

I think the present system sucks and am not defending it, but...

At 0.25/month from each subscriber, they are likely taking in more than 2 bucks per actual episode view because a small minority of subscribers actually watch Comedy Central, even though it is a popular show.

If individual shows had to depend on paying subscribers paying by the episode. most shows would never get off the ground.
Re:Irony alert! by dark12222000 · 2012-06-03 06:18 · Score: 1

If individual shows had to depend on paying subscribers paying by the episode. most shows would never get off the ground.
Given the nature of most of those shows, is that a bad thing?
Re:Irony alert! by rockout · 2012-06-03 06:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

It makes sense from their perspective, in a weird "let's-not-give-customers-what-they-want" kind of way. If they provide you with enough of a disincentive to drop their TV service while you keep internet, they feel like they're (at least temporarily) delaying the inevitable march that consumers are making towards the pay-for-what-you-want-to-watch model of content delivered across the net. It's short-sighted, but then again, when's the last time media companies adopted a smart long-term strategy?

--
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Re:Irony alert! by man_of_mr_e · 2012-06-03 06:23 · Score: 1

I don't think so. Most users don't even know how to change their TV inputs... My wife can't figure out how to enable the DVD player from the DVR. One device is really where people want things.
Regarding the Steve Ballmer comment.. to be honest, the iPhone never was a threat to Microsoft. Microsoft had a very small niche market for phones, and to this day still has that market. The iPhone has done little to change that. In fact, Windows Phone 7.x has slightly improved their market share.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Irony alert! by Finallyjoined!!! · 2012-06-03 06:30 · Score: 1

By God!

You Americans should rise up against your internet & connectivity oppressors.

Throw away some tea perhaps?

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Irony alert! by Darinbob · 2012-06-03 06:37 · Score: 1

The market of people actually capable of streaming TV on demand through internet is still very low. Nothing to worry about. DirecTV will lose some bleeding edge tchnologists, probably people getting internet from cable anyway where DirecTV gets most customers from those who either can not get cable or who dislike cable.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:55 · Score: 0

Of course, if you also have over-the-air access you're getting a lot more than that for free -- or could be if you chose to put up an antenna.
One problem with that is time-shifting off-the-air programs. I tried switching to (legal) streaming along with off-the-air programming, and I bought one of the few (if not only) DVD/DVR combo devices to record o-t-a. The DVD/DVR combo has such a lousy user interface that it was effectively useless.
I suppose I could have gone with a Tivo (which I had used and loved in the past), but the subscription fee is excessive for o-t-a recording.
And, I found that many of the programs I actually watch aren't available either o-t-a or via (legal) streaming. So, I'm back to cable. It's expensive, but it works and provides everything I expect. (ymmv)
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:59 · Score: 0

Except that most TV watching is reruns. Under the iTunes model you don't pay for reruns.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:59 · Score: 0

You are right. So far I have converted 3 friends to cut the cord and use Roku's. Plex Server and bittorrent, Netflix Streaming, Amazon Video, and Hulu Plus is all a person needs.
Re:Irony alert! by bigstrat2003 · 2012-06-03 07:01 · Score: 1

Nah. People only take notice if you throw away something worthwhile as a form of protest.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Irony alert! by SeaFox · 2012-06-03 07:03 · Score: 1

If you only watch 2 or 3 TV shows regularly, is it more expensive than a DirecTV package?
It's more expensive that a streaming plan on Netflix or Hulu.
Re:Irony alert! by xs650 · 2012-06-03 07:03 · Score: 1

"Given the nature of most of those shows, is that a bad thing?"

If it's show that you or I would want to watch it's not a good thing, if it's just the other peons missing out then it's not such a bad thing.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:14 · Score: 2

If you watch only 2 or 3 TV shows regularly, then what are you doing with ANY cable service?

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:16 · Score: 1

The cost of the extra box is miniscule. The real problem with AppleTV as it relates to DirecTV is lack of content. There are any number of things on cable you might be interested in that aren't available on iTunes or Amazon.
Cost simply isn't the problem.
Neither is "technology".

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:18 · Score: 1

If reruns are your thing, you may find iTunes sadly lacking. You're probably better off with a Tivo and either cable or an antenna.
Hulu might also be an option but that is infested with commercials.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:24 · Score: 1

Most people already "rent" shows. They watch them once and forget about it. That is how the cable pricing model can work. The marginal cost of a single show rental is cheap enough.
Now forcing people to only rent can add up quick.
However, that's only a problem if you force them to only rent and never to buy. If Apple was giving people one-and-only-one option, I could see how that might not go over well.
Apple may have set themselves up to fail here.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:26 · Score: 1

There are not enough of those kind of people around for old school big media to make a decent living on.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by whargoul · 2012-06-03 07:26 · Score: 1

Kids
Re:Irony alert! by DDLKermit007 · 2012-06-03 07:33 · Score: 1

So you mean a Roku or Boxee Box...
Re:Irony alert! by Xrikcus · 2012-06-03 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative

I tried to drop comcast TV last year and they told me it was cheaper to have internet + basic cable than internet alone. Of course it was... until 6 months later that specially discounted package ran out and my bill jumped. You have to keep an eye on it.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:25 · Score: 0

The iTea crowd
Re:Irony alert! by RKBA · 2012-06-03 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, that was what happened to me. My package discount ended and Comcast raised my monthly charge. I called and told them it was too expensive and that I had to cancel something or cut back on services, and asked how much I would save by cancelling television service from my "Triple Play" package. They transferred me to some sort of "Customer Downgrade Department" (Yes, Comcast actually said they have a department called something like that, although I'm not sure of the exact name). The "Customer Downgrade Department" person was the one who told me that Comcast had reinstated my package discount (and I hadn't even asked them to do it, hooray!), and because of that it would cost me more each month without TV included in the package than with it, so overall the end result was that the telephone call did save me some money even if their policies do seem insane.

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Re:Irony alert! by AugstWest · 2012-06-03 09:11 · Score: 1

Also, DirecTV's DVR is like an exercise in "How Not To Build An Interface."
I quit the DAY that my 2-year contract was up. It wasn't that the programming was bad, or the cost or anything, it was that the interface was a constant source of annoyance. It really is THAT bad.
They don't give a shit what they hand the customer, and even when they add something nice, like DLNA abilities, they wrap them in a UI that makes you want to set fire to the hardware.
It's pretty much the polar opposite of Apple. They *should* be scared.
Re:Irony alert! by Xeranar · 2012-06-03 09:36 · Score: 1

Fundamentally streaming services like netflix and their cable/sat/Fiber counterparts are paying based on an equality model. Everybody pitches in so the price is dilluted but higher than a few shows. Any model that involves paying double or more for access to new shows is broken because in order to make sense individuals have to lay out far more to consume far less.
Sports also leave all these systems wanting. Until ESPN offers a netflix/roku/apple TV app for a monthly fee the ability to compete will be weak. Really as we get away further and further from physically draining work TV will loose more and more of it's appeal compared to the internet and other activities.
Re:Irony alert! by Grishnakh · 2012-06-03 09:38 · Score: 1

Huh? How is cable king for local news broadcasts? If you want to watch the local news, just get a rabbit-ears antenna and watch the news on your local channels, for free.
As far as I can tell, the only thing where cable (or satellite TV) is really necessary is sports.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 09:43 · Score: 0

If reruns are your thing, you may find iTunes sadly lacking. You're probably better off with a Tivo and either cable or an antenna.
Hulu might also be an option but that is infested with commercials.
Before I cut the cord and went iTunes only, I was paying nearly $100 per month for HD digital cable with a DVR. When you realize that I might watch 5 new shows per year. With Cable, that costs $1200. With iTunes that costs $300 per year assuming each season costs $60. In the iTunes model reruns, IE watching episodes I have already seen is free because I own them. Plus I can get them all in HD vs. what my cable provider offers for HD channels.
I will never own a Tivo or a DVR ever again. They are pieces of crap. It would do stupid things like record the SD version instead of the HD version. Or it would get filled up if the network decided to run a marathon. But worse of all and the thing that was the final straw was when my DVR recorded nothing but static because the signal would go out and since the networks only play episodes once if your cable went out you missed it. None of that is a problem with iTunes.
Re:Irony alert! by sir-gold · 2012-06-03 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

When the original Boston tea party happened (1773), there weren't armed guards and locked doors protecting the cargo, and there weren't security cameras recording everything with the police only a phone call away.
Damaging Telecom property (as much as I would love to) is probably an considered an act of terrorism, at which point you don't even get due process, you just "disappear" to gitmo
Re:Irony alert! by rebot777 · 2012-06-03 10:03 · Score: 1

Wrong, because of huge distribution costs media companies have had a monopoly on what consumers can buy. The internet is changing that giving power and options to the consumer. There is currently no way to buy Game of Thrones except by subscribing to HBO and it one of the most torrented series ever. Now that consumers have a choice between cable, a myriad of online services, and piracy media companies will be forced price competitively. That might cause revenue to fall for them but then maybe they'll produce less garbage that no one wants to buy in the first place.
Re:Irony alert! by ToasterMonkey · 2012-06-03 10:46 · Score: 1

I use my Apple TV mainly for playing music off my main iTunes library, but I looked at the video and saw $2.99 per episode for TV shows? I have Amazon Prime streaming and see similar stuff: $1.99/episode for a 4 year old How It's Made.
Everyone is talking about the merits of different technology, but the real road block to adoption seems to be an insanely broken pricing scheme. I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?
3/4 hour of entertainment with no ads, for some fraction of the cost of a McDonald's extra value meal.
45 minutes of HDTV v. Just the sandwich please
How is the pricing "broken"?
I guess if you could subscribe to all you can eat McDonald's for $100 a month, a $2.99 McChicken would look pricy too. Would poor families benefit from a McDonald's subscription? Food is arguably more important than entertainment, why aren't we having that discussion?
If you think eating out at McDonald's every night is out of your price range, why do you think hours of recorded entertainment should be?
Re:Irony alert! by bob8766 · 2012-06-03 10:54 · Score: 1

What this model fails to take into account are people who do not consume the content under the current model. For example, I will not pay a monthly cable fee for one or two channels I would watch occasionally.

Secondly, it opens up opportunities for other shows that didn't make it on CC or another major network. Couldn't get another season of Babylon 5 on the air? No problem, if you can get enough direct subscribers (and on that show, I suspect you would) you can release episodes directly to them.

This could be a great opportunity to add new revenue from people who either aren't subscribing now, or are pirating the content out of frustration.
Re:Irony alert! by MPAndonee · 2012-06-03 11:40 · Score: 1

Not so sure you appreciate the strength of DirectTV's box. I don't believe anyone here actually appreciates that BOX.
BECAUSE of it's architecture, there are available "hacks" and other programs that allow you to far surpass anything that's on the market, and make it the central entertainment hub for the whole family. For those of us in the know, TiVo boxes and DirectTV boxes have been the gateways to entertainment freedom, almost completely freeing us from media that is not digital.
Now, if someone could just "port" iTunes to it, I'd be set (I can already stream my songs/movie/TV show purchases to it).

--
Nothing to see here -- move along now...
Re:Irony alert! by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 11:57 · Score: 1

Compared to the iPhone and iPod, Apple TV isn't as successful. But in the viewpoint that Apple has sold millions of them and profitably, I would disagree with that notion.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Irony alert! by Rude+Turnip · 2012-06-03 12:34 · Score: 1

Calling bullshit on this one. Just had Verizon's "Extreme" something FiOS TV service installed. Literally over 300 channels and maybe two mediocre shows with commercials were on. I can hop onto iTunes, Amazon, Netflix or Zune Marketplace and lots of content instantly.

--
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 12:35 · Score: 2

iTunes is fine if it has what you watch.
That's a pretty big if. Same problem applies to Netflix and Amazon.
That is why the CEO of DTV is not worried. There are far too many holes in what iTunes offers. Even if you wanted to cut the cord, you might find that it simply isn't possible without making some serious compromises.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by tsotha · 2012-06-03 13:02 · Score: 2

Nah, there's no double bank shot reasoning going on here - your cable company charges you more because they lose money when you drop basic TV. There are channels for which people are willing to pay extra, like ESPN or HBO. Those broadcasters charge the cable company money for each subscriber. And then there are channels (like HSN and travel channels) that nobody would pay for, so they pay the cable company to be delivered to customers on a per subscriber basis. They're basically 24/7 advertising channels, after all. Because you have internet you're already in the billing system, and the wire to your house needs to be maintained, and you'll still use up some amount of customer service time, so the incremental cost to deliver basic cable in addition to internet is basically zero. When you drop TV the cable company loses the income you brought in from the advertising channels, so they charge you enough to make up the difference.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:06 · Score: 1

Then "you" don't really watch just 2 or 3 shows.
The smaller the household, the more likely you can get buy with a tiny vendor supplied PVR or iTunes.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:11 · Score: 1

Also note that you have to "hack" an AppleTV box to get the most out of it. Otherwise, it can be just as frustratingly limited as a stock Tivo or a stock DTV PVR.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Irony alert! by lexman098 · 2012-06-03 13:24 · Score: 1

It's true that a-la-carte pricing can get ridiculous, but you can go half and half. I think ultimately the best thing to do is set a reasonably high limit and pay for the services that give you the most bang for your buck until you reach it. Then pirate the rest. It supports the services that are most valuable to viewers and you still don't miss out on shows.
Re:Irony alert! by Physician · 2012-06-03 13:38 · Score: 1

It would be cheaper to buy 2 full seasons of your favorite show on DVD every month than it would be to have DirecTV.

