<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Apple iTV: It&#8217;s about the experience, not content</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 23:10:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jparkgatech</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-797067</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jparkgatech]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 03:37:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-797067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I completely agree with the idea of providing a robust platform. But I think the answer lies in the hardware this time around. Just as Jobs introduced the mouse that made computers personal, just as he introduced touch input method that made phones smart, there needs to be an input device/method that supports TV to its full potential. There&#039;s already so many ideas for contents that would make a TV smart... there just needs to be a controller to control it~ I mean look at the mess of controllers from Google, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sony, etc... the same reason why blackberry couldn&#039;t become a smart phone, these limit developers from doing whatever they want, whether its the limited functionality of buttons or their specific functionality (ie forcing developers to make motion content... for the passive nature of the living room)
jparkgatech.wordpress.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree with the idea of providing a robust platform. But I think the answer lies in the hardware this time around. Just as Jobs introduced the mouse that made computers personal, just as he introduced touch input method that made phones smart, there needs to be an input device/method that supports TV to its full potential. There&#8217;s already so many ideas for contents that would make a TV smart&#8230; there just needs to be a controller to control it~ I mean look at the mess of controllers from Google, Samsung, LG, Vizio, Sony, etc&#8230; the same reason why blackberry couldn&#8217;t become a smart phone, these limit developers from doing whatever they want, whether its the limited functionality of buttons or their specific functionality (ie forcing developers to make motion content&#8230; for the passive nature of the living room)<br />
jparkgatech.wordpress.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CfC</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-792690</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CfC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 00:53:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-792690</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The experience of watching TV is the content. Having a better interface is a great idea, but I don&#039;t believe that a great interface will open up legacy tv program products.

I do however see it as a means for all the start up shows and products on YouTube to migrate to a pay model, where they can chage for content and ads.

