Apple's trouble with TV(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Apple's trouble with TV
http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits/2010/09/apples-trouble-with-tv.ars
13 comments
Shame they didn't just support the existing wireless standard for sending audio/video: DNLA/UPnP
I don't know if the rest of your comment is true or not, but I agree with you that the demo was kind of weird. Steve Jobs was like "I tap here, the menu comes up. And it's on the TV."
I thought he was strangely casual about it as if we were used to that kind of interaction and "flow", even though that's the kind of things that have been talked about for many years (the idea of starting something on my phone, it comes up on my TV screen when I get home, everything is sync'ed, etc.) without really seeing something commercial that really does it.
I thought he was strangely casual about it as if we were used to that kind of interaction and "flow", even though that's the kind of things that have been talked about for many years (the idea of starting something on my phone, it comes up on my TV screen when I get home, everything is sync'ed, etc.) without really seeing something commercial that really does it.
> I think the big thing people are missing in Apple's strategy with this is the streaming from iOS to AppleTV.
Absolutely. Your idea about the single boolean to allow an app to stream to Apple TV is brilliant. I was thinking Apple TV would be its own iOS platform with apps, etc, but I think you might have the solution here.
As I watched the presentation, I thought the biggest feature of Apple TV was the streaming from the iOS device. Sending Up from his iPad to the TV was cool, as is the idea of easy slideshows from pictures you take. If a friend could bring over a movie he has on his iPhone and zap it over to your TV, that would be hugely useful.
I see Apple TV at this point as akin to one of those music docks people have for their iPods. Same price and same idea. The music dock, you plop your phone down and now you have speakers for everyone to hear your songs. Apple TV, everyone can hear/watch your media on the TV.
I would love for Apple TV to eventually disrupt the awful TV industry someday, but for now I'm not sure it's much more than a low-margin accessory to generate more sales of iProducts.
Absolutely. Your idea about the single boolean to allow an app to stream to Apple TV is brilliant. I was thinking Apple TV would be its own iOS platform with apps, etc, but I think you might have the solution here.
As I watched the presentation, I thought the biggest feature of Apple TV was the streaming from the iOS device. Sending Up from his iPad to the TV was cool, as is the idea of easy slideshows from pictures you take. If a friend could bring over a movie he has on his iPhone and zap it over to your TV, that would be hugely useful.
I see Apple TV at this point as akin to one of those music docks people have for their iPods. Same price and same idea. The music dock, you plop your phone down and now you have speakers for everyone to hear your songs. Apple TV, everyone can hear/watch your media on the TV.
I would love for Apple TV to eventually disrupt the awful TV industry someday, but for now I'm not sure it's much more than a low-margin accessory to generate more sales of iProducts.
Unfortunately, that still leaves us with the trouble of getting the content providers on board. I would love it if I could use, for instance, a Hulu app on my tv. I'd even put up with having to use both an iPad and an Apple TV to do it, if the interface were slick enough. But that won't happen, because even if AirPlay provides that functionality, Hulu won't enable it. They'll block it just like they blocked Boxee. I don't blame the Hulu guys for this, since I'm fairly confident that they are forced to take these stances by the content providers, but it's an unavoidable fact of the situation.
There's already a Hulu app for iOS. The only reason they'd have for blocking AirPlay would be if the content providers got bitchy about it - but the thing about AppleTV is that it's all streaming. This makes it, conceptually, no different than streaming the content to a browser or to the Hulu app itself like they already do. The AppleTV is a closed box with no apps, so Apple can claim to the networks that it's very secure, etc. The content providers might be more open to that idea since the data itself is always transient (streamed from the net to the app, from the app to the TV - nothing is ever stored which is what the providers are deathly afraid of).
The other angle here is that this could eliminate the need for Hulu entirely. Smart networks could make their own apps that follow their own desired content rules (letting you see live, non-live, only the last X days, whatever they want). And they can stream the content to the app in whatever manner of subscription they choose. And indie production companies could skip networks entirely and go straight to the App Store - just like indie musicians and podcasters are already doing.
The other angle here is that this could eliminate the need for Hulu entirely. Smart networks could make their own apps that follow their own desired content rules (letting you see live, non-live, only the last X days, whatever they want). And they can stream the content to the app in whatever manner of subscription they choose. And indie production companies could skip networks entirely and go straight to the App Store - just like indie musicians and podcasters are already doing.