--
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 14:49 · Score: 0

WinMo was a little better than just a niche, 12-14%, but they are down to near 1% now.
http://blogs.orange-business.com/connecting-technology/500px-World-Wide-Smartphone-Market-Share.png
Re:Irony alert! by man_of_mr_e · 2012-06-03 16:26 · Score: 1

As they say, statistics can show anything.
Yes, Microsofts percentage share has dropped considertably, but only because the market has grown so much in the last several years. (a market that would not exist without iPhone or Android).
The point is that Windows Mobile is still selling about what it did, and is improved a bit... They did not capture much of the emerging touch market, but they didn't lose what they had.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Irony alert! by sqrt(2) · 2012-06-03 21:17 · Score: 1

As do I and many others. So my solution, which is increasingly becoming popular, is to eschew paid-services altogether. TV programs and movies are downloaded to my media center PC and are streamed to my TV or computers. All I want is for my ISP to sell me a fat pipe that I can pull unlimited bits through per month for a flat price. I'll handle the rest.
I don't need cable TV, I don't need Netflix, I don't need iTunes Store episodes. I just want unlimited bandwidth from my ISP, and general purpose hardware from whatever company is producing the best hardware for my needs -- that's usually Apple. I'll be interested in the Apple TV if they ever make it (not the set top box, the actual TV) but I'll be damned if I'll be using it as a method to purchase content from ITMS. I'll handle the acquisition of content myself, I just want a nice TV to watch it on that integrates will with my other devices on the network. Since most of those are Apple devices, it should work out well.

--
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 21:53 · Score: 0

Damaging Telecom property (as much as I would love to) is probably an considered an act of terrorism, at which point you don't even get due process, you just "disappear" to gitmo
Gitmo is regarded as a huge mistake, a big sore thumb. These days they rendition people to secret facilities Poland and other allied countries using planes that "ghost" through air-lanes with no radar cover when ever possible with all transponders switched off. Precisely where they rendition US citizens if the even do that I don't know. Judging by what happened to Bradley Manning that sort of thing is handled by the US prison system.
Re:Irony alert! by TheRaven64 · 2012-06-03 23:23 · Score: 1

Wrong comparison. I'm not sure how it works out in the US, but I just had a look at the iTunes store in the UK for TV. The first series I found that I actually watch was Sanctuary. This costs £2.49 per episode from iTunes. I currently subscribe to LoveFilm's unlimited rentals, 3-at-a-time plan for £13.27/month. I can easily get 6 disks in a week if I'm bored, 4 more plausibly. Sanctuary comes with 4 episodes per DVD. This means that I can watch the entire season for about the cost of 2 episodes from iTunes. Now, you may say that iTunes offers purchase not rental, but I very rarely want to watch something like that more than once, and even good TV shows rarely get put on more than 2-3 times, so even paying again to rent them next time I want to watch them it's cheaper from LoveFilm. Given that the iTunes downloads come with DRM, I'd also count them as rentals, since they prevent many of the things that I'd want to do with purchased content (e.g. format shifting) and can arbitrarily revoke my 'ownership' at any point in the future.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Irony alert! by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-03 23:43 · Score: 1

God, I'd hate to have a product that I've sold millions of units of, with accelerating volume. What a failure.
Note: AppleTV is not just the iTunes video rentals / store. AppleTV does more than that.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 02:34 · Score: 0

"Plex Server and bittorrent, Netflix Streaming, Amazon Video, and Hulu Plus is all a person needs."
By golly, you're right!
Just like the statement "640KB is all the memory any computer will ever need".
Why, yes, that WAS sarcasm, by the way.
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 04:31 · Score: 0

It's called the Customer Retention Department and pretty much every company that depends on steady monthly income from users (and any form of competition) has one. This trick works with cable, cell phone, credit cards, insurance, etc. if you're willing to put in the time to call and act like you're going to cancel every 6 months - a year or so.
Occasionally they'll call your bluff, so give some thought before you call to whether you're willing to lose whatever it is you're calling for or make the 'Okay' face.
Re:Irony alert! by sehryan · 2012-06-04 04:42 · Score: 1

Even at DirecTV's cheapest currently advertised package ($29.99 for 12 months, free HD DVR), you could purchase eight shows at full price on iTunes (~$45 for a full season in HD). And that is not taking in to consideration the monthly taxes and fees on the DTV service, which could easily cover a Netflix or Hulu Plus subscription. After three months, you are going to start paying for the premiums, which run around the cost of two movie rentals on iTunes per month PER PREMIUM CHANNEL.
And that is just for the first year. Year two, the monthly price goes up, which means you could afford EVEN MORE television and movies if you amortize it out over two years.
Basically, you would be hard pressed to spend more money on AppleTV than DirecTV. I know this, because I made the switch myself. We have eight shows, a Netflix account, and get the locals using a $50 HD Over The Air antenna. Haven't been happier, and are saving a ton.

--
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
Re:Irony alert! by Wovel · 2012-06-04 05:40 · Score: 1

I can Watch MLB on the Apple TV...
Re:Irony alert! by Wovel · 2012-06-04 05:41 · Score: 1

Comedy central also shows ads and Most Dish subscribers never even watch the channel.
Re:Irony alert! by Grishnakh · 2012-06-04 05:44 · Score: 1

Really? Ok, cable and satellite are in trouble if that's the case.
Re:Irony alert! by RKBA · 2012-06-04 13:25 · Score: 1

Oh I was quite willing to give up television and maybe cut my Internet speed even, but Comcast said they have no lower speed plans to switch me to. Besides, all I was asking was how much I would save by cancelling TV. I only told them that I needed to cancel TV or cut back on service rather than cancel the entire thing. I wasn't threatening to cancel my account. Even so, they essentially paid me money by reinstating my discount in order to provide more costly television service. It doesn't make sense because the discount saved me more money than eliminating TV from my package would have saved if I hadn't been given the discount.

Incidentally, that department might be "officially" called the Customer Retention Department, but that's not what the customer reps on the phone called it when they were talking to me. "Downgrade" or some-such vaguely negative term was part of the name they used. I remember because I repeated the name to the customer service rep and asked if they really had a department with that name and he said yes. Maybe it's an inside joke or something. I was planning on installing a small indoor TV antenna so that I could get the local station(s) and I think I would be perfectly happy with that because I rarely watch television at all.

--
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 17:00 · Score: 0

Hulu has commercials? Where do you live? Hulu Japan doesn't have commercials anyway...
Re:Irony alert! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 13:10 · Score: 0

Chairman Michael White doesn't even realize his product is a poor deal and viewed as a load of steaming dung by more and more people. My folks have DirecTV and they hate it, so many channels with junk they're not interested in watching.
Literally this man's business model is relying on "TV's always been a part of the home" to keep being profitable.

Kind of reminds me of by mlingojones · 2012-06-03 04:45 · Score: 1

then-Palm CEO Ed Colligan in 2006:

We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.

We all know how well that turned out for them.

Re:Kind of reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:52 · Score: 0

Well, it wasn't the PC guys who figured it out. (If you count PC guys as the Wintel world)
Re:Kind of reminds me of by BoRegardless · 2012-06-03 04:56 · Score: 1

You don't have to be much of a chess player to figure out options in play to see that DirectTV doesn't have all the pieces: ...Hardware, data pipe, storage, backup, device integration outside of video/audio, content and that nebulous thing called Ease of Use.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:59 · Score: 0

...You don't consider Apple PC guys? What do they make then, fruit trees? Pretending that Apple x86-compatible computers are different enough from non-Apple x86-compatible computers to need another name beyond the brand is just silly, lay off the marketing hype.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by paiute · 2012-06-03 05:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

The "PC" guys figured out that the best phone wasn't a complex phone but a small screen computer. Maybe they are also figuring that the best TV isn't a complex TV but a big screen computer.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Re:Kind of reminds me of by the_B0fh · 2012-06-03 05:35 · Score: 1

Normally, people equate "PC" world to x86 computers running windows.
Technically Macs run on x86, but consumers still see a "PC" as a beige box, and a Mac as a different animal.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Nerdfest · 2012-06-03 06:13 · Score: 1

Apple TV is more likely to be a big screen phone, running iOS. If they plan on continuing with their content censorship they may also limit their success, unless they decide they want to be the next Disney.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:33 · Score: 2

DirecTV is the player that has all the pieces.
It's Apple and the rest of the cabal that don't have all of the pieces. ALL of them are at the mercy of content owners that may not want to cooperate and network owners that may not want to cooperate.
Those are also the same companies that are the incumbents.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:35 · Score: 1

An AppleTV works great as a big screen computer.
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't actually allow that. You have to jailbreak it just to get apps that are freely available on other PhoneOS devices.
It's even more restricted than regular iDevices.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Kohath · 2012-06-03 07:43 · Score: 1

... that you somehow meaningfully interact with from 8 feet away.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:55 · Score: 0

Colligan wouldn't have drawn a distinction.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by zzatz · 2012-06-03 08:58 · Score: 1

PC has two meanings. It originally stood for "Personal Computer", back in the days when it referred to an Apple II or TRS-80. Then IBM entered the home market and named their first model the "IBM PC". That created confusion, with people using "PC" as shorthand for "IBM PC compatible". IBM gave later models other names, but the damage was done. Now IBM no longer sells personal computers for you desktop or laptop, but the ambiguous name lingers.
The quote clearly refers to the original meaning, personal computer. He's comparing to classes of devices, phones and personal computers, not specific brands or types of each.
In today's market, the distinguishing feature is not compatibility with an ancient IBM model, but that a particular computer runs Microsoft Windows. That's a better label than PC. Mac vs. Windows (implied 'computer') makes sense. Mac vs. PC doesn't, not if you unpack it to Personal Computer.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 10:59 · Score: 0

My parents ditched Comcast in 2005, my dad bitched about the dish at first, but ultimately they get all the channels they're apying for which with Comcast was never the case. Originally Viacom was providing the service in my home town and each and every time a new company would buy rights to the neighborhood the quality would go down and the price would go up.
DirecTV actually cares about the quality of the reception and customer service. My parents have gotten a couple calls from them concerned that the reception wasn't what it should be because the QA testing said that it might not be good enough. The only times they've ever had problems was when the dish was covered in snow.
Cable, not so much.
In terms of Apple TV, I can't blame DirecTV for being so cavalier about it, there's still a ton of people that want what they're selling and I can't imagine that changing any time soon.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 12:02 · Score: 1

Ummm how is DirecTV not at the mercy of the content providers like everyone else? Just like cable, DirecTV has had issues with content like local channels.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:16 · Score: 1

DirecTV has problems with marginal increases that impact all of their legacy rivals equally. They don't have to worry about being completely shut out like Apple or having prices go up 10x or 100x like Netflix.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by the_B0fh · 2012-06-03 13:49 · Score: 1

you know that. I know that. The average man in the street really doesn't give a shit about that. Just as 3TB means 3 trillion bytes to normal people and not 3,298,534,883,328 bytes.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 14:02 · Score: 1

Explain to me if HBO decides to increase 10x with DirecTV, how are they just as powerless to stop is as much as every cable provider? Explain to me if Warner Brothers decides to charge DirecTV 2x for pay-per-view for movies, how DirecTV is any different than cable system? DirecTV may have better negotiators than Netflix and may have more subscribers, but they are still at the mercy of the content providers.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 21:42 · Score: 0

Just as 3TB means 3 trillion bytes to normal people and not 3,298,534,883,328 bytes.
Do you really think "the average man in the street" has the slightest idea what a terabyte is? I doubt most of them even know what megabytes and gigabytes are well enough to pin a specific number on them, if at all.
Re:Kind of reminds me of by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-03 23:47 · Score: 1

Except that Apple is the one company that managed to convince both the RIAA and the MPAA that digital distribution is a good idea, and signed them. Oh, and NBC, CBS, and ABC.
Cracking those nuts is way harder than ESPN and Discovery. You get those two networks, the rest will play ball.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

"Extra box"? by danaris · 2012-06-03 04:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Given all the rumours, it sounds more and more likely that Apple will be releasing an actual TV set of one sort or another. That wouldn't be an "extra box," it would just be a replacement TV.

I wonder what Mr. White would think of the chances of that sort of "Apple TV"?

Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.

