Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything'(appleinsider.com)
appleinsider.com
Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything'
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/22/digg_founder_says_apple_itv_launch_in_september_will_change_everything.html
12 comments
Your comment is a marvelous antidote to hype and rumor. Thank you, sir.
The article mentions other good predictions/leaks and another wrong one.
I think that even if a person had perfect product pipeline information from Apple any prediction more distant than the night before has a good chance of being wrong because there are so many last-minute points at which a product may be modified or pulled all-together. Example: the space on the PCB for a camera in the current iPod Touch.
I think that even if a person had perfect product pipeline information from Apple any prediction more distant than the night before has a good chance of being wrong because there are so many last-minute points at which a product may be modified or pulled all-together. Example: the space on the PCB for a camera in the current iPod Touch.
He also has a lot of APPL stock
As far as I'm concerned, the only way that the new iTV is going to "change everything" is if it somehow gives you the ability to watch any episode of any show at any time, streaming, ad and hassle free. THAT I would pay for.
But giving the networks the ability to require an app as a gateway to their programming? Sorry, but that just an invitation for abuse, and begging for new ways to shove ads down our throats. Think javascript popover ads are annoying when browsing the web? The networks already abuse the screen real estate when you are just trying to enjoy a program. Imagine if they could do this in an app instead...
But giving the networks the ability to require an app as a gateway to their programming? Sorry, but that just an invitation for abuse, and begging for new ways to shove ads down our throats. Think javascript popover ads are annoying when browsing the web? The networks already abuse the screen real estate when you are just trying to enjoy a program. Imagine if they could do this in an app instead...
After reading Kevin Rose's post, I started to think about this and realized that another thing where the app model would not be great is that in the end, nobody cares what network a program is on. The only thing that matters is the list of programs you like and want to watch.
A user would want to see an aggregate of all the programs s/he likes, not go to one app to see what's new on ABC, and another for NBC… that's where the Google TV model is interesting I suppose.
I'd think that something more like Google Reader (conceptually, not in terms of UI obviously) might be more fitting: a bunch of feeds for shows you like. You can "star" the ones you'll always want to keep around, let others disappear if too old…
To be YC-centric, it seems that the recently-launched Teevox got that right by merging listings between Netflix and Hulu.
A user would want to see an aggregate of all the programs s/he likes, not go to one app to see what's new on ABC, and another for NBC… that's where the Google TV model is interesting I suppose.
I'd think that something more like Google Reader (conceptually, not in terms of UI obviously) might be more fitting: a bunch of feeds for shows you like. You can "star" the ones you'll always want to keep around, let others disappear if too old…
To be YC-centric, it seems that the recently-launched Teevox got that right by merging listings between Netflix and Hulu.
Boxee does a good job with that. They've got apps with mostly map back to a particular website they're getting their streaming video from, but for TV shows and TV show like content, all the titles show up in a list of all TV shows. You can search and sort the list, or you can mark a particular series to be part of your "queue". Then new episodes of that series will always automatically appear in your "queue".
Agreed. That all three current Law and Order series are being shown on some combination of three different cable channels, and in syndication locally, shows that the network brand doesn't matter on a per-show basis.
In fact, if it did, syndication wouldn't be successful at all. But we all still seem to be watching Cheers and Seinfeld.
In fact, if it did, syndication wouldn't be successful at all. But we all still seem to be watching Cheers and Seinfeld.
I watched Mad Men tonight and about to catch up on Entourage. Both shows have a ridiculous amount of product placement. But the product placement works in the context of both those shows.
The game changer would be interactive iAds for each product placement.
The game changer would be interactive iAds for each product placement.
I always thought about a Google-esque Adwords style bidding for product placement and localizations.
For instance, a local advertiser would be able to advertise on their local broadcast version of a tv show using CG. The local advertiser can have his/her product or logo place somewhre within the context of the tv show.