I think the point of the above comment is that companies are already on board with iOS. MLB already has an iPhone app that streams video. If an AirPlay API is added, MLB releases an update and BOOM! Your TV now has baseball diamonds* .
The great thing would be that you have video on-the-go all the time, and you now have the additional option of viewing it on a bigger screen at home. It'll be hard for content providers to say, we're providing the video to users on the iPhone but we don't want them to have the ability to see it on their TV.
*Memes not required for API compatibility.
The great thing would be that you have video on-the-go all the time, and you now have the additional option of viewing it on a bigger screen at home. It'll be hard for content providers to say, we're providing the video to users on the iPhone but we don't want them to have the ability to see it on their TV.
*Memes not required for API compatibility.
Yes, exactly!
With no content storage and 100% streaming, there's no reason this couldn't work from any iDevice to any AppleTV. What I mean is: Say you have the MLB app on your iPhone, but your friend doesn't but he has an AppleTV and giant screen. You go over there with your iPhone, tap a single button, and you can both enjoy the game on the big screen. There's no syncing or sharing of iTunes accounts necessary. The same for sharing and enjoying movies and TV shows with friends. This is exactly the element that's missing in almost all current online content delivery schemes.
With no content storage and 100% streaming, there's no reason this couldn't work from any iDevice to any AppleTV. What I mean is: Say you have the MLB app on your iPhone, but your friend doesn't but he has an AppleTV and giant screen. You go over there with your iPhone, tap a single button, and you can both enjoy the game on the big screen. There's no syncing or sharing of iTunes accounts necessary. The same for sharing and enjoying movies and TV shows with friends. This is exactly the element that's missing in almost all current online content delivery schemes.
MLB At Bat just added video out via the iPad VGA adapter just a few days ago so they're clearly comfortable with the concept of using the iPad to stream to a TV.
Apple's trouble with TV is that it isn't "all of mobile computing", which is what they're busy taking over. A recent article pointed out that the iPhone is to Apple 2010 what search is to Google. Seems about right.
Apple's strategy with TV seems to be to slow-roll it until they get to a place where they can execute a strategy that will dominate it. They can't do nothing, since that would enable competitors to dominate it. They can't revoke everyone's TV. So they launch a "hobby" product to maintain a certain level of uncertainty in the marketplace.
Criticizing the success of the Apple TV in light of that seems somewhat silly. They actually call it a hobby. I assume they're doing the minimum with it that they can actually get away with; any dollar they spend over that minimum is a dollar that isn't going to total domination of mobile computing.
Apple's strategy with TV seems to be to slow-roll it until they get to a place where they can execute a strategy that will dominate it. They can't do nothing, since that would enable competitors to dominate it. They can't revoke everyone's TV. So they launch a "hobby" product to maintain a certain level of uncertainty in the marketplace.
Criticizing the success of the Apple TV in light of that seems somewhat silly. They actually call it a hobby. I assume they're doing the minimum with it that they can actually get away with; any dollar they spend over that minimum is a dollar that isn't going to total domination of mobile computing.
You are probably right that they are not putting very much effort into it but I think they’re doing ever so slightly more with their newest attempt. Apple TV is a lot less complicated (which certainly helps) and it seems to be very competitively priced.
It looks like you get the iPhone (or iPod touch) guts [+] without screen, battery, cameras and probably a lot less persistent storage (I’m guessing anything between 512MB and 2GB) in a bigger box (most of that space is probably used by the PSU, though). That might just give you a margin when you sell it for $100, but probably not a big one.
I don’t think it will be a hit but I do think it will be more successful than the predecessor.
[+] Gruber seems to have a source that tells him that Apple TV uses iOS and the processor is a A4.
It looks like you get the iPhone (or iPod touch) guts [+] without screen, battery, cameras and probably a lot less persistent storage (I’m guessing anything between 512MB and 2GB) in a bigger box (most of that space is probably used by the PSU, though). That might just give you a margin when you sell it for $100, but probably not a big one.
I don’t think it will be a hit but I do think it will be more successful than the predecessor.
[+] Gruber seems to have a source that tells him that Apple TV uses iOS and the processor is a A4.
Given everything else they're doing with Apple TV, the least surprising explanation for the iOS/A4 thing is that it's just easier for Apple to build new products on that platform. It's probably not a major strategy "tell".