Re:"Extra box"? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-06-03 04:47 · Score: 1

He'd probably think the market of people who want to pay for a whole new TV isn't all that big.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"Extra box"? by Crasoose · 2012-06-03 04:48 · Score: 1, Informative

Looks like there will be a box, here is a link from apple themselves: http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/buystrip_hero.png
Re:"Extra box"? by spire3661 · 2012-06-03 04:54 · Score: 1

Everything that will be on Apple iTV will also be on the current AppleTV

--
Good-bye
Re:"Extra box"? by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-03 05:07 · Score: 1

Looks like there will be a box, here is a link from apple themselves:
http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/buystrip_hero.png

Did you just whoosh us?
Are you trying to be subtly humorous?
Or have you completely missed the fact that the little "Apple TV" picture you linked has been for sale for a couple of years and isn't the mythical Apple "Living Room Killer" device that the Jobsian disciples are fervently praying for?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:"Extra box"? by danaris · 2012-06-03 05:35 · Score: 2

He'd probably think the market of people who want to pay for a whole new TV isn't all that big.
Except that X thousand people buy new TVs every year. Sure, it's not a growing market like smartphones and tablets, but it's not like a TV is a "buy once, use forever" thing.
And if Apple's TV set offered something especially compelling—like enough content deals with the major providers that you could cancel your cable or satellite service, and still get all the shows you liked as they aired, for a competitive price—then people might find reasons to replace their old TVs with one.
Not saying I have any particular reason to believe that Apple has achieved that, just that it's the kind of thing I would expect them to consider necessary and sufficient to release such a TV.
Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Re:"Extra box"? by Patch86 · 2012-06-03 07:04 · Score: 1

Speaking of which, that's what Google TV is aiming for too. Not to mention all the Samsung "smart TVs", and no-doubt other proprietary takes on the concept.
Although none of them have exactly stormed the market yet, I'm of the opinion that we're still waiting for a break-through model, the same as happened with the iPhone and smartphones. Might be Apple TV, might be Google TV, might be something else- but when it happens, subscriber satellite/cable providers will start to feel the effects.
Re:"Extra box"? by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:36 · Score: 0

> Except that X thousand people buy new TVs every year.
Other companies that actually make TVs are already seeing demand fall off. The big forced upgrade is over with now and people are generally resisting further attempts to create another one.
People arne't that rich and the economy isn't that good either.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:"Extra box"? by Ronin+Developer · 2012-06-03 07:57 · Score: 1

The initial, recent, push to buying TVs was due to digital TV becoming mandatory. But, now, there is very little reason to buy once you have a TV.
Enter Apple - like the iPhone revolution which spawn the smartphone movement - Apple TV may be poised to revolutionize TV. If I can buy a TV with it built in, great. If I have a legacy TV, the $99 price tag for another box won't deter me - if it really revolutionizes the way we view TV.
A new ecosystem will emerge as content is developed by iOS vendors to further customize the viewing experience. I look forward to it.
Right now, I watch Netflix through my Wii. My HD tv is too old to have it built in. And, it's not HD. But, who cares? It works well.
As long as I can still get the channels and shows I enjoy watching (at a reasonable price) and Netfix (without the Wii), I will consider this as a nice addition.
Re:"Extra box"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 11:10 · Score: 0

The mistake they made there was going without any options for legacy. I was thinking of buying one for my parents, but it would have been like $300 for the box and probably another $300 or so for converters because the TV didn't support HDMI or probably $500 or $600 at least for an HDTV that would fit where the old TV was.
I like the idea, but that's just way out of my price range for a gift.

heh by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-06-03 04:46 · Score: 1

That's a dumb thing to say in virtually any context. It's especially dumb in this one because of Apple's excellent track record in bringing a good end-user experience. If the AppleTV rumors are true, the ability to to tell my remote "I want to watch Boardwalk Empire" or "record all new episodes of Game of Thrones" could be a game changer that will cause DirecTV to scramble to catch up.

That said, I do think he can afford to be somewhat defiant about it. A $1,500 50" TV is not likely to sell like hotcakes. If Apple holds to their current pattern he's got time to react.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Re:heh by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-03 05:13 · Score: 2, Funny

"TV, I'd like to watch 'Boardwalk Empire'"
"Mobile Tata - I don't understand boardwalk empire."
"TV, play 'Boardwalk Empire'"
"I couldn't find 'Boardwalk Empire' in your music, Mobile Tata.
"Oh fuck it, make me some popcorn"
"I'd blush if I could"
Somehow, I don't see this as working out too well
(Dialog pulled directly from yeah-but-it's-still-a-beta Siri)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:heh by jo_ham · 2012-06-03 05:21 · Score: 1

"Play 'Boardwalk Empire'"
"Did you mean "'The Empire Strikes Back'?"
"No!"
"Do you want to watch the original where Han shoots first or the ultra hyper mega blu-ray edition with Hayden Christensen CGIed into every second scene?"
"No!"
"Playing movie"
Re:heh by quacking+duck · 2012-06-03 05:57 · Score: 1

The last major product line Apple introduced was the iPad in 2010, which stunned analysts because it cost half what they confidently priced the rumoured device at.
Yes, it was half of what a full-blown computer could do, but obviously consumers have decreed it the right half.
And while some claim the iPad isn't a "real" productivity environment so it shouldn't be considered in the same league as a desktop/laptop, a TV with PVR, game console, internet box, etc, is almost exclusively a content consumption or gaming device anyway, which iOS excels at. A full-blown Apple TV can't be dismissed as "just a toy" because it doesn't have a full office suite.
A small prediction: If Apple does release a full-blown TV, it will not have HDMI ports, but Thunderbolt ports instead, which at 2x 10 Gbps channels has almost twice the bitrate of HDMI (10.2 Gbps) and might support daisy-chaining better than HDMI. This is additional cost to the end user, but Apple's well known for leaving off ports to save space or costs, and requiring pricey adapters.
Re:heh by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:44 · Score: 2

No. But a full blown AppleTV can be dismissed as a toy for not being able to tune or decode a TV broadcast, play a raw DVD or BD file, or play your very own home videos just pulled off your USB camera or smartphone.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:heh by whisper_jeff · 2012-06-03 08:24 · Score: 2

A $1,500 50" TV is not likely to sell like hotcakes. If Apple holds to their current pattern he's got time to react.
Some people thought the same thing in regards to the iPhone. Ask a couple companies, RIM first among them, how that worked out.
If they aren't already reacting in some way or another, it's already too late.
Re:heh by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:19 · Score: 2

You are talking about one heavily subsidized comm device versus another one.
I bet you like to whine about how "Android devices are cheap" too.
People generally do not pay full price for phones and there is no one to subsidize the cost of a TV.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 15:07 · Score: 0

Because what really screams good end user experience is locking the platform down tight and hockey puck mouses.

Idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:48 · Score: 0

What an idiot.

The TV industry as it stands now is a disaster. Apple is the most likely company to step in and fix things. We are not happy with the current business model, and few companies ever survive a transition to a new business model.

I'm not sure if Apple will succeed, but at the very least Michael White should be worried. Very worried.

Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

You know, I don't own any Apple products, and I don't particularly have any plans to at this particular moment. (Not that I have anything against it.) But is there seriously no other company in the industry competent enough to step into a market and kick everyone in the ass in the way Apple has been doing? Music players, phones, tablets, ultrabooks, etc., and now potentially TVs. Where will the industry go after TVs? Or will Apple have to hold everyone's hands in that adventure too?
Re:Idiot by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:46 · Score: 1

I have an AppleTV and I'm not impressed. While the devices are cheap, the selection is limited. Your average viewer is not going to compromise. They will see that they can't get current episodes of "some random show" and that will end their love affair with Apple real quick.
Roku has the same problem. So does Netflix.
No amount of "design magic" will help them this time.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Idiot by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-06-03 07:46 · Score: 2

But is there seriously no other company in the industry competent enough to step into a market and kick everyone in the ass in the way Apple has been doing?
Apparently not. From my reading of the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson, who appears to be a detached, more-or-less objective outsider with no dog in the fight, it appears that media industry executives really are the overpaid imbeciles that we've always suspected they were. Or, more accurately and less facetiously, they're the laziest fuckers this side of Mars.
On both the production and distribution side, the media companies are run by overgrown fratboys who could just as easily have gone into fast food franchising or insurance underwriting. Without some messianic figure to tell them where to go, what to do, how to do it, and how to zip their pants up when they're done, they really are completely hopeless. You can count on these people to behave self-destructively in the absence of adult supervision.
It apparently took every hand-waving, smoke-blowing, reality-distorting trick in Jobs's repertoire to get the music people on board with iTunes, and to keep Disney from destroying Pixar. Tim Cook is OK at the business of running Apple, but he is no Steve Jobs, and it's not clear who is going to pull the media companies' asses out of the fire this time.
For a while I thought Reed Hastings might be the one to step in and drive the necessary changes. But he's more like Steve the Grey than Steve the White. Jeff Bezos? Who knows.
I wouldn't count on anything to change soon.
Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:41 · Score: 0

There's one company that's close. They've got the design acumen to build the right product and the vision to move the industry forward. The only thing that they lack is the ability to break the entrenched players stranglehold on the industry.
But if Apple can do that, TiVo has everything else to be able to follow in their footsteps and design competing products.

Talking to your Apple TV by Flector · 2012-06-03 04:53 · Score: 2

I could be wrong, but laying on a couch and talking to your TV for hours on end has the potential to be a soul-deadening experience.

Re:Talking to your Apple TV by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:06 · Score: 0

I think you're right. Especially if it talks back.
I hate telephone phone trees that force you to interrupt the nice robot. I feel so rude.
Re:Talking to your Apple TV by ColdWetDog · 2012-06-03 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

I could be wrong, but laying on a couch and talking to your TV for hours on end has the potential to be a soul-deadening experience.
As if laying on your couch and simply watching your TV is the pinnacle of Western Civilization?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Talking to your Apple TV by khipu · 2012-06-03 05:39 · Score: 1

As if laying on your couch and simply watching your TV is the pinnacle of Western Civilization?
TV, that's like a rotary phone, right? Some weird 20th century tech that old people are fond of, right?

Apple TV hype? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:54 · Score: 1

I wasn't even aware there was Apple TV hype. I thought that thing had come had gone.

Re:Apple TV hype? by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:22 · Score: 1, Troll

Fanboys have been trying to whip up some hype about some mythical transformative Apple Television for a number of months now. It's been hard to miss really.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

DirectTV scoffs by asmiller1950 · 2012-06-03 04:54 · Score: 2

He should be VERY careful about what Apple initiatives he dismisses so blithely. A lot of giants have fallen with such an attitude and we're all better for it.

p2p, for you and for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:55 · Score: 1

Then get it fresh from your friendly local neighbourhood torrent site, usenet server or ftp stash.

If you are of the worrying kind, pay $10 for a VPN not part of your local jurisdiction to completely avoid nastygrams from the star-double-A mob.

Re:p2p, for you and for me by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2012-06-03 06:41 · Score: 1

How does that work? The MAFIAA will just subpoena the VPN provider to get your subscriber info, so you've only added one minor step to their legal workflow. Their "local jurisdiction" apparently ends at the border of the Oort cloud.
In fact, you may actually be saving them some work, if the VPN provider is hosting a lot of piratically-inclined users. One subpoena could get them n subscriber records in that case.
Re:p2p, for you and for me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:52 · Score: 0

They can, but they don't. My provider is in Turkey, and it just isn't worth the MPAAs time to hassle them when they can simply send a "settle-or-else" to some some family.
It isn't about stopping piracy, it's about getting paid.

He's probably right by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 04:57 · Score: 1

Both Apple and Google have tried this before. It's turned out that TV is a tough market to break into. Obviously, nothing is ever completely certain, but odds are he will be proven right.

RIM by codepunk · 2012-06-03 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

RIM thought the very same thing until Apple handed them their ass.

--

Got Code?

Re:RIM by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 09:37 · Score: 1

To be fair, both Apple and Google were responsible for this as they targeted consumers which were under-served by the likes of RIM. That and times changed. Businesses realized not every employee needs ultra-secure phones and if employees want to pay for phones themselves, it helps them with costs.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

What is he supposed to say???? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:00 · Score: 1

Is he supposed to say: "Apple's interface will surely be much better than the one we've spent the last 10 years working on and we expect to lose much if not all of our customers to the Apple juggernaut."

I doubt that their shareholders would be very pleased with such pronouncements.