I also think that its important to recognize the slowing in flat screen sales. This doesn&#039;t look like the right time to start marketing an Apple tv set, very few will be interested I replacing their current flat screen, just to watch low bandwidth Internet TV with D grade content.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The experience of watching TV is the content. Having a better interface is a great idea, but I don&#8217;t believe that a great interface will open up legacy tv program products.</p>
<p>I do however see it as a means for all the start up shows and products on YouTube to migrate to a pay model, where they can chage for content and ads.</p>
<p>I also think that its important to recognize the slowing in flat screen sales. This doesn&#8217;t look like the right time to start marketing an Apple tv set, very few will be interested I replacing their current flat screen, just to watch low bandwidth Internet TV with D grade content.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orca5050</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-789139</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[orca5050]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:13:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-789139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s too late for Apple to emulate their success in aggregating content in music to TV and movies.  When they did that for music, having the catalog available in one place and able to be inserted in a easy to use hardware ecosystem was something new under the sun.  With video, the content is already widely available and is somewhat commoditized.  Too many people are in that game already and margins are poor.   Apple is just not that good at social, either. So I agree that the best bet for Apple is to try to transform the viewing experience itself with Siri like remote control capacity and to harness their developer community to create unique experiences only available on their platform via third party apps.  The current app landscape on so called smart-TVs is rather dull, check the weather, what&#039;s on Netflix instant, etc.  Who knew what a phone could do before the iPhone?  If Apple can make Apple TV may be the next must develop on platform, it will be very interesting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s too late for Apple to emulate their success in aggregating content in music to TV and movies.  When they did that for music, having the catalog available in one place and able to be inserted in a easy to use hardware ecosystem was something new under the sun.  With video, the content is already widely available and is somewhat commoditized.  Too many people are in that game already and margins are poor.   Apple is just not that good at social, either. So I agree that the best bet for Apple is to try to transform the viewing experience itself with Siri like remote control capacity and to harness their developer community to create unique experiences only available on their platform via third party apps.  The current app landscape on so called smart-TVs is rather dull, check the weather, what&#8217;s on Netflix instant, etc.  Who knew what a phone could do before the iPhone?  If Apple can make Apple TV may be the next must develop on platform, it will be very interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Larkin</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-789134</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Larkin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:09:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-789134</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s too late for Apple to emulate their success in aggregating content in music to TV and movies.  When they did that for music, having the catalog available in one place and able to be inserted in a easy to use hardware ecosystem was something new under the sun.  With video, the content is already widely available and is somewhat commoditized.  Too many people are in that game already and margins are poor.   Apple is just not that good at social, either. So I agree that the best bet for Apple is to try to transform the viewing experience itself with Siri like remote control capacity and to harness their developer community to create unique experiences only available on their platform via third party apps.  The current app landscape on so called smart-TVs is rather dull, check the weather, what&#039;s on Netflix instant, etc.  Who knew what a phone could do before the iPhone?  If Apple can make Apple TV may be the next must develop on platform, it will be very interesting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s too late for Apple to emulate their success in aggregating content in music to TV and movies.  When they did that for music, having the catalog available in one place and able to be inserted in a easy to use hardware ecosystem was something new under the sun.  With video, the content is already widely available and is somewhat commoditized.  Too many people are in that game already and margins are poor.   Apple is just not that good at social, either. So I agree that the best bet for Apple is to try to transform the viewing experience itself with Siri like remote control capacity and to harness their developer community to create unique experiences only available on their platform via third party apps.  The current app landscape on so called smart-TVs is rather dull, check the weather, what&#8217;s on Netflix instant, etc.  Who knew what a phone could do before the iPhone?  If Apple can make Apple TV may be the next must develop on platform, it will be very interesting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-788666</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rob]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-788666</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here here!
I have cable internet but no STB. All content I seek is downloaded/streamed from the internet on my HTPC. Never looked back.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here here!<br />
I have cable internet but no STB. All content I seek is downloaded/streamed from the internet on my HTPC. Never looked back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gaetan</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-786876</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gaetan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-786876</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interface, contents... who knows now. What thing is sure. If they release an Apple TV, the average waist size of their customers will increase sooooo much.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interface, contents&#8230; who knows now. What thing is sure. If they release an Apple TV, the average waist size of their customers will increase sooooo much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bunny</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-786539</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bunny]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-786539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ignorant fanboy author.

iTV is not highly anticipated. It may be for a small group of fanboys, but it is a product outside the Apple market.

Apple has made its tens of billions in the past decade on fashion devices. Small portable devices (and the store that sells additional content to them). Apple users want the social currency of carrying a &quot;hip&quot; product. During the past decade, Apple has failed miserably on the computer desktop. Their Mac Pros are, by some, 18 months late for an update. Apple TV was a complete flop, even though it is the only cheap Apple product considering the hardware you buy. Apple has been trying and failing to make that failure work for five years now.

iPods, iPhones, iPads, Macbooks, Macbook Airs, MacBook Pros. These have all fuelled Apple sales for the past decade. Most of the time, stripping hardware and features for smaller and lighter portable fashion products.

So how many of those teens and twentysomethings are going to flood the stores to buy a TV with the same content they already get? A TV that they can not show off in public to improve their social standing in their peer group. One that requires them to invite their friends (if they have any real friends to start with) to their neglected residence to watch normal shows. You are asking hipsters who live at the local starbucks to hang up their lifestyles and put on a pair of slippers for a relatively solo life in front of a TV.

Not to mention that most of these teens and twentysomethings ca only afford their iPhone on a 24 month contract. You will lose a notable percentage to start with by forcing them to get enough credit (or ready cash) to purchase a $2000 TV.