I agree with you, that was just the expand on the ‘competitively priced’ point. The use of iPhone components (both software and hardware) doesn’t seem very indicative of any big strategy change to me, either.
Calling it a Hobby is a great entry point, as in removing the threat from the usurper on the most cherished media device in the typical american home - the TV, the size of the thing? you don't even need to reorganize your setup. just plop it there.
They are positioning themselves better then say Microsoft is, simply by referring to it as TV something, which is familiar to most people and isn't regarded as a niche market.
Consider the Xbox360, it has a relativity competitive price, all the features the Apple TV has plus, and superior implementation of others (codec support for one), and I am not even mentioning the fact that you can play games on it. (and the networks currently supported on Xbox can be seen here - http://social.zune.net/tv)
The Xbox however, is marketed as a game console, not as a Netflix, Music Video streaming/renting/buying device, that leaves it in a corner that apple is currently free to dominate using their considerable marketing clout.
The form factor and name are unassuming and non threatening, it passes clear below geek radar, but grabs the imagination of the public, in this case even without any clear technical innovation.
They are positioning themselves better then say Microsoft is, simply by referring to it as TV something, which is familiar to most people and isn't regarded as a niche market.
Consider the Xbox360, it has a relativity competitive price, all the features the Apple TV has plus, and superior implementation of others (codec support for one), and I am not even mentioning the fact that you can play games on it. (and the networks currently supported on Xbox can be seen here - http://social.zune.net/tv)
The Xbox however, is marketed as a game console, not as a Netflix, Music Video streaming/renting/buying device, that leaves it in a corner that apple is currently free to dominate using their considerable marketing clout.
The form factor and name are unassuming and non threatening, it passes clear below geek radar, but grabs the imagination of the public, in this case even without any clear technical innovation.
This is pure speculation on my part, but I think that when Apple starts caring about the set-top, you're going to know about it, because you won't be able to catch a train without seeing 10 billboards about it, and the product offering itself will be so complete that HN users will not be able to shut about how unjust its restrictions are.
The notion that Apple is just lousy at marketing set-top products and that's why this isn't a runaway success beggars belief. Did you see Steve Jobs just collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player? Because I just saw him collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player.
The notion that Apple is just lousy at marketing set-top products and that's why this isn't a runaway success beggars belief. Did you see Steve Jobs just collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player? Because I just saw him collect a huge round of applause for introducing buttons on an MP3 player.
Well the PS3 is sort of marketed as a home entertainment device. "It does everything" and the fact that it supports blu-ray are evidence of that.
My impression is that the new Apple TV is no longer a hobby and thus criticism of it is fair game. Of course it hasn't even shipped yet, so people can only criticize the idea rather than the sales.
Steve Jobs just got up on stage and called it a hobby again.
Look, criticism is fair game no matter what they do. Apple isn't entitled to have the set top industry move at a pace they set. I'm just saying, there's a million things Apple can do to improve Apple TV, but improving Apple TV isn't really the point of Apple TV.
Look, criticism is fair game no matter what they do. Apple isn't entitled to have the set top industry move at a pace they set. I'm just saying, there's a million things Apple can do to improve Apple TV, but improving Apple TV isn't really the point of Apple TV.
I think this article is missing the long-term changes Jobs wants to see with TV. It's pretty shortsighted to say that Apple should just build a better TiVo (with more input options), which is essentially what this article argues.
The talk that he references is very telling of how Jobs thinks about this space, but he's wrong to think that Jobs was hinting at the new Apple TV as the solution to the problems he was discussing. The Apple TV announced yesterday is still just a hobby, and Steve obviously knows and acknowledges that openly.
The decades-old model of TV channels with scheduled content broadcasting is on the chop block here. That is what needs to eventually change. It's going to be a long uphill battle for Apple to affect that change, since all parties involved are so heavily invested in the current business models. If Apple were to embrace the status quo (like TiVo), that would be counterproductive.
So instead they continue to pursue Apple TV as a hobby and they hope to prove to the content providers that they can make as much (or more) money by renting out their content and streaming it over the internet. If they eventually succeed in amassing all the content currently provided by cable and satellite companies, consumers will buy their device en masse. I agree with those who predict that the Apple TV, at that point, will actually be a TV instead of a set top box. That's what Jobs was referring to when he said "tear up the set top box" and "nobody's willing to buy a set top box."