Re:What is he supposed to say???? by BenJeremy · 2012-06-03 05:20 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is he supposed to say: "Apple's interface will surely be much better than the one we've spent the last 10 years working on and we expect to lose much if not all of our customers to the Apple juggernaut."
I doubt that their shareholders would be very pleased with such pronouncements.
Of course! The Followers of the Book of Jobs demand that all potential competitors bow down before the greatness of all that is Apple and its greatness, surrender to the forces of the inevitable, and acknowledge they are powerless to stop the Cupertino Juggernaut.
but... considering Apple has been trying to do this for years, already, and failed so far... and no longer enjoys the presence of the Best Leader to guide the holy jihad against regular TV... AND most consumers prefer buffet pricing for things like media, the DirectTV guy might have a point, too.
Why is anybody excited over an overpriced TV and pay-per-view pricing (that pretty much only works well for Wrestling, Boxing and Porn), just because it's got an Apple brand name?
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:25 · Score: 0

Its better because its apple. Slap an apple logo on an empty cardboard box and millions will buy it.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by gstrickler · 2012-06-03 05:38 · Score: 2

No, but he should take Andy Grove's advice, "Only the Paranoid Survive". It's a book he should read.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:46 · Score: 0

Why is anybody excited over an overpriced TV and pay-per-view pricing (that pretty much only works well for Wrestling, Boxing and Porn), just because it's got an Apple brand name?
The same reason anybody was excited over an overpriced mp3 player a decade ago?
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by Kohath · 2012-06-03 06:26 · Score: 1

My TV "interface" is an ON button. It also functions as an OFF button.
I hope I get the chance to pay Apple $2000 to revolutionize this interface.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:48 · Score: 1

Different circumstances have different requirement different challenges. You can't just conflate the two. No amount of wishful thinking will alter that.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:49 · Score: 0

Slap an apple user interface on an empty cardboard box and millions will buy it.
FTFY
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by tgibbs · 2012-06-03 17:48 · Score: 1

Overpriced? Probably a nonstarter. Similarly priced to other major manufacturer TV sets with a novel and improved user experience? That could sell.
I have to laugh when DirecTV talks about the interface they spent the last 10 years working on, because basically they are talking about trying to copy the two-decades old TiVo interface and doing a mediocre job of it. Fortunately, DirecTV now offers an authentic TiVo that is only slightly inferior to stand-alone TiVos. The TiVo interface is marvelous, and well up to the standard of Apple's user interface design, but it has advanced only modestly in two decades. So if Apple has indeed come up with the next step in user interface design, the time is right.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by MachineShedFred · 2012-06-03 23:55 · Score: 1

How about: "Well, we haven't seen any product announcements from Apple yet. We're very interested in seeing what they may come up with due to their track record of making incredible technology easy to use, but in the meantime we're going to continue shipping a product that 12 million customers enjoy every day."
That's what he should have said.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? by Khashishi · 2012-06-04 07:52 · Score: 1

No, he is supposed to say, "We will crush Apple, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their shareholders."

DirecTV good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:02 · Score: 0

I like DirecTV. It is reliable and has better standard packages than other suppliers such as Comcast, DishTV and Warner. I have one place with Fios and one with DirecTV and Fios has reliability issues in simply keeping a show playing while you watch it. They have occasional network downtimes.

I got a quote from Verizon to install broadband and TV at a new address and they refused to unbundle TV from Fios so I could use my existing DirecTV account. I wanted to bundle broadband, wireless, and even dial up which is still used in rural communities here in CA where there is no Fios, DSL or even wireless data! Cavemen!

Nope. No electrons for you.

So near as I can tell the way to roll is to get the new higher bandwidth Fios for $90/mo, subscribe to DirecTV and use their free any screen service to view it over broadband in any placed a cable box is not in place. I wonder if I can play my DVR content over broadband? I think yes.

I would hope AppleTV is a concatenation of subscribed services managed in a unified menuing and DVR system with unlimited storage since X users can mirror the same content which indexes to a single file.

The only limitation is to get existing cable and satellite and broadband vendors to cooperate with Apple making their services easier to actually use. A system like that would encourage folks to subscribe to MORE premium services because it would be LESS hassle.

JJ

I'm the one he's not worried about. by __aazsst3756 · 2012-06-03 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

At one time hooked to our TV was a DirecTV box only. Today we have (in order of usage):

- Apple TV. This is what the kids hit first when looking for something to watch. Mostly Netflix cartoons, our Vimeo home videos, and our Photo Stream. We have never purchased or rented a program from Apple!

- XBox with Kinect for a gaming fix.

- Old re-purposed Dell. This is full of all the DVD's I did not want my kids destroying (locked safely away, and yes we do own them), and a way to access anything on the net the first two don't.

- A real antenna. Sports look horrible on my friends HDTV with all the compression! (needs fed through the computer... someday).

I would be OK with just the first two if Apple would open the interface up for more content. I would happily pay a small ($1-5) monthly fee for channels such as Discovery, Science, etc. I'm guessing this will only happen once these channels are replaced by new content producers that are 'net only.

Re:I'm the one he's not worried about. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:49 · Score: 0

Just curious. What kind of antenna are you using? I'm contemplating dropping Dish, but don't have a decent replacement for it yet.
Re:I'm the one he's not worried about. by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:53 · Score: 1

> - Apple TV. This is what the kids hit first when looking
> for something to watch. Mostly Netflix cartoons, our
> Vimeo home videos, and our Photo Stream. We have
> never purchased or rented a program from Apple!
The kid found a new show he liked on Netflix. Unfortunately, it turned out that Netflix only has 2 out of 10 seasons of that show. So after watching those 2, it was back to PVR.
Dinosaurs 1 - Netlix 0
The grandparents also dropped streaming from their Netflix account when the price hikes were announced.
Dinosaurs 2 - Netflix 0
If you don't really care what it is you watch, you could just use an antenna.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Subject? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:09 · Score: 0

While I don't suspect he's got much to worry about in the short term (what with the beast that is the HR34), long term, they're going to have to step up. I wish I could watch my local content with their receivers (which, I can't if said local content is video).

Re:Subject? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:12 · Score: 1

Oh yeah.
One other thing. DirecTV doesn't really have to worry about broadband caps, either. So, there's that.

AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data costs by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 05:11 · Score: 0

AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data costs do you really think Comcast will give them a free ride??

Satellite is the extra box by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:13 · Score: 0

So this guy recons that satellite TV is going to beat out the internet as a content distribution channel?

Somewhere there is a bridge waiting to be sold to this man.

Re:Satellite is the extra box by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 08:00 · Score: 1

Broadcast IS a superior distribution channel.
It allows one unit of bandwidth to serve 300 million customers at the same time.
It's O(c) versus O(n).
What's monthly your bandwidth cap? My cable service can deliver 3TB of HD h264 video in a month. That's my current PVR setup. If I had more tuners, that number would be higher.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

haunt him? no by optimism · 2012-06-03 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

So, will White's statement — 'It's hard to see (it) obsoleting our technology' — come back to haunt him?

Short answer: No.

The CEO of DirecTV obviously has better intel about the TV/video distribution market, than any slashdotter posting here.

Is AppleTV a threat to them? I don't know, and it really doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that AppleTV is a huge threat, and that DirecTV is doomed, and one man, even the CEO, cannot effect the sweeping market changes to reverse this course.

White's motivation, as with any CEO of a publicly-traded company in the Wall St system, is to maximize his income. He does that by keeping the stock price as high as possible, for as long as possible, even in the face of a known inevitable demise. Then when profitability is clearly compromised, he can collect large compensation for sticking with a "troubled company". Or just jump immediately to the next company. Rinse, repeat, retire.

This is the way the current system works. The CEO is not an "idiot" for not publicly recognizing threats that he/she absolutely knows about. Quite the contrary. His behavior is "smart". It's the overall rules of the system that are "dumb".

Re:haunt him? no by kamapuaa · 2012-06-03 06:05 · Score: 1

Right, to be ethical they need to get a CEO who sells a product he is pretty maudlin about, and thinks won't be very successful in the face of a product which essentially came out in 2007 and hasn't even touched their business.
Maybe instead of a standard investor meeting, he can say "Well who cares anyway, it's just a stupid TV company. Don't people have anything better to do?"

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:haunt him? no by tdarklighter · 2012-06-03 06:37 · Score: 1

Perfectly stated, my thoughts exactly.
Re:haunt him? no by Anubis+IV · 2012-06-03 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think you're missing the obvious: poor insight on their part can sink their careers. Rather than comparing what he's saying to Ballmer, I find it more apt to compare it to something said by Ed Colligan, the former CEO of Palm, about two months prior to the iPhone's announcement:

We’ve learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone. PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They’re not going to just walk in.
After being ousted as Palm's president and CEO, he ended up with the investment group that had sunk money into Palm. That didn't go too well, last I checked, and I haven't found any evidence of him being an executive anywhere else. His failure to recognize the threat to his business, despite having better info than the usual slashdotter, wasn't merely a public facade. His career has never been the same, and that's why his quote has doubtless come back to haunt him. The same may be true here if DirectTV's CEO is in denial of a credible threat. Putting on a strong public face is fine, so long as behind the scenes he's actually working on something to counter the threat.
That said, you are absolutely correct that until we see what's announced, we have no way of knowing if it's an actual threat or not. As such, the smart thing for him to have said would have been, "We don't comment on hypothetical products." Anything more than that and he's setting himself up, in the case of Apple entering the market and succeeding, to be derided as someone who was caught with their pants down and their head in the sand. That's not an image that makes for healthy careers.
Re:haunt him? no by Idbar · 2012-06-03 07:15 · Score: 1

Actually, in many places, even in the US, they have the advantage of easy deployment. They put their antenna, aim it, and done. Cable/ISP need to wire a bunch of houses for them to have a respectable BW.

I had a very bad experience with DirectTV customer service though, so I don't want them near my house. But I can agree they have certain advantage over internet only TV.
Re:haunt him? no by whisper_jeff · 2012-06-03 08:19 · Score: 1

You know, in the general sense, I agree with your thesis but, in practice, you're 100% wrong. When the CEO of a company announces to the world something that highlights how utterly clueless and/or off-course they are, that should serve as a sign to investors that they need to get their money out of the company as fast as possible and start shorting the stock because bad times are coming. And, quite frankly, any CEO that claims that they're not afraid of Apple entering their market is an idiot.
Apple now has a strong track record of disrupting markets and flipping things on their head. Need an immensely obvious example (out of many possible choices)? Take a look at RIM. When the iPhone came out, some phone makers scrambled to change their products to follow Apple's lead (some more glaringly than others) while RIM steadfastly claimed they had nothing to fear from Apple - they knew the market better than Apple did. Now? RIM is in absolute free fall with their market share vanishing and their profits gone and their cash reserves about to be devoured. At the rate they're going, they'll be on the verge of bankrupt in 2 to 3 years, max. Because they didn't address the entrance of Apple into their market until it was way, way, way too late (and I could easily make the argument that they still haven't addressed Apple's entrance into the smartphone market...).
DirecTV is either terrified of Apple coming to play in their sandbox or they're absolute morons. Either way, when the CEO stands up and says that he's not afraid of Apple, that tells me he's either clueless or a off-course. Either way, as an investor, I'd be getting my money out of the company DAMN fast and I'd start shorting the stock.
No, I'm not suggesting he stand up and say he's terrified of what Apple's going to do to his business - that would be stupid too. What I suggest is either say nothing at all or stand up and say you already have a plan to ensure that you remain a leader in your market even with Apple entering the fray and you're confident in your team to adapt and evolve to any new innovations that may enter the market. Make it clear that you recognize what is about to happen and you're prepared for it because I assure you everyone else with a vague hint of a clue knows what's about to happen... Most importantly, however, do not say you're not worried - that's either a lie or you're stupid.
Re:haunt him? no by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:48 · Score: 0

Short answer is evolve or die. Most CEOs aren't smart enough to do this, denial is much easier. You give too much credit to these psychopaths.
Re:haunt him? no by optimism · 2012-06-03 10:47 · Score: 1

...in the general sense, I agree with your thesis but, in practice, you're 100% wrong. When the CEO of a company announces to the world something that highlights how utterly clueless and/or off-course they are, that should serve as a sign to investors that they need to get their money out of the company as fast as possible
Emphasis mine.
You seem to assume that all investors think like you and know exactly what you know, despite the fact that you're posting on slashdot, which implies you are "smarter money" than the average shmoe.
So yes, you might see some "utterly clueless" announcement (in your informed opinion) and short the stock. Of course, assuming you were following the news, not busy with other matters, and actually saw the announcement.
But the vast majority of shareholders and fund managers are not aware of the market. They only hear the CEO's public message that "all is well", if that, and stay the course. Stocks are a long-term investment after all, that's what the wolves have taught the sheep. ;)
In the meantime, in the upper echelons, friends of the company can get a very different private message from the CEO, which tells them to bail during the PR delay, before the dumb money figures it out.
NOTE: I am not in any way saying that is the case here. I do not know or follow this market at all. Frankly it seems to me that satellite TV and internet TV are radically different markets for radically different audiences/geographies. I'm just explaining one of the reasons that the "free" public news from a CEO's announcement might not agree with what the smart money hears and understands, but still be "smart".
Re:haunt him? no by strikethree · 2012-06-03 13:24 · Score: 1

The CEO of DirecTV obviously has better intel about the TV/video distribution market, than any slashdotter posting here.
Tell that to the CEO of 3DFX who said something similar about a small/cheap startup called NVidia. I am sure he knew better than us too.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Well lets see by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-06-03 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

...I've been a directv subscriber since around 1994 when they had 50,000 customers and have their current HD DVR technology.