THEN you need to see it from the Networks POV. After viewing what Apple did to the music industry. Forcing lower returns for producers of content once Apple were the sole gatekeepers. Since Networks make healthy profits now, why do a deal with a company that will use your own content to go into direct price competition with your current revenue streams? You would need to have no brains whatsoever to agree to any sort of deal with Apple. Apple has a track record of playing dirtier than Microsoft ever did.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ignorant fanboy author.</p>
<p>iTV is not highly anticipated. It may be for a small group of fanboys, but it is a product outside the Apple market.</p>
<p>Apple has made its tens of billions in the past decade on fashion devices. Small portable devices (and the store that sells additional content to them). Apple users want the social currency of carrying a &#8220;hip&#8221; product. During the past decade, Apple has failed miserably on the computer desktop. Their Mac Pros are, by some, 18 months late for an update. Apple TV was a complete flop, even though it is the only cheap Apple product considering the hardware you buy. Apple has been trying and failing to make that failure work for five years now.</p>
<p>iPods, iPhones, iPads, Macbooks, Macbook Airs, MacBook Pros. These have all fuelled Apple sales for the past decade. Most of the time, stripping hardware and features for smaller and lighter portable fashion products.</p>
<p>So how many of those teens and twentysomethings are going to flood the stores to buy a TV with the same content they already get? A TV that they can not show off in public to improve their social standing in their peer group. One that requires them to invite their friends (if they have any real friends to start with) to their neglected residence to watch normal shows. You are asking hipsters who live at the local starbucks to hang up their lifestyles and put on a pair of slippers for a relatively solo life in front of a TV.</p>
<p>Not to mention that most of these teens and twentysomethings ca only afford their iPhone on a 24 month contract. You will lose a notable percentage to start with by forcing them to get enough credit (or ready cash) to purchase a $2000 TV.</p>
<p>THEN you need to see it from the Networks POV. After viewing what Apple did to the music industry. Forcing lower returns for producers of content once Apple were the sole gatekeepers. Since Networks make healthy profits now, why do a deal with a company that will use your own content to go into direct price competition with your current revenue streams? You would need to have no brains whatsoever to agree to any sort of deal with Apple. Apple has a track record of playing dirtier than Microsoft ever did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Murphy</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-786475</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Nick Murphy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:14:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-786475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HBO already shares approximately 50% of the retail price with Time Warner or Comcast. Providing 30% to Apple will actually allow HBO to make more money AND have a direct relationship with their subscriber base.

The difficult part for HBO and other content providers will be making the transition without alienating their current customers - Time Warner and Comcast.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HBO already shares approximately 50% of the retail price with Time Warner or Comcast. Providing 30% to Apple will actually allow HBO to make more money AND have a direct relationship with their subscriber base.</p>
<p>The difficult part for HBO and other content providers will be making the transition without alienating their current customers &#8211; Time Warner and Comcast.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Csathy</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-786302</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peter Csathy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-786302</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree that Apple&#039;s continuous focus on transforming &quot;experiences&quot; on any platform is foundational.  At the same time, the iTV will launch with some kind of significant content play.  I can imagine Apple also ultimately becoming a &quot;virtual cable company&quot; -- delivering live linear programming like ESPN -- so that its customers can truly cut the cord from the major cable company content packages.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that Apple&#8217;s continuous focus on transforming &#8220;experiences&#8221; on any platform is foundational.  At the same time, the iTV will launch with some kind of significant content play.  I can imagine Apple also ultimately becoming a &#8220;virtual cable company&#8221; &#8212; delivering live linear programming like ESPN &#8212; so that its customers can truly cut the cord from the major cable company content packages.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Duncan</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2011/12/28/apple-itv-not-about-the-content/#comment-786289</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Duncan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=461722#comment-786289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just like the tech &quot;journalists&quot; in late 2006 who were wagging tongues about a telephone from Apple? Reality turned out to be much greater than the anticipation there. Excellent article and the one that makes the most sense to me by far - except for the name which will almost certainly remain Apple TV.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just like the tech &#8220;journalists&#8221; in late 2006 who were wagging tongues about a telephone from Apple? Reality turned out to be much greater than the anticipation there. Excellent article and the one that makes the most sense to me by far &#8211; except for the name which will almost certainly remain Apple TV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