The talk that he references is very telling of how Jobs thinks about this space, but he's wrong to think that Jobs was hinting at the new Apple TV as the solution to the problems he was discussing. The Apple TV announced yesterday is still just a hobby, and Steve obviously knows and acknowledges that openly.
The decades-old model of TV channels with scheduled content broadcasting is on the chop block here. That is what needs to eventually change. It's going to be a long uphill battle for Apple to affect that change, since all parties involved are so heavily invested in the current business models. If Apple were to embrace the status quo (like TiVo), that would be counterproductive.
So instead they continue to pursue Apple TV as a hobby and they hope to prove to the content providers that they can make as much (or more) money by renting out their content and streaming it over the internet. If they eventually succeed in amassing all the content currently provided by cable and satellite companies, consumers will buy their device en masse. I agree with those who predict that the Apple TV, at that point, will actually be a TV instead of a set top box. That's what Jobs was referring to when he said "tear up the set top box" and "nobody's willing to buy a set top box."
Apple's successes in the music and phone industries have both been accompanied with a radical redefinition of the role of the content/service provider. All this article really says is that the Apple TV can't take off unless it is accompanied with a similar revolution for cable companies, and that the author is skeptical that Apple can engineer a revolution in that industry. I think Apple would probably agree to a large extent.
The complexities of living room hardware are a result of a reluctance of certain companies to abandon the broadcast paradigm for video. Devices like DVRs and SlingBox are either completely unnecessary or vastly simpler when all video is on-demand. The new Apple TV is what those devices will have to become if the traditional cable business model of transmitting every channel simultaneously to every house is replaced by an all-IP solution. (And that switch will eventually occur, because fiber to the home internet services will eventually force cable providers to reallocate all their channels to IP service.)
Once traditional broadcast services die, there's no reason to keep the concept of watching a new show at the exact same time as your neighbor (except in the case of live broadcasts, which Apple demonstrated yesterday that they probably have a solution for).
The difficulty for Apple comes from the fact that the whole pricing structure will have to change. Instead of spamming a vague number of viewers with commercials that lengthen the viewing time by 30%, and charging subscribers fees that subsidize content they never watch, providers and consumers will have to deal with real, accurate numbers: how much it really costs to produce a show, how many people are willing to pay to see that show, and how many people really see those ads.
This change is far more significant than Apple's wresting control of the iPhone software from the cellular carriers, and far more predictable than the shake-up that resulted from $0.99 songs. Apple can't manipulate all the players in to making this transition happen, so they have to rely on the market forces that already exist and position themselves to be the first and best ones to fill the niche that the Apple TV is waiting for.
The complexities of living room hardware are a result of a reluctance of certain companies to abandon the broadcast paradigm for video. Devices like DVRs and SlingBox are either completely unnecessary or vastly simpler when all video is on-demand. The new Apple TV is what those devices will have to become if the traditional cable business model of transmitting every channel simultaneously to every house is replaced by an all-IP solution. (And that switch will eventually occur, because fiber to the home internet services will eventually force cable providers to reallocate all their channels to IP service.)
Once traditional broadcast services die, there's no reason to keep the concept of watching a new show at the exact same time as your neighbor (except in the case of live broadcasts, which Apple demonstrated yesterday that they probably have a solution for).
The difficulty for Apple comes from the fact that the whole pricing structure will have to change. Instead of spamming a vague number of viewers with commercials that lengthen the viewing time by 30%, and charging subscribers fees that subsidize content they never watch, providers and consumers will have to deal with real, accurate numbers: how much it really costs to produce a show, how many people are willing to pay to see that show, and how many people really see those ads.
This change is far more significant than Apple's wresting control of the iPhone software from the cellular carriers, and far more predictable than the shake-up that resulted from $0.99 songs. Apple can't manipulate all the players in to making this transition happen, so they have to rely on the market forces that already exist and position themselves to be the first and best ones to fill the niche that the Apple TV is waiting for.
The Apple TV is so close for me now. If it had a more wide range of supported formats I would be all over it, but I'm relegated to the world of WD TV Live Plus right now. People say that this is a techie-only feature, but I highly disagree. Apple built it's reputation on "it just works" and being able to play any format follows that. If it plays everything, customers no longer need to figure out which formats it does or does not play, "it just works."