Pro's: nice picture quality, lots of channels, plenty of downloadable shows.

Cons: Cant stream anything except youtube from a search. No netflix. No hulu. Have to download all shows which can take quite a while and can only start viewing when you have buffered a lot. Most hardware platforms are slower than molasses going uphill on a cold monday morning, and if your brand new HR24 craps out, chances are they'll ship you a replacement HR 20/21/22 that are basically too slow to use. You hit a button on the remote and a while later something happens. Completely opposed to and unsupporting of anything coming through the box that isn't directv supplied and branded.

In short, unacceptable for 2012, poised for a major faceplant from someone elses set top box. Obstructionism and protectionism only work until someone has something as good for less money that works better. I don't think thats Apple TV because I can't see anyone seriously spending a couple of bucks per tv show. Netflix and hulu are incomplete. But as soon as someone puts out a streaming package with full sports, all local broadcast and pretty much everything I can get from directv minus the big dish and tons of wires and little boxes for under $100...directv will start hemorrhaging money and subscribers.

Having had the chance to speak to a number of directv senior and middle management, they consider the customer a barely necessary evil and have absolutely no idea as to how to treat customers. When you're the best show in town, you can get away with that.

Re:Well lets see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 13:02 · Score: 0

I agree 100% with your cons. Directv should double down on delighting their customers. Load Netflix, Hulu, and all these other services. Make it so good that nobody bothers to think about AppleTV, Roku, or any of the other cheap boxes out there.
Re:Well lets see by ChrisMaple · 2012-06-04 07:10 · Score: 1

I have a current DirecTV DVR and in the past had a DirecTIVO. Tivo updated the software for their DVR several times while I owned it. It was never as bad as the newer DirecTV DVR, which DirecTV has never bothered to update and which has several irritating flaws like falling out of menus. DirecTV isn't interested, and won't even respond to a written complaint.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Well lets see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 17:17 · Score: 0

> don't think thats Apple TV because I can't see anyone seriously spending a couple of bucks per tv show.
Why? I did this for a long time. (Though I only bought SD versions of most of the shows...). A couple of shows a week is still cheaper than cable TV - and you get to keep them! I have, f.e. all of Law and Order on my HDD (and a backup). The only bad thing is that they come DRMed. (That can easily be fixed though with a certain software I won't mention here).
For example 1 show every single day for a month $2 x 30 = $60. I routinely hear US people complain about their high cable bill, so tf you are watching to much TV that iTunes will cost more than your cable bill - no offense, but I think you should re-examine your habits. (Or maybe you don't need to keep the shows if you watch that much, so just go for streaming).
>Netflix and hulu are incomplete.
I recently switched from using iTunes for most things to a combination of Tsutaya Discas (like Netflix mail order DVDs), and Hulu. We don't have streaming Netflix or amazon video in Japan. The Hulu is like $10 per month or less, and it has an awful lot of stuff. If you want something in particular that Hulu doesn't have, maybe Google play or someone else has it.
I will agree that right now the rent vs. buy prices are out of sync. The buy prices should be cheaper, especially for DRM laden digital-only copies. At least with iTunes, you can re-download stuff you have used in the past.
Re:Well lets see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 03:37 · Score: 0

as usual, i will disclaim myself as a directv employee. i will also disclaim this comment as being my own opinion and not that of the company.
i think you have the reality of providing content down. everyone says a la carte is the way of the future and will be here soon. unfortunately, none of the providers (and i mean content providers like hbo, not service providers like directv) have found a way to make money doing this. the reason is content production is much like gambling. a few wild successes pay for the much more numerous failures (ie canceled shows and movies that lose money). no matter how long someone works in the industry, no one really knows what shows will succeed ahead of time. in that sense, directv's (and probably most tv providers') pricing is sort of like insurance in that you don't individually pay for what you individually get. instead, everyone collectively pays for what everyone collectively gets. while you may only watch 3 channels, the other people with your package watch a different 3 channels. yes, you are subsidizing all the other channels, but everyone else is subsidizing your favorites also.
a few great shows can divorce themselves from this, but even hbo, which has had a long string of successes, will probably be bitten eventually if they try to do a la carte only forever. in other words, i don't think apple or anyone else can innovate their way to "streaming package with full sports, all local broadcast and pretty much everything i can get from directv minus the big dish and tons of wires and little boxes for under $100" easily or perhaps even at all. technology is such a small portion of the bill, even if you can write it down to $0, you won't save the customer a whole lot. believe me, if directv could get rid of the dish (seriously, can you really call it "big?"), wires and boxes, i'm pretty sure they would.
i'm not sure which senior and middle management you've spoken to, but word from up on high (ie mike white himself) is that customer satisfaction is the top priority for the year.

you can't get HBO on it's own and not IPTV only as by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 05:20 · Score: 1

you can't get HBO on it's own and not IPTV only as well. and then if you can get that there is still the ISP data fees as well.

You must take a base package or on the hidden but in the old FCC law of limited basic + HBO + maybe a cable card + SDV tuner (very unapple and not likely to be on a apple tv) or the even bigger mess of apple tv driving a cable tv box. that can be at the lowest level of useing IR blasters. and with that to make use of any kind of DVR like setup you may need more then 1 cable box and then there may be HDCP issues as well.

I don't think apple will want to put up with the cable card mess as it can be a big customer service issues with lot's of finger pointing with apple on one side and the cable co on the other.

ZOMG! Rly? by Lumpy · 2012-06-03 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

If Michael White is that stupid then it explains a lot. The Direct TV UI is completely horrid in every way. The guide sucks the menus suck, the remote sucks. It's better than the garbage that Comcast has, but only marginally. All of the Cable or Satellite providers have the crappiest UI possible on their boxes. Because they refuse to spend any money on them so they have the box engineers simply slap one together for the least possible cost.

Apple is going to wipe the floor with them. If apple finds a way to have a $45.00 a month subscription to most of the desired channels out there but in a On demand form, They will utterly destroy Dish and the others.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:ZOMG! Rly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:35 · Score: 0

If apple finds a way to have a $45.00 a month subscription to most of the desired channels out there but in a On demand form, They will utterly destroy Dish and the others.
That's kind of key there (well, kind of. Your price is far too high. If they can get every single thing Direct TV offers, no exception, for $30 a month, then yes). So far, all Apple has are overly expensive iTunes content. Without the content, they don't have a chance. And with only partial content, you'd just get netflix for cheaper.
People will put up with crappy software if that's the only they can get at the content. Windows really isn't bad now, but in the Windows Me day, there's a reason they still had a monopoly. How do you expect to convince someone to switch if they can't run their favorite software?
Re:ZOMG! Rly? by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-06-03 09:07 · Score: 2

If Apple manage to offer that overseas, they might have a winner; I for one would be all over it. I am hoping that one party will come along with enough marketing cloud to convince the content guys that global on demand is the future.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:ZOMG! Rly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 13:19 · Score: 0

You are correct. Only DirectTV doesn't see this coming and a few fools on Slashdot. DirectTV fucked up when the basically fucked over Tivo and went their own way with the DVR. Huge mistake. Apple will utterly destroy DirectTV in the next few years.
Re:ZOMG! Rly? by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:28 · Score: 1

When I can actually replace DirecTV with iTunes, I will buy into that idea and not a moment sooner.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

More channels = comfort by erp_consultant · 2012-06-03 05:25 · Score: 2

DirecTV, along with cable, have this model where you have to buy channels by the package not a la carte. So out of 200 channels maybe there are 10 that you watch regularly. Not only that but the default setting on DirecTV is to also show you the channels that you DON'T get to entice you to get them. This all plays in to the prevailing American mentality of "more is better". Big house, big SUV, big refrigerators, big everything. This is why Costco is so successful. Why buy 2 rolls of paper towel when you can buy 50? What does this have to do with DirecTV you might ask? I believe that there is a psychological comfort that people get with 200 channels even if you don't watch most of them. If it got pared down to just the channels you want I think that many people would feel cheated. "What...only 10 channels? But my buddy has 200!!". Unfortunately the wasteful-hoarder mentality works against the just-get-what-you-need mentality. I see this time and time again. People driving down the street in 9 passenger vehicles alone. People in the grocery store with enormous carts full of food. People buying big houses only to have several of the rooms never used. I'd love to see a la carte programming but I just don't see it catching on for the reasons above.

What extra box? by Enderandrew · 2012-06-03 05:28 · Score: 1

First off, if I want to add an HD receiver in my house from DirecTV, I'm sure I'll have to spend $99.

Secondly, hasn't Foxconn let the cat out of the bag that Apple is working on TV units with Apple TV functionality baked in? There won't be a need for an extra box anymore.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.

DirecTV channel map better then cable systems by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 05:31 · Score: 1

DirecTV channel map better then cable systems

#1
is that HD and SD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER or SAME NUMBER with a -1 at the end (part time over flows)
#2
RSN, ESPN, BIG TEN alts are mostly right next to the main channel (no hunting for your alt / over flow feeds)
#3
channels are grouped near each other in way that fit's in in good way. also all the HBO, MAX, SHOW,STARS channels are all right next to each other.
#4
sports games show in the guild as mostly (team name vs team name) cable just says stuff like MLB baseball or NHL hockey and you have click on to look at the more info page to see the team names. (that with hunting for the alt / over flow feeds makes it take more time)

Also better NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI with lots games with dual feed HD. Each pack has it's own channels and they are grouped right next to each other and with the team names in the guild you quickly see what game is on what channel.

If want to see a poor layed out line look at the Comcast Chicago land lineup manly the 100-300+ range.

Apple doesn't own a data path by Animats · 2012-06-03 05:31 · Score: 1

DirectTV has a satellite downlink, with their own satellites and antennas. AppleTV just has the Internet. Only in countries with net neutrality will Apple TV win out over the offerings of cable TV companies and telcos. The Comcast 300MB data cap is good for maybe 60-70 hours of HD video. Average American TV consumption is 5 hours a day.

Re:Apple doesn't own a data path by alexbgreat · 2012-06-03 10:27 · Score: 1

The Comcast 300MB data cap is good for maybe 60-70 hours of HD video.
That's an incredible codec!
Re:Apple doesn't own a data path by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 17:22 · Score: 0

5 hours a day?!?!
jesus christ! no wonder their economy sucks.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by the_B0fh · 2012-06-03 05:33 · Score: 0, Flamebait

What this is fucking free ride you are mumbling about? I paid for my pipe, and though it may be shared with my neighbors, it's none of your fucking business where I suck down my content from.

You are an idiot.

Already paid for the extra box. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 05:34 · Score: 0

People aren't willing to pay for an extra box? Tell that to me, with my Blu-ray, AppleTV, Roku (on the other tv) and DVR. This jackass already has my money with DirecTV (actually way better than any cable provider I've seen), so what does he care if I also stream netflix on my Apple TV, or listen Pandora on my Blu-Ray player? It's not like he's making less money a month from me.

neither by khipu · 2012-06-03 05:37 · Score: 1

Thanks, but I'll pass on both Apple TV and DirecTV; I think they both are awful.

Re:you can't get HBO on it's own and not IPTV only by cayenne8 · 2012-06-03 05:38 · Score: 2

...you can't get HBO on it's own...

Currently...true.

But what's to say that Apple isn't courting HBO and the like to be able to stream them through and AppleTV or like device?

As long as HBO get's their money, and potentially more customers...why would they not jump at this opportunity?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

TV is not UI-driven by Kohath · 2012-06-03 05:43 · Score: 0

TV isn't fundamentally interactive. Why do I need to pay extra for a slick Apple GUI to replace about 5 button presses on my remote?
And why should we believe Apple will have access to TV content on better financial terms than DirecTV? ITunes consistently has worse pricing than Amazon and Zune (XBox) marketplace.

A TV is not a tablet computer, and a TV is not a handheld computer (a.k.a. mobile phone). What does Apple really have to offer TV watchers?

Re:TV is not UI-driven by blahbooboo · 2012-06-03 05:56 · Score: 2

I somehow think (and expect) that Apple knows this and has more "up it's sleeve" than what any of us are guessing...
Re:TV is not UI-driven by Kohath · 2012-06-03 06:07 · Score: 1

They haven't announced a TV. Apple is probably working on lots of products they haven't announced. The ones that don't make sense get cancelled before they are announced.
I think it's possible Apple will re-invent TV somehow. But they will have to do something really big, like buying some huge content production company (such as Viacom) or creating a new video game platform to rival Xbox and Playstation. Otherwise it's just an overpriced version of the TV monitor I already have.
Re:TV is not UI-driven by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 09:21 · Score: 1

In my opinion, TVs are getting much more functionality but a lack of coherence in the UI. How many buttons do you have on your TV remote? I count 30 on mine some of which I have never used. I have cable but their program guide UI sucks to no end. Maybe Apple can do what it does best and simplify but still retain functionality. The other thing Apple might bring is better management of content. Cable, DVDs, Netflix, etc. We'll see.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Interesting timing by smurd · 2012-06-03 05:43 · Score: 1

I just dropped Dish Network in favor of Roku this month. I just found I wasn't watching any of the dish channels for the last 6 months.

