DirecTV CEO Scoffs At Competition From Apple TV
theodp writes "In a move that evokes memories of Steve Ballmer's initial pooh-poohing of the iPhone threat, DirecTV Chairman Michael White downplayed the Apple TV hype, expressing doubts that 'Apple's interface will be so much better than DirecTVs' that people will be willing to pay for an extra box. So, will White's statement — 'It's hard to see (it) obsoleting our technology' — come back to haunt him?"
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.
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.
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