It's a very fine line for Apple. Supporting piracy-centric formats is a big stamp of approval which will hurt their ability to put together legitimate content deals. I'm puzzled why the piracy groups don't just adopt MP4/H264 as a standard distribution format. That would solve the problem and you get the added bonus of having metadata. One of the long standing problems of supporting the AVI container in a database driven UI is you don't have any metadata to work with.
If supporting "piracy-centric formats" were a turn-off to content providers, wouldn't the same thing have happened with the iPod, which support everyone's favorite piracy format, the mp3? Granted, the tv and movie studios are in a much stronger negotiating position than the record labels, but I don't think that would be a sticking point for them. I'd guess that Apple is pushing a single format for the same reason they do with their mobile devices - hardware decoding.
Didn't stop Microsoft from including DivX support on xbox360, and they have a wider range of content providers. At issue here is the legitimacy of Apple as content provider, not others.
I remember they took their time to add DivX support though. A couple of years maybe. And they still haven't released web browsing, which i'd find useful
A quick google search points to mkv being used by anime fansubbing groups due to ease of putting multiple streams in one container, and the ease of using any audio and video codec you choose. Then it spread. That and and the fact mp4 doesn't support the ac3 codec and that tools used to make mkv files tend to be better and don't suffer from audio being out of sync with the video problems as much.
I'm pretty much resigned to buying a Mac mini (current with HDMI), Drobo, and ipod/iphone dock. It does everything the Apple TV does and can also serve as a central media station / sync box for the iOS devices. Plus, I can get all my media off my dev machine and goto flash drives. I can then use my old Apple TV with a second tv.
It's an awfully steep price to pay for it though. It's convenient, but is it really worth 6x the price of an Apple TV or 5x the price of a WDTV Live?
I'm thinking that using it as the sync machine for iDevices and the keeping of all my content off my dev machine are probably worth the price. I can switch to SSDs (space for speed) and have fewer distractions on the dev machine. I am still thinking on it.
Assuming Apple can eventually get more of the networks and cable channels to share their content with the AppleTV the remaining big impediment for a consumer like me is live sports.
I'd gladly pay for a live and on-demand archive for my favorite sports teams (and/or leagues) streamed in HD to my television. I know there are cable/satellite options for this as well as some internet/broswer-based ones but is there any solution currently bundled into any of the Roku/Boxee/AppleTV devices?
I'd gladly pay for a live and on-demand archive for my favorite sports teams (and/or leagues) streamed in HD to my television. I know there are cable/satellite options for this as well as some internet/broswer-based ones but is there any solution currently bundled into any of the Roku/Boxee/AppleTV devices?
It looks like it only plays h.246 mp4 files and that makes this totally useless to me.
It leaves us with a fairly simple choice... will we put up with a more complicated yet infinitely more extensible UI with a price premium of around $100[1] to fill in this gap, or are we willing to settle, get a nice UI, and pay $100 less?
[1] http://boxee.tv
[1] http://boxee.tv
At the risk of sounding like an Apple apologist, I strongly suspect the content providers are the reason for the Apple TV's reliative lameness. I don't think it'll be possible to build a truly great settop box until the TV networks stop with their fantasy that if they're stubborn enough, things will go back to the way it was before the internet.
I think that Ars has done a good job of explaining something that I really didn't think about. Music was an easier sale to content distributors.
However, in my mind, the big hurdle that neither Apple nor any of it's competitors have overcome is user interface.
It's still not easy for me to say that I'd like to watch all of the new episodes of each show that I watch, have those shows automatically downloaded and presented in an easy (1 click) informative way to view on one of the 3 TV's in my house. Also, I want an easy, free way to preview new shows to see if I'd like to add them to my monthly rental subscription price and purchase an entire box set after each season ends in case I really like it.
That's it... it's not rocket science but no one has it right yet. The closest I've come is TED and Boxee.
However, in my mind, the big hurdle that neither Apple nor any of it's competitors have overcome is user interface.
It's still not easy for me to say that I'd like to watch all of the new episodes of each show that I watch, have those shows automatically downloaded and presented in an easy (1 click) informative way to view on one of the 3 TV's in my house. Also, I want an easy, free way to preview new shows to see if I'd like to add them to my monthly rental subscription price and purchase an entire box set after each season ends in case I really like it.
That's it... it's not rocket science but no one has it right yet. The closest I've come is TED and Boxee.