With bundling cable tv is cheap by blahbooboo · 2012-06-03 05:45 · Score: 1

I keep tying to cut the cord but I pay with DVR HDTV about $35/month on RCN. Frankly, after i assemble all the services with their various monthly fees, and necessary hardware purchases to match what I get from RCN cable do I save enough (or anything) that the inconvenience of piecemealing is worthwhile.

Dumb question there... by jimicus · 2012-06-03 05:46 · Score: 1

Seriously, what sort of a question is that? "will White's statement — 'It's hard to see (it) obsoleting our technology' — come back to haunt him?"

He'd do well not to underestimate Apple - they've got some damn good designers on staff and a team that's extremely good at turning technology on its head. And if there's one technology that's long overdue a head turning, it's TV.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by blahbooboo · 2012-06-03 05:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

What this is fucking free ride you are mumbling about? I paid for my pipe, and though it may be shared with my neighbors, it's none of your fucking business where I suck down my content from.

You are an idiot.

You had a nice rebuttal. The name calling was unnecessary and makes you look like the idiot. Try and just stick to your argument, youll get much farther in life...

Continue to drop? by Kohath · 2012-06-03 05:53 · Score: 2

Wikipedia says:

Year Subscribers
1994 320,000
1995 1,200,000
1996 2,300,000
1997 3,301,000
1998 4,458,000
1999 6,679,000
2000 9,554,000
2001 10,218,000
2002 11,181,000
2003 12,290,000
2004 13,000,000
2005 15,000,000
2006 15,950,000
2007 16,830,000
2008 17,620,000
2009 18,081,000
2010 19,200,000
2011 19,890,000 (DTV was hurt by the NFL lockout in 2011)

And they are expanding their service into Latin America.

comcast 300GB and then $10 per 50GB by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 05:58 · Score: 2

Comcast 300GB and then $10 per 50GB.

HD IPTV can burn cap fast and haveing HSI without cable tv costs more then HSI with cable tv.

Re:comcast 300GB and then $10 per 50GB by the_B0fh · 2012-06-03 14:00 · Score: 1

Just because you decide to let your ISP take advantage of you means that the entire industry should bend over and let Comcast take advantage of them too? Do you even understand how the fucking Internet works?
Here's what happens. Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, etc all have peering agreements. Think of it as separate clouds linking up at multiple points. Search for the term "peering arrangement".
If the inbound traffic and outbound traffic between comcast and AT&T is roughly equal, they call it a wash, and no money changes hands.
Apple already pays its ISP. Why should it pay Comcast again? If Apple's ISP needs to pay comcast, it's an issue between Apple's ISP and comcast. And if it affects the end users, then it's an issue between the end user and comcast, and an issue between Apple and its ISP, and Apple may well look for a new ISP.
Please explain where the fucking free ride comes from. Thanks.

well that stream may goes over cable ISP's by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 05:59 · Score: 1

well that stream may goes over cable ISP's.

So the cable co may push back at HBO over that and try to lock apple tv out of HBO.

All in favor of Apple TV by Tough+Love · 2012-06-03 06:03 · Score: 1

I for one would love to see Apple become a TV network so it can service its content consuming lockdown loving fan base as they deserve to be serviced, and just let its phone business quietly wither away.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by milkmage · 2012-06-03 06:16 · Score: 1

short answer: yes. (netflix too)
http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/17/comcast-kills-its-250gb-data-cap-is-testing-more-flexible-data-plans/

Comcast announced today that it is doing away with its 250 GB data cap, and will be moving to test out new plans will charge customers based on usage, rather than cutting them off.

Han didn't shoot first. by zippthorne · 2012-06-03 06:16 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Han shot. Greedo died.

Greedo never had a chance to shoot, because he was dead, from being too slow or perhaps from being too dimwitted to realize that he was making a threat that was just enough justification for Han to grasp a tenuous moral justification for what was arguably cold-blooded murder.

Alternately, there is a version out there where Greedo shoots Han from less than an arm's length away, misses by half that distance, and Han kills Greedo in perfectly justified self-defense.

That version is a little boringer, but also more publicly available. In neither version was there an additional shot *after* Han shoots.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Re:Han didn't shoot first. by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:41 · Score: 1

> a tenuous moral justification for what was arguably cold-blooded murder.
Is that you George?
It takes a real bleeding heart mindset addled with age to come up with a gem like that.
What Greedo was doing is called assault with a deadly weapon. What Han did was self defense in any civilized country. No justfication was required. Someone was pointing a gun at him.
Greedo would have.
Now gunning down an unarmed man is something else. That will get you shot by the sheriff in any western.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Han didn't shoot first. by MsWhich · 2012-06-03 07:43 · Score: 1

This post violates my self-imposed rule about not getting involved in Star Wars fights on the Internet, but:
If I tell someone about the scene in question, and they ask me, "Did Greedo shoot?" then a perfectly reasonable and accurate answer is: "No. Han shot first." I.e., Han shot before Greedo had the chance to do so. Would Greedo have shot him, given the chance? Maybe. We don't know. Han shot him first, before he had the chance to react. The word "first" in this situation does not necessarily imply the existence of multiple shots.
This may actually be the nerdiest thing I have ever posted online, which is really saying something.
Re:Han didn't shoot first. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 17:44 · Score: 0

Guys, guys, guys! I was really upset by all this stuff too, but then my mom told me that they are just movie characters. At first I didn't believe it, but I did some research and it's true. They aren't real!
Re:Han didn't shoot first. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 21:51 · Score: 0

zippthorne and George Lucas are movie characters now??

Most video/TV software has a bad UI by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:16 · Score: 0

I used Tivo for quite a while starting over a decade ago, have tried MythTV, XBMC, Boxee. These things actually don't seem bad at all, at the time you are using them. I remember thinking at the time, that I rather liked Tivo.

But do you know what beats the crap out of all of those, making them look like poorly-tested clumsy prototypes?

Thunar.

Not that I'm really a Thunar-lover (though I can't really think of any complaints off the top of my head) but user interfaces for navigating, sorting through, and performing operations (especially a "default operation") collections-of-things, have been evolving for decades. Regardless of what you think of the merits of any one particular one file manager, it has probably been playtested a hundred times better than any of these johnny-come-lately dedicated-to-video-files file managers. And like most hasty specializations, work with video files long enough and you start to realize there's very little "special" about them. Whatever operations you have had to do with both source code files and images and also the garbage collected in your home directory, you eventually end up having to do with your videos. Thunar is hardly the awesomest thing ever (but that's all subjective anyway -- personally I still miss DOpus 5.x) but creams XBMC. Even Windows 3.x's file manager is a better UI than, say, XBMC or Tivo!

I haven't seen DirectTV's interface but if it's still based on a handheld remote and oversized fonts in pursuit of the "10' interface" fad that nearly everyone else fell for too, then DirectTV is beatable. (Has DirectTV yet learned of the existence of the decades-tested mouse and keyboard yet?)

Hard to imagine Apple will be the one to beat them, though. Apple are the idiots who came up with the confusing atrocity knowns as iTunes. They can't even do music right; the idea that they're ready for video is comical. There was a time when that company was famous for relatively good UIs but that was a hell of a long time ago, and now they're just another Microsoft.

Johnny Historians... by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-06-03 06:16 · Score: 1, Troll

People like to be Johhny Historians. "Oh, lol lol, _this_ guy is just crazy, I mean look at all these other people who said shit that turned out totally silly and wrong [knowing wink]!!"

Bullshit. Lots of people who have made such statements turned out to be right, but people just remember the ones like Ballmer made because they happened to be wrong.

In this case, he's more than likely right. On the one hand Apple has hordes of loyal dipshits who will buy anything they shovel them and who want a monoculture. These fucksticks would throw away their TVs and get in lines for a $2000 50" Apple TV in a heartbeat.

The thing is, however, that a TV isn't _about_ the interface. You watch the content, you only interact with it to set up recordings or change channels. Speech recognition is lame in such a concept, you're going to sit there like a god damn idiot yelling at your TV?

So I give him a 70% chance of being right. The 30% chance is due to the idiocy of Applebots, which I may be underestimating.

Happy with my Roku by pivot_enabled · 2012-06-03 06:24 · Score: 1

5 years ago Directv shut off my newly acquired HD receiver after I had been with them for 7 years. Was it because I hadn't paid my bill? NO! It was because my phone line was not connected to the receiver so that they could charge me for pay-per-view which I NEVER used. When I called in and asked "What the hell?" and was told that the agreement required me to keep the phone line connected I told them that was fine, disconnect me permanently.

I have no regrets.

My Roku works great and I pay for what I actually want to watch, and if it is worthwhile I will gladly get yet another box to hook to my projector in the form of an Apple TV but I will NEVER go back to satellite or cable for TV.

Re:you can't get HBO on it's own and not IPTV only by Sloppy · 2012-06-03 06:32 · Score: 2

As long as HBO get's their money

Hi, welcome to the 21st century. I see you have just arrived. I know this will seem very strange to you 20th century visitors, but here's the deal: HBO doesn't give a damn about getting their money, except maybe in terms of discouraging it from happening. None of the media companies do. Their main business model is that whenever a customer comes to them and waves money in their face, the media company's response is "Fuck you! Get that fucking money out of my fucking face."

HBO is only going to be interested in this, if it comes with some assurance that customers will be unhappy, and will have increased motivation to stop sending their monthly checks.

The video industries know what Apple did to the poor bastards in music, who were all trying to go out of business but are now burdened with so many accursed sales directly trackable to Apple's store. Forewarned MPAA companies are not going to have their suicides sabotaged the same way -- they're not that oblivious.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.

Need a new phrase by ilsaloving · 2012-06-03 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Something like, "If Apple focuses on your market, you better focus too". Apple has an unequivocal track record of being a major disruptive influence on any consumer market they choose to enter. Music players. Music industries. Phones. They may not dominate any given market, but they sure as hell disrupt it.

I have to say that I'm actually glad for this. All these markets have essentially been static and stagnant with the incumbents doing the same crap without any real innovation. Then Apple waltzes in and suddenly everything gets really interesting. The phone arena is particularly interesting, because we get to watch the relatively long-lived incumbents (eg RIM, Nokia) thrash, crash and burn in slow motion while everyone looks on and says to themselves, "Wow, I can't believe we put up with the crap they've been peddling for so long!"

Re:Need a new phrase by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:17 · Score: 0

Clearly you don't recall any of Apple's many, many failures before the iPod.
Re:Need a new phrase by TheBiGW · 2012-06-03 10:09 · Score: 2

Wish I had upvotes - but instead I'll reply. The TV industry globally is in dire need of this kind of thing. The impossibly slow menu systems of most SAT/Cable TV systems are bad enough. Then you look at the awful impenetrable remotes with buttons everywhere. I can easily imagine a company like Apple magically hiding the complexity behind a veneer of smooth touch screen goodness that automates 95% of the crap and demos amazingly well. A TV app store optimised for Apple's TV remote control interface would be revolutionary for most people used to the incumbents. The TV market is prime hunting ground.
And I'm not even an Apple fan! Given all the unix based TV operating systems out there (Samsung I'm looking at you) this could have happened long ago given the right investment. Clearly they've all had it coming.

--
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for an hour. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Re:Need a new phrase by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 15:19 · Score: 0

But, what you're neglecting to point out is that DirecTV has itself been disrupting the cable industry. Ultimately, Apple can't disrupt the aspects of the industry that most badly need disruption, the last mile and the coverage contracts. DirecTV by virtue of being a satellite provider can get into pretty much anywhere they like.

Apple killed RIM, DirecTV next. by Zoson · 2012-06-03 06:50 · Score: 1

Just another example of a company resting on its laurels, while someone else moves ahead.
Wouldn't be surprised if DirecTV is gone in a couple years due to a mass exodus of customers to wired technologies. The only market DirecTV will still be able to appeal to is that where there is no cable/fiber optic available.

As a DTV customer I can tell you that the UI sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 06:56 · Score: 0

DTV interface is horrible, slow and at many times unresponsive. I sometimes have to wait 10 secs for the the UI to show up and sometimes it doesn't until I reboot the system.

So saying that DTV interface will be better than an Apple brand interface is being a complete m0r0n. The quality of DTV receivers/DVR is at best crappy compared to others. The only reason I keep DTV is because I would never go back to cable (which is more expensive anyway) and Dish customer service is horrendous (and yes, their boxes are cheaper and breakdown more often than DTV).

Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-06-03 06:57 · Score: 1

I have an Apple TV. There are things about it I like a lot - but there is a significant flaw with some basic functionality.