Also, this can work with larger companies. Instead of Coke or Pepsi being used by an actor, the soda can can be CG'ed, and the respective company would bid on the placement by locality (city, state, region, etc).
This would allow smaller mom & pop brands a chance to advertise within their locality.
Not sure what would happen when a show goes into syndication, though. I guess, sell new CG advertising.
For instance, a local advertiser would be able to advertise on their local broadcast version of a tv show using CG. The local advertiser can have his/her product or logo place somewhre within the context of the tv show.
Also, this can work with larger companies. Instead of Coke or Pepsi being used by an actor, the soda can can be CG'ed, and the respective company would bid on the placement by locality (city, state, region, etc).
This would allow smaller mom & pop brands a chance to advertise within their locality.
Not sure what would happen when a show goes into syndication, though. I guess, sell new CG advertising.
Sounds better then having to pay $70 a month for cable TV. When I had cable TV I never watched the majority of the channels they pushed on me.
And yet the $70 a month you spent was funding shows like Mad Men. Advertising is such a small part of revenues but since it's the only side the consumer sees (well, DVD sales) we see these things as game changers. The real problem to solve here is that of affiliate fees[1]. Without cable fees it's a pretty safe bet that quality programming like Mad Men wouldn't be around. Maybe we're moving that way anyway where all that's available are cheap web series, but it'd be a bummer in my opinion.
[1]http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-...
[1]http://abovethecrowd.com/2010/04/28/affiliate-fees-make-the-...
Well I pay $10 or more to go see a quality movie. I make the choice to go out, choose the movie I want to see and pay the cost. Cable TV does not offer me this and as like Blockbuster being killed by Netflix(crazy late fees consumers hated), such will be the downfall to their locked in shackles business model consumers loathe.
Quality programs can still be made and just like movies consumers will pay to watch them. Also look at the DVD market it was huge; ppl payed 15 bucks per DVD.
Sounds like you have a personal investment and or making your money off the cable pig that needs to be slayed. If your here reading HN then think out of the box to increase ur profit and solve the problem of the cable pig!
Quality programs can still be made and just like movies consumers will pay to watch them. Also look at the DVD market it was huge; ppl payed 15 bucks per DVD.
Sounds like you have a personal investment and or making your money off the cable pig that needs to be slayed. If your here reading HN then think out of the box to increase ur profit and solve the problem of the cable pig!
The original blog post: http://kevinrose.com/blogg/2010/8/21/why-apples-itv-will-cha...
Maybe Kevin Rose should work on trying to keep digg's user-base professional and on-point, site design clean and fast, and less an aggregate of sponsored links before trying to be another tech messiah/mouth piece.
Those are pretty timid explanations for how iTV will 'change everything'. Per network applications, instead of just say, one feature set for all networks? iAds to monetize content, meaning something like ads on Hulu, or, the internet? $99, like Roku? Granted the iPhone as a remote is an excellent convenience and obvious evolution in home entertainment.
Would this be able to rival the picture quality of HD satellite tv etc?
I'd also be concerned that (in the UK at least) far too many people haven't got a decent enough broadband connection to support this kind of streaming. If the uptake is big then it'll hammer the networks, surely. Try downloading something at 6pm on a weekday using one of the big ISPs. Imagine half the country streaming HD video at once.
I'd also be concerned that (in the UK at least) far too many people haven't got a decent enough broadband connection to support this kind of streaming. If the uptake is big then it'll hammer the networks, surely. Try downloading something at 6pm on a weekday using one of the big ISPs. Imagine half the country streaming HD video at once.
No. It can't do 1080 anything.
If Apple do intend to launch a product called iTV then I imagine there will be trademark issues to resolve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV
A 99$ TV box, and a 500$ remote control for it? So really a 99$ "make your TV an iPad peripheral" box.
Can't Google TV do all of those things as well when it is released?
[deleted]
Edit: Yup: http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/03/kevin-rose-confirms-iphon...