I was hoping for an App Store to be introduced. Imagine the type of functionality this would enable on our TVs. You could have TV-optimized apps to check the weather, traffic, sports scores, show times, or stream video from other sources like Vimeo or Hulu. To get around watching videos you've downloaded elsewhere, there might be an Air Video like app which transcodes videos on the fly for viewing non-supported files.
This could also be Apple's trojan horse into the console market. There are already thousands of games available on the iPhone and iPad. It wouldn't be too hard to port many of them over to this platform since they're all running iOS. Perhaps you can use your existing iPod touches/iPhones as input devices. There's so much potential without even looking at the TV-content side of the business.
This could also be Apple's trojan horse into the console market. There are already thousands of games available on the iPhone and iPad. It wouldn't be too hard to port many of them over to this platform since they're all running iOS. Perhaps you can use your existing iPod touches/iPhones as input devices. There's so much potential without even looking at the TV-content side of the business.
Since its got the hardware inside there's always the possibility that this functionality magically appears in iOS 4.3 or similar.
It happened with apps and the original iPhone, I think Apple would be happy to wait until they have a polished product for launch and then announce rather than pre-announce before it's ready.
It happened with apps and the original iPhone, I think Apple would be happy to wait until they have a polished product for launch and then announce rather than pre-announce before it's ready.
One thing that makes the transition to the living-room difficult compared to iTunes/iPod, is that iTunes showed up at the beginning of digital music, so there wasn't a leader to deliver music to your home.
Whereas TV channels have been coming to your living-rooms for decades. You buy a TV once and the channels are here. For the most part, you still had to go out to buy CDs.
In other words, the Apple TV is trying to replace something, while iTunes was providing something new.
Whereas TV channels have been coming to your living-rooms for decades. You buy a TV once and the channels are here. For the most part, you still had to go out to buy CDs.
In other words, the Apple TV is trying to replace something, while iTunes was providing something new.
It's unclear to me how the TV works with non-Apple software. Will it stream movies from any DAAP server? Can I use it with my existing digital movie collection that is not housed in iTunes?
I already have devices that can display Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand, etc. onto my TV (TiVo). Will this get the rest of my content to my television?
I already have devices that can display Netflix, Amazon Video on Demand, etc. onto my TV (TiVo). Will this get the rest of my content to my television?
What if this was a way to attack the games consoles?
Eg - what if you're playing a game on your iphone/itouch, and it's streaming it live to your iTV. Basically, your iphone/itouch has then become a touch-screen game controller, and the itv has replaced your wii/xbox/ps3 ... It's totally feasible by the sounds of it.
Maybe replace the Wii, but it's going to need a lot more power and dedication to game playing people if it wants to target Xbox or PS3.
I think Apple is missing the point with Apple TV. People don't want another machine that they have to change inputs to view the content they want.
I think Google TV has a better direction but who knows when they plan on releasing it. http://www.google.com/tv/
I think Google TV has a better direction but who knows when they plan on releasing it. http://www.google.com/tv/
Let's see, Amazon's purchase-HD-video-for-$1 is still a better deal and there are no compelling features over Google TV which will allow me to use whatever distribution channels I want for my content. It allows any Android (or any, period) device to act as a remote through an open protocol. You can install any app. And if you want you can watch "amateur content" that is too good for Jobs. (His sentiment, not mine).
They may have launched first, but I'm way more excited about what Google is not going to launch, but truly enable.
They may have launched first, but I'm way more excited about what Google is not going to launch, but truly enable.
I think that feature is the disruptive angle to the AppleTV and that's the reason I bought one. Here's why:
All Apple has to do is add a single Boolean switch to the built in video player: allowsAirPlay. If they do this, then with a single line of code, any app developer can make an app that allows their content to be streamed to an AppleTV. Your iDevice becomes the worlds most powerful remote control almost instantly. Developers (studios, individual shows, whatever) just need to create apps for iOS which authenticate or manage the subscription to their content, and the customers can tap a single button to see it on their big screen. You gain all the advantages of apps on the AppleTV itself without actually needing them to be installed there!
Suddenly the App Store becomes a cable TV network. The added benefit is - you don't need to have an AppleTV to enjoy the benefits! Plug your iPad into your TV using that adapter cable, and you could still enjoy the same content. Or take it with you when you travel - your TV channels are all there. And when you're at home, just tap the AirPlay button to see it on the big screen.
That's the disruption I'm hoping for and Apple has every single piece in place now to do this.