You're supposed to be able to play stuff from your iTunes libraries, but the Apple TV regularly and spontaneously loses the ability to actually get the items from them (perpetually "Loading..." the library). You can fix it - instantly - by stopping and then restarting iTunes on the computer itself; but that really shouldn't be something you ever have to do.

--
#DeleteChrome

Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-03 12:09 · Score: 1

I think that's why Apple is pushing for iCloud. The problem is that you are using your desktop/laptop as a server when it isn't one. If you had an OS X server it probably wouldn't happen but not many consumers would buy one.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:32 · Score: 1

A desktop is perfectly capable of being a "server".
This is the idea behind Plex, or MythTV, or even MCE. It can be done and it can be done reliably. If Apple can't do it then that's their problem.
Adding another slower network into the mix isn't really going to help things.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by Clsid · 2012-06-03 17:33 · Score: 1

What you need to do is get a faster network. If you install one of those nifty 500 Mbps networks that use your home's electrical wiring, you can even stream HD content from that computer without noticing anything. I do it with a regular 100 Mbps network and have a 1 TB hard drive with a lot of movies that I transcode using Handbrake. Works wonders.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-04 01:28 · Score: 1

In all your examples, the hardware is often dedicated to being a media server. Most people don't use their MythTV server as their desktop as well. They might use MythTV client on their everyday machine but not the server components. It's a matter of asset dedication.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by jedidiah · 2012-06-04 09:45 · Score: 1

I can take a dedicated myth backend box and put it under heavy load by recording a lot of things concurrently, then commflagging those recordings, and then even transcoding those recordings. I can further complicate matters by doing a lot of this across the network to other machines on the same LAN.
Under THOSE conditions, a MythTV frontend MIGHT start to hiccup.
THAT is NOTHING like what iTunes does or has to deal with as a trivial sort of media server with no features to speak of.
It's just a simple program doing nothing strenuous running on a box that is likely idle.
That's Apple "quality" there for you.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by UnknowingFool · 2012-06-04 10:17 · Score: 1

Your load testing may be the exact circumstances which the OP experienced on iTunes except that the OP was most likely using his iTunes on desktop and not a server. MythTV was designed specifically with a server-client architecture in mind. But answer my question: Do people use their MythTV server/backend as their everyday desktop? Almost never. As a combination frontend/backend a MythTV box is used as a dedicated HTPC machine. If the OP placed iTunes on a server and experienced issues you have had a point. It has nothing to do with your silly "quality" jab but the limits of server vs desktops. I can run Oracle 11g on my laptop but it's not advisable for 24/7 operations for my laptop be my company's database server.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Apple needs to fix basic stuff first by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-06-05 13:47 · Score: 1

Nah, this isn't a network issue. The files aren't buffering - the Apple TV just loses the ability to get them (or even get a directory listing) - at all.
Actually Apple just released a software update that - if I'm interpreting the list of fixes correctly - may solve my problem. Initial reports seem positive...

--
#DeleteChrome

Oh puhleeze by WindWhale · 2012-06-03 07:12 · Score: 2

How else is he supposed react to not only a product that doesn't exist, but one that hasn't even been announced? Panic? People (not necessarily here) mocked Jeff Bezos when he dismissed the threat of the iPad and iBooks to his Kindle business. And guess what? A couple years into it and Bezos was right. Furthermore, let's be honest with ourselves, Apple knows how to do R&D: fail as often as you succeed but when you win, win big. They have had notable failures. Look no further than, well, Apple TV. Their desktop business never got traction. iBooks is basically a failure. They screwed up the nano and backtracked. So their successes we all know about and think about, but they have felt what failure feels like too. Now, maybe this new "doesn't exist thing" will change the world but maybe it won't. HDTV sales have completely stagnated in the US. Penetration is high and the need to upgrade a 4 year old 50" tv is small. I don't think an updated UI is the difference, nor is the ability to rent on demand. As for DirecTV, I have it and enjoy it. I'm not married to it, but nothing about paying Apple's fees is particularly compelling. I get my free Amazon Prime Instant Video as well as the choice to rent stuff not free. And DTV has NFL Sunday Ticket, which is the bees knees for an out-of-town fan. I like FIOS too. I'd rather chew ground glass than go back to Comcast though. For me to spend $1500 in replacement costs, it's going to have to be a whole lot more than widgets, streaming and a slick UI. YMMV.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 07:28 · Score: 1

You pay.

Apple pays.

Where is this mythical free rid of yours? There is none.

As the one making the original claim, it's up to you to back up your argument. Bragging about the fact that you are great at trolling,really doesn't help your argument one bit.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Roku is their real competition by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 07:38 · Score: 0

He may have dismissed apple TV, but their actions make it clear that roku considered a competitor. DirecTV refuses to authorize HBO Go and similar services on the roku.

This will eventually be the downfall of directv. As online services gain popularity, pay channels will not need to rely on cable/satellite to get customers. If DirecTV were smart, they would offer their own roku app to allow customers to stream from their DVR (assuming they have a whole-home subscription) and also stream on-demand content.

People want content not a service. But we are willing to pay for a service to get content. Yet directv is attempting to limit content that is not provided through their service. It is an outdated model that will not survive. They should really work on providing exceptional content to compell customers to use their service.

It's a different world in rural areas by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:00 · Score: 0

Satellite TV dominates in rural areas. There are vast swaths of the US that have no cable TV, weak or nonexistent DSL, and weak or nonexistent cell service. DirecTV or Dish is their only option for digital communication beyond a modem over copper pair telephone service. These people admittedly have absolutely zero use for an Apple TV.

That's not going to change any time soon, because for most providers it's simply not worth the small revenues to pay the cost to build out the service. But the satellite TV companies would still be fools to put all their eggs in that demographic basket.

Swiss Army Knife Three Trick Pony by nastav · 2012-06-03 08:01 · Score: 2

Apple TV does a few things well:

Good living room version of iTunes-as-an-appliance. Streams music from iCloud, does iTunes Store stuff (renting, buying videos)
AirPlay
Netflix, and some other less interesting services.

There are other devices that do much much more. Roku is the Swiss Army Knife of such appliances - and integrates popular services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video as well as less popular stuff like MLB.TV, Crackle and several dozen others. It's silly that White thought of comparing himself with Apple TV, when the true competition he ought to have been comparing himself with is Roku. In the long run, it's inevitable that White will be proven wrong. In the short to medium run, I think he will continue being right. It will take some time before content owners become comfortable with streaming options. For now, we are stuck with nonsensical paywalls like the one set up by HBO GO, but eventually the types of Netflix and Hulu, and PPV systems like iTunes and Amazon Video will slowly take over. In another generation (or two), the new breed of users will see online as normative, and that will accelerate the demise of DirectTV and Cable companies. I expect Cable companies be hold out longer than DirectTV, because they will continue owning valuable copper that also supports internet services.

--
-- obligatory (but true) caveat: my comments my own, and don't reflect my employer or colleagues' positions.

Re:Swiss Army > Knife Three Trick Pony by nastav · 2012-06-03 08:02 · Score: 1

Hmm.. I had a > in the subject, but it got stripped away :-/

--
-- obligatory (but true) caveat: my comments my own, and don't reflect my employer or colleagues' positions.

Seriously.... by avm · 2012-06-03 08:10 · Score: 1

Of all the things this DirecTV suit could say, he goes for the USER INTERFACE? What has been Apple's hands down strong point from day one, or very near to it? I've been a DirecTV subscriber before, and their user interface is ancient, clumsy, non-intuitive, and SLOW. Of all the obstacles facing Apple in combating the entrenched TV industry giants, that is quite possibly the absolute last item in their punchlist. Trust me, Apple isn't sitting up at night wondering "Oh geez, how are we ever going to upstage their UI?".

Now, I'm not a fanboy, don't have an iDevice, but have steadily been a Mac user since the Quadra 840 was king.

Re:Seriously.... by Clsid · 2012-06-03 17:36 · Score: 1

Exactly! He's just joining the long list of people who underestimated Apple and then regretted it.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:18 · Score: 0

You had a nice rebuttal. The name calling was unnecessary and makes you look like the idiot. Try and just stick to your argument, youll get much farther in life...

I don't know about that. The name that he called may be counter productive, but if substituted socialist for idiot, there's no limit to how far he can go.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:26 · Score: 0

The name calling was unnecessary and makes you look like the idiot.

Some people just plain deserve to be yelled at.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 08:38 · Score: 0

As the one making the original claim

Nope.

comcast has a long way to go to be better then dir by Joe_Dragon · 2012-06-03 09:00 · Score: 1

comcast has a long way to go to be better then directv.

Re:Irony alert! and then some by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-03 10:05 · Score: 1

How do you know? Wouldn't you have to watch TV an awful lot to establish that?

And the alternative is ...? by Kohath · 2012-06-03 10:26 · Score: 1

You seem to think that a system that isn't "dumb" would produce a better result. What, exactly, should Michael White do about all the uninformed speculation about unannounced Apple TV-related products? Unlike Slashdot commenters, he doesn't have the luxury of pretending there are all sorts of cheap content deals available that would allow him to offer you exactly the channels you want at 75% off the current price.

Maybe he should say "Yeah, the mediocre UI on the Apple TV box sure is a big threat to us. We are also randomly afraid of unknown unannounced Apple products. We have several non-specific initiatives to address these unknown, potentially competitive threats."

Re:And the alternative is ...? by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:27 · Score: 1

He needs to be making a better box.
He needs to be making DirecTV boxes, then envy of the industry. Geeks on tech boards should cream themselves when a new model is announced. He needs to create the same kind of buzz that Apple gets or at least have his kit regarded as comparable.
He's also got to realize that "supplmental" services accessed via the web will not harm his bottom line. So he has nothing to fear from assimilating Roku like features.
He needs to make it look like his company is not a dinosaur.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:And the alternative is ...? by Kohath · 2012-06-03 16:52 · Score: 1

But here's the other problem: DTV doesn't charge you for a DTV box. It's free with your monthly subscription. How can they release a box that competes with, say, a $200-400 box from Apple and give it away with a $29/month satellite TV subscription?
And why would anyone "cream themselves" when Apple releases their new Apple TV box? So far, Apple TV has been a supremely mediocre product. It's not really even competitive with Roku. The UI for the Apple TV isn't exactly insanely great either.
As for assimilating Roku-like features, check out this news story on Samsung and RVU. Samsung is building the Roku-like features into the TV directly. DTV is serving their data stream (video and GUI interaction) to the TV. DTV benefits because they have to supply one less DTV box. The customer benefits because they have one less box and one less remote, but they can still start watching a recorded show in one room and finish watching it in another.

Kill your television by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 10:27 · Score: 0

It's like 99% crap. Just torrent the few shows worth watching. OTA for sports / emergency broadcasting. Done.

I want to be able to RENT individual episodes AS THEY ARE BROADCAST for a REASONABLE price. Game of Thrones s02e10 should be up at around 7:05 PST. Put it on iTunes as of 7 PST, for $1.99 to rent, and I wouldn't bother with torrents.

Damn that Oatmeal comic had it right. Bloody hell.

Re:Kill your television by stewbacca · 2012-06-04 03:36 · Score: 1

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with anyone telling anyone else what to watch or how, even though I'm pretty anti-libertarian AND I agree that 99% of stuff on TV is crap.
You have a flaw in your sports solution. Most the sports I watch (international soccer, racing, college football) are broadcast more on cable channels than local networks, so OTA doesn't work. Unless you like watching Notre Dame football and not the small-but-good school you went to on Fox Sports, that is.
Until iTunes or some other business model lets me pay up a la carte for sporting events, I'll have to keep paying for cable subscription. And before you say "torrent", just try to find me a good torrent of say, Oregon vs. USC football that I can download and watch before the score is spoiled.

how can you argue a fight.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 10:31 · Score: 0

between something you offer, vs something that people *want*?

"No success" with AppleTV? by PapayaSF · 2012-06-03 10:43 · Score: 2

Apple has had no success with AppleTV

In all of 2011, when the Apple TV did not see an update, the company sold a total of 2.8 million devices in the 12-month span. But the company is easily on pace to beat that, with 2.7 million sold through the first five months of 2012.

--
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot

Insanity by countach · 2012-06-03 11:49 · Score: 1

No matter how good your product is, one should never scoff at competing with the world's biggest company.

Re:Irony alert! and then some by phoomp · 2012-06-03 12:17 · Score: 1

I've watched enough to know that if there *is* good content out there, the effort necessary to find it isn't worth it. There are much better things I can do with my time.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by jedidiah · 2012-06-03 13:09 · Score: 1

The original claim that triggered the "irrational response" was never adequately supported. Therefore we can reasonably ignore it.

Whining about the "irrational response" won't change that.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Hah! by tsotha · 2012-06-03 13:14 · Score: 1

...expressing doubts that 'Apple's interface will be so much better than DirecTVs' that people will be willing to pay for an extra box.

