Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56440 > unrolled thread

OT: New Apple TV rumours

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 14:18 -0500
    Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 12:39 -0700
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 15:03 -0500
        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 13:42 -0700
          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 16:24 -0500
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 15:32 -0600
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-12 21:51 +0000
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:22 -0700
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 17:31 -0500
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:47 -0700
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2014-02-13 04:39 +0000
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-14 12:08 -0800
          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 16:40 -0500
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:28 -0700
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 17:48 -0500
                Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 16:00 -0700
                  Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 18:29 -0500
                    Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 16:49 -0700
                      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 18:56 -0500
                        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 17:08 -0700
                          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 23:18 -0500
                            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Happynet Steering Society <b@o.ru> - 2014-02-13 17:04 -0500
                            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 17:38 -0500
                          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 17:38 -0500
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-02-12 22:48 -0800
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-13 17:09 -0500
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 17:20 -0500
        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:46 -0700
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-13 15:27 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#56475

1- The photo in an article is irrelevant. They took what they had
becauise of time pressure to publish.

2- Yes, aligning itself with cable companies means Apple is ditching
attempts to compete against cable and replace cable as the main home
entertainment distribution. Apple realised it couldn't turn Hollywood
against itself to support Apple because "itself" (cable, TV stations) is
still profitable).

3- The plot thickens. Since bloomberg broke the story ealier, another
one broke; Comcast is buying Time Warner Cable , the company Apple had
been rumoured to have a deal with.

Note Comcast owns NBC Universal. Huge hoarder of content. Comcast bought
NBC-Universal for a number of reasons, all of which relate to preserving
its cable TV business against internet competitors. We had the same
happen in Canada in recent years.


Also of note and little publicised: Tivo apparently stopped producing
hardware. Nice slot for Apple to step in. But it does become a supplier
to cable companies (aka: slave to cable companies). Don't expect
features such as easy skip of commercials for instance.

The big question is whether in a scenario where Apple provides the set
top box, if "on demand" delivery will still be done by the cable company
or by Apple.

Note: TV stations such as HBO require a cable subscription to that
channel in order to access its programming in a non-linear fashion (on
demand) or on alternate devices (aka: internet/mobile).

So it is likely that Apple would be subservient to
Comcast/TimeWarnerCable for on-demand content. (but could still sell and
rent movies from iTunes as a separate transaction, but it remains to be
seen if this will be competetively proved against the Comcast identical
offerings.

On the other hand, this may also result in Apple getting good access to
NBC-Universal content for areas/countries not served by Comcast.


When you have ABC, CBS, NBC each producing theor own content, things
were simple. But the milyioplication of channels and distribution
mediums has made obtaining rights to programs the big ticket. To quite a
Rogers regulatory guy during the Bell-Astral takeover headrings: we are
entering a rights cold war". (distributors fighting to get rights to
distribute content).

For instance, in Canada, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are hoarding many on-line
rights to prevent Netflix from making those titles available to Canadians.

Apple becoming a slave to cable companies could signal a tectonic shift
at the competitive level, cementing cable industry,s control over
content and its distribution.

Obviously, the future of Apple TV is just a rumour. But if it pans as as
Bloombergs rumoured ot would, it could mean signicant lessening of
competition on the USA  media market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56509

In article <52fc478f$0$49603$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> For instance, in Canada, Bell, Shaw and Rogers are hoarding many on-line
> rights to prevent Netflix from making those titles available to Canadians.

Why guys like me steal stuff. I tried out a Netflux account, and aside 
from tweaking it so I could get the US-based service, I never watched 
anything and cancelled at the end of my free month. I used an AE rebate 
card worth ten bucks to sign up too.

Torrents torrents torrents and XBMC.
-- 
a bozo is just an upside-down smile

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56514

In article <52fc478f$0$49603$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> 1- The photo in an article is irrelevant. They took what they had
> becauise of time pressure to publish.

exactly.

then later when they had a chance, they fixed it. it's not a big deal
and contrary to what some believe, whether the story has merit or not
is a separate issue, completely unrelated to the choice of a photo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56513

In article <120220141708372000%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > > I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
> > > > > quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.
> > > > 
> > > > nope. i was going by what *you* wrote.
> > > > 
> > > > *you* said you wondered how accurate it could be based on the photo
> > > > they included. those are *your* words, which you conveniently snipped.
> > > 
> > > I wrote "the article", and you said that you didn't see anything in
> > > what I quoted about service.  If you're going to continue to lie,
> > > please don't make it so easy to point out the lie; it's like shooting
> > > fish in a barrel.
> > 
> > here's what you wrote, where you question the validity of bloomberg's
> > report based on a photo, exactly as i said you did.
> > 
> > In article <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> > <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > > shopping season.
> > > 
> > > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> > > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> > 
> > 
> > you *later* brought up the service. you said *nothing* about the
> > service in the original post.
> 
> One last thing, and then I'm really done.  If you had bothered to read
> the article, you would have known what I was referring to, but you were
> so eager to jump in and argue that you didn't bother to do that.  You
> can try to weasel your way around that all you want, but you can't
> change the facts.

i was responding solely to what you wrote, in that you discounted an
article, regardless of what it said or didn't say, because of the
choice of a photo.

you are trying to turn it into something it isn't, as usual, and it's
*you* who is weaseling.

but you'll never admit it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56484

On 2/12/14   PDT, 2:28 PM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
> As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
> error.  That model of Apple TV has been a discontinued model for almost
> four years, and there are stock photos of the current model available.
> Because the writer didn't do even the basic research to include a photo
> of the current model makes me doubt that he did much of any research at
> all.

Regardless of any conclusion, MS's reasoning is impeccable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56510

On 2014.02.12, 17:28 , Michelle Steiner wrote:

> As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
> error.

Journalism (ahem in this case) is not the preparation of a court case.

<s>
> Because the writer didn't do even the basic research to include a photo
> of the current model makes me doubt that he did much of any research at
> all.

The journalist is often not the person looking for accompanying photos 
or graphics.  Indeed they may never have ever met.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56453

On 2014.02.12, 14:39 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>> Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
>> TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
>> shopping season.
>
> Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.

Nope: 1st gen:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Apple_TV_back_.jpg/800px-Apple_TV_back_.jpg

Photo shown in the link is 2nd/3rd gen.

-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56457

In article <nvWdnV3BXPw8bmbPnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Nope: 1st gen:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Apple_TV_back_.jpg/8
> 00px-Apple_TV_back_.jpg

That's what was in the link when I saw it.

> Photo shown in the link is 2nd/3rd gen.

Someone must have told them that they had a picture of an older model,
and they changed the photo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56492

In message <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>> Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
>> TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
>> shopping season.

> Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.

There will be, by all accounts, a new version of the Apple TV this year.
There will not be a Apple branded television.

-- 
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE DOES NOT END WITH HAIL SATAN Bart chalkboard
Ep. 1F16

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web