He's thinking "extra" when he should really be thinking "instead of". I bought a Roku box for $60. Between Amazon, Netflix, and Crunchyroll (which all comes to about $35/month) I always have something to watch. This guy is nuts if he thinks he's not going to get pushed out of the picture by streaming internet video. Eventually only people who can't get a decent internet connection will be paying for satellite TV.

Re:AppleTV may have to deal with ISP and data cost by the_B0fh · 2012-06-03 13:50 · Score: 1, Funny

Gee, I can't call an idiot an idiot now? Sorry, I didn't realize it was be nice to idiots day today.

R10 Box by Compulawyer · 2012-06-03 14:11 · Score: 1

I have DirecTV and still have an R10 box. Two of them, in fact. One reason is that I own the box so I don't have to pay monthly rental fees (DTV gave it to me when I upgraded service). The main reason is because it has TiVo software. The DirecTV interface sucks! So -- what was that you said again, Mr. White?

--

Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.

$1.99 for SD by SuperKendall · 2012-06-03 15:15 · Score: 1

iTunes is $2.99/episode for HD, $1.99 for SD.

That seems expensive, but if you don't watch many series it's actually cheaper than a cable subscription per month.

I watch most TV shows from Netflix, the few I cannot (or want to stay more current with or keep) I buy on iTunes.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Very few holes now by SuperKendall · 2012-06-03 15:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

iTunes is fine if it has what you watch.

As far as TV goes, there is very little you cannot get between iTunes and Netflix.

Even HBO is present, though on substantial delay (1 year wait for game of thrones on iTunes).

But if you are simply wiling to wait a while for TV shows there is almost no gap. And even for current stuff if you throw in Hulu you'd probably only be missing HBO.

So basically, all Apple has to do is bribe HBO, and get Hulu working with Apple TV to give users a box that should make DirectTV worry... that and support either OTA HD or some other way to get live sports (the real gap at the moment between the hell of cable/satellite TV boxes and freedom).

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Very few holes now by Wovel · 2012-06-04 05:38 · Score: 1

I suspect this will change if Apple can say look we have 50 million people with Apple TVs, do you want to port the HBO app to the TV and sell them a subscription directly. Could open up a new world where I can watch HBO shows on my my iPad without a cable subscription, but a HBO subscription instead. All Apple needs is a large enough User base that HBO does not care if it pisses off the cable companies.
It will happen. The Apple model for TV is a good one and HBO/Cinemax will be the pioneers. Once the damn breaks it won't be just Apple, Microsoft will be right there too. Direct TV will lose the biggest because they don't provide connectivity (Even their Internet service is just a white label on another service). I am sure the FTC will ultimately have to take action to force the carriers/cable companies to not charge absurd penalties for Internet service alone.

It's a moderate success, and you ignore history by SuperKendall · 2012-06-03 15:28 · Score: 1, Insightful

Apple has had no success with AppleTV and for good reason

How is selling almost three million a year not a success? That seems like a pretty good success. It's not huge, no, but for any other company besides Apple it would be a success.

they are trying to follow the same "micropayment" model that is killing the other companies

False, that is just one option - they also bundle Netflix. Some people I know use the AppleTV primarily as a Netflix box.

They want this shit built into their TV sets and not have it controlled by someone else.

Do you hear what you are saying right now?

Why should that "someone" no be Apple? Apple could make a better UI. They could even strong-arm media giants into ponying up content that all comes together under one UI.

This is why Napster and Bit Torrent is such a huge success, not because it's free but because it provides people with what they want.

Again, I don't think you realize what you are arguing for. That's ALSO why iTunes is such a huge success. And that was put together by Apple...

A successful on demand service will integrate with what people already have and provide access to what they want without asking for payment every single time.

And you don't think Apple can offer that at some level because...

P.S. you are wrong in two ways on that already. One as I said, is that the AppleTV integrates Netflix. The second though, it you can buy season passes for shows and then you are not paying per episode.

I think it's really short-sighted to make all these proclamations about what Apple will not do just before a major product announcement...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

problem with a business lock-in business model by Dan667 · 2012-06-03 15:44 · Score: 1

is that people will dump it the first chance they get.

Out of the Roku market Roku is THE WORST by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 16:08 · Score: 0

Sorry, but I have tested them all and Roku is the worst of the stream players. It lacks basic functionality everybody else has and the interface is horendous.

Anybody who has the dilution that Roku is any good is because they haven't even seen anything else. Even cheap crappy products from China are many times better than Roku.

Very wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 16:14 · Score: 0

His attitude is extremely wrong.

I used Windows Media Center for several years. Then, when I upgraded to HD, I decided to try "upgrading" to a DVR cable box.

Wow, what a terrible decision.

The interface was horrible by comparison, search functionality was so bad there isn't even a scale to measure how much better WinMC was. I honestly can't even think of one way in which the cable box DVR is better.

I think if Apple decides to make an appliance which replaces the cable box, people would go for it. I know TiVo had some loyal customers. IMO, thier bad move was in making it a subscription; not much people are going to want to pay much extra. However, if it replaced functionality the cable companies provided (I forget how much I pay per month for DVR), then I could see it... but maybe they'd be better off making a contract with the cable companies.

Fraud Much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 17:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, they're not worried. They can fire up as many "activated" boxes without any subscribers actually paying for them to make the books look as good as they need to. If anybody wants to know what that's about, check into "Connexion Technologies". Enjoy.

Both can coexist by Clsid · 2012-06-03 17:42 · Score: 1

As a long time owner of an AppleTV, I can say that both things can coexist. I would just get the cheapest package for local channels plus Discovery, etc. and then use the AppleTV for TV shows I really like and movies. Plus you can use the AppleTV for a lot more things, including using your TV to show pictures to your family and friends, enjoying youtube videos in a group setting, etc.

Spoken like someone who doesn't get good UI design by RogueWarrior65 · 2012-06-04 02:41 · Score: 1

DirecTV's interface design is quite neolithic. Clearly this guy doesn't understand what Apple's impact on content consumption has been. Yes, ok, Apple didn't invent the concept of breaking the RIAA's business model of forcing people to buy 11 songs they didn't want to get the one song they did but they did manage to make it legal. Right now, DirecTV has roughly 36 shopping and infomercial channels sprinkled in the mix of other channels. I personally don't give a damn about that stuff. Nor do I want to see spanish channels in the listings although sometimes the show titles are amusing. Who knew "Yo, Robot" wasn't a hip-hop cartoon? What I fully expect from Apple is a fully customizable show guide that will only show the channels I choose. I also expect it to have a Genius feature that will searching for OnDemand content it might think I'd like.

A few quick thoughts by stewbacca · 2012-06-04 03:14 · Score: 1

I have DirecTV and it is far better than any of the past three cable service providers I have had in price, content, and DVR quality. It is obvious that their people are interested in technology, given it is the only provider I've ever seen that has is fairly up to date with features and interface design.

I've learned to take whatever Apple detractors say, and do the exact opposite.

If Apple can find a way to provide a la carte service for channels that broadcast live sports and live music/entertainment, then I'd ditch DirectTV in a minute. Until then, no amount of iTunes + Netflix + Roku + Hulu + whatever can replace the primary reason I have cable (or DirecTV in this case).

Buying all the Game of Thrones episodes on iTunes is still cheaper than a month of premium channel subscriptions.

Re:He's right... and wrong by stewbacca · 2012-06-04 03:27 · Score: 0

I'm not a braggart, but it seems in these hyper-logical circles, having a computing environment that mostly gets out of the way (OS X) and a computing environment that most of the world uses, but is a pain to maintain and use, is a win.

Running both OS X apps AND Windows apps is better, especially if you are a geek. It's not the Windows apps making the Mac awesome, it's the ABILITY to run Windows apps that does. Yes, it has a slight price hike to be able to do so, but for a lot of people, it's worth it. For people like me who never have any intention of running Windows stuff on my Mac, I'm not paying any price penalty to do so. Sure I could spend less money on a lesser caliber laptop, but then again it wouldn't run OS X, which is my #1 requirement.

In fact, I would say more switchers switched because of their insecurity of leaving windows being removed by the ability to install Windows in Bootcamp. Most of them fire up Windows a few times in Bootcamp, then realize just how much they really didn't need Windows all these years, flying in the face of everything everyone has been told their entire computing lives. It really is pretty easy to be Microsoft-free (if you want to be, if you don't, that's fine too). I've read articles where most switchers stop using Windows altogether on their second Mac purchase.

My old company started buying Macbook Pros exclusively for the devs (under the guise of "we're gonna start making iOS apps"). They never made any iOS apps, but most people booted into OS X once the scary newness wore off.

ballmer lol by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 03:46 · Score: 0

I will throw out directTV in an instant if Apple makes something better (almost guaranteed).

Hello Apple TV by cbybear · 2012-06-04 07:07 · Score: 1

I would ditch my shit-tastic DirecTV box in a second for an Apple TV. I've wanted a Tivo version of my HD DirecTV box for years, but I'm now tired of waiting and could care less. My only holdback at this point is how to get HBO legally without a satellite of cable subscription. No, I won't pirate the content. I want to legally support the things I find entertaining.

Re:More channels = comfort by ChrisMaple · 2012-06-04 07:20 · Score: 1

People in the grocery store with enormous carts full of food.

Monday: drive 20 miles round trip to supermarket to get 1 day's worth of food, so as not to be a "wasteful-hoarder"

Tuesday: drive 20 miles round trip to supermarket to get 1 day's worth of food, so as not to be a "wasteful-hoarder"

Wednesday: drive 20 miles round trip to supermarket to get 1 day's worth of food, so as not to be a "wasteful-hoarder"

...

Yup, that's how not to waste.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

iPredator by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 07:57 · Score: 0

www.iPredator.se costs you $15 for three months. They won't give your data to anyone other than the Swedish government. And even then they can only give what you provided them. No logging, no nothing.

Re:Irony alert! and then some by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-04 15:53 · Score: 1

That is probably so. But this may not have anything to do with a reduction in good content. Maybe there is just as much good content out there, or even more, than there was in some Golden Age of our youth. But if there is, it has been swamped by the noise of 300 television channels that never show anything worthwhile and sandwiched between shows so awful that you can't even bear to see their names on the guide, let alone scorch your eyeballs if you should happen to see a few seconds of them while changing channels.

when will the move to net happen? by Finite9 · 2012-06-04 19:35 · Score: 1

I have satellite subscription for 288 SEK/month, and they have ~15 channels of HD including the "base channels". Apple TV 2 jailbroken with xbmc 11, and an Xbox360/kinect for games and movie rentals. I can rent movies on ATV2 as well (but only in 720p). All hooked up to Gbit LAN/24Mbit broadband.

I long for the day when I can cancel my satellite sub. but it's probably never going to happen, because I won't be able to get the same channels on the net, esp. in HD unless something revolutionary happens to the Swedish market.

ATV is fantastic... when jailbroken. I use xbmc for photos/music/tv/movies on my server. torrents fill the gaps my satellite sub. doesn't give. One thing I noticed with movie rentals between xbox and ATV is that Xbox has a really great library of films and new releases compared to ATV, and the interface for Zune Marketplace is way, way ahead of Apples, but it costs slightly more to rent from Zune and the Microsoft credit thingy is a bit cumbersome compared to just having your apple account debited.

Now if either Microsft or Apple decided to start providing "channels" of tv shows, in whatever format, PLUS national channels on the net I would be a very happy man, and could cut my satellite in an instant. Everything I read on this site refers to the US market where you can get tv shows via Netflix or Apple, but here in Sweden (and the rest of Europe for that matter), Netflix doesn't work, apart from in the UK, and Apple doesn't do TV rentals via iTunes outside of the US which sucks big time.

--
"Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman

It won't be Apple that drives the video revolution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-05 00:08 · Score: 0

I wouldn't place my bets on Apple to become the primary video distributor. I'm a 25 year veteran and fan of Apple devices, but Apple's aggressive and restrictive tie to the bloated iTunes store chases many users away. While the much more robust and independent Roku device provides far more flexibility, mostly with free channels. And there is data to back that up. Apple is losing the battle to Netflix, even though Netflix is actually on the Apple TV device. This is from this morning's "Morning Bridge" report:

Netflix Tops Online Movie Services

With the cable crowd watching, Netflix has again opened industry eyes as new numbers show the company is now the largest online movie service in the nation. As far as dollars are concerned, no other company - not Apple, not Microsoft, not Vudu, nor Sony - generated as much revenue from online movies in 2011 as Netflix.

According to the latest data from iHS iSuppli, Netfilx roared past Apple late last year to take the top spot in revenue-generating online movie services. In terms of market share, the company went from .5% of all online movie dollars in 2010 to 44% last year. By comparison, Apple's market share has steadily decreased for the past three consecutive years, with 71% in 2009, 60% in 2010, and 32% in 2011

Slashdot Mirror

DirecTV CEO Scoffs At Competition From Apple TV

264 comments