The best thing that could happen to the Apple TV was the small collapse in media stocks over the summer. That was a turning point for media companies to seriously consider new over the top services that bypass cable, until then they weren't terribly worried about cord cutters. Apple's leverage has gone up and just like with the music industry, they get to ride in as the white knight rather than being feared as a barbarian at the gate.
I should add that you shouldn't expect to save much money from this, you'll likely end up spending the same or more trying to recreate everything you watch (the savings will only be to someone who watches a very small amount of content). The economics of bundling are almost impossible to beat. The difference will be improvements in user experience and enabling new experiences entirely (see the QVC app).
This isn't necessarily bad for cable either, their content acquisition costs will go down and the ISP business will only grow.
It's looking bad for me. In Australia we've got Netflix (with 1/10th the content), Stan and Presto. It's quite likely that your three favourite shows could cost you three subscriptions (~30AUD) instead of one. Pay TV is slowly declining, but if you want sport in HD (and you do, the MPEG2 bitrate on FTA is terrible), it's $50/month on a 12 month contract.
If I have to buy an Apple TV for some things, an XBox One for others and an Amazon TV (if they ever release it) for Unnamed New Top Gear Show I'm just gonna give up and use my extra time to learn Haskell.
(I did try IPTV, but my downstream speed is 8 megabit on a good day and it wasn't enough).
Foxtel really has a very poor HD offering, I would say compared to Foxtel (Netflix/Stan/Presto) offers much more content and at better qualities. The major limiting factor is bandwidth, hopeful the NBN makes it more viable. I have the new apple TV and the app selection is much better, Netflix/Stan/(Presto not yet) all on once device with others sure to follow. Presto is garbage though the quality can barely be called SD.
> someone who watches a very small amount of content
Your post is otherwise good; however its worth mentioning that the services tend to be narrow but extremely deep.
This will have interesting market fragmentation effects... Theoretically I could change the channels tonight between full metal alchemist reruns and ESPN, although not being interested in sports, I won't. But I could, and if I was really bored maybe I'd magically transmute into a rabid rugby fan. In an era where credit cards have to be whipped out and customer service argued with to change the channel-app, its likely I'll subscribe to an anime streaming service and never even have the ability to see ESPN.
And the follow on to that, is as a long term survival strategy, "TV apps" will almost need to let people stream one show per week for free with no subscription, otherwise due to normal churn you'll get 5% of your subs leaving annually and 0% new subs. At least currently, middlemen publishers need a smooth on ramp to survive.
And the follow on to the follow on, is people who only watch one show on XYZ network will likely watch for free, and the "TV app" ecosystem will likely smell a lot like the existing premium channel marketplace.
And the follow on to the follow on to the ..., is existing premium channels need to watch out... if the history channel gave up hitler, truckers, pawn shops, fishermen, and all the other stereotypical reality TV shows and actually did history for a change, HBO better look out if they think they can do everything with a headliner of a medieval g0repr0n series, surely a dedicated premium history app-channel could blow them out of the water, in fact trying to do everything will get them blown out of the water for everything, and given the lack of subscriber interest overlap, they're likely utterly doomed.
> In an era where credit cards have to be whipped out and customer service argued with to change the channel-app, its likely I'll subscribe to an anime streaming service and never even have the ability to see ESPN.
crunchyroll.com
I use it on my PS4 (I think they have a Wii-U app as well).
I think the idea of television as a big dumb screen driven by something else has a lot of merit, but I doubt it'll be run by a smartphone.
A while back I tried out the Popcorn Time app that kept making news before it was shuttered (via VPN of course). It wasn't so much that I didn't want to pay for anything. We subscribe to digital cable with HBO, Netflix, and Amazon Prime. My girlfriend watches cable a lot on the living room TV but I usually watch everything via HBO Go, Comcast On Demand, Amazon streaming, or Netflix. It's typically just easier than futzing around with the terrible DVR and I tend to pick up a show and watch it in chunks/seasons.
The thing that really struck me about Popcorn Time wasn't the fact that it was "OMG piracy!" or anything groundbreaking (torrents aren't new and some clients feature watching while you download). It was the fact that I could skim through every show, bookmark favorites, and see which episodes I already watched. You could search by genre or popularity or year like on Netflix. And there were no issues of trying to figure out which service has the show I want to watch, which one has the site that only works properly in that one browser, etc.
My takeaway, as someone who constantly flirts with cord-cutting, is that I'd totally pay someone (even Comcast) for a legal service like that. Hell, I'd even pay $50/mo or whatever cable costs on top of my internet service. In fact, I might even pay more because I could skip some of the other subscriptions. In fact, if cable is feeling the crunch from Netflix, then maybe they ought to out-Netflix Netflix.
I already treat Netflix like a low-cost equivalent to basic cable where you can't just go in expecting to find a certain new movie or show but you can usually flip around and find something you'd like to watch. I understand why it would be tough for some companies to negotiate the contracts for all that content but if anything, cable companies have loads of experience and existing partnerships for this sort of thing.
TL;DR: I'd gladly pay $50/mo for a legal Popcorn Time that delivers current and previous seasons of lots of shows in an easily searchable and bookmark-able interface via on-demand streaming. Streaming shows/series isn't new anymore but the missing piece is consistency and a single interface. I'm sure they'd screw it up in reality but if I'm fantasizing about the "perfect TV" that I'd gladly pay for, that would be it.
Can't happen soon enough. It's infinitely frustrating to load up a channel's Apple TV app, only to have to sign-in with my cable provider. I'll watch ads! I'd even pay a small subscription for certain channels. Just let me pick what show to watch and when. I feel like it's just these old media deals that are holding everything back.
Why develop another ecosystem just for an larger output device?
The TV—or I would rather call it 'large screen' will have a future as a dumb device which will be employed by other devices just for outputting content (best example is Chromecast). Yes, there still will be TV apps from manufacturers, from Apple and from whoever who needs to push new 'marktes' but they won't be able to build relevant ecosystems. The TV with its limited remote-control based UI patterns is too inflexible compared to a touch interface like that from a smartphone. So why not just let the smartphone be the TV's brain—and again we talk about Chromecast.
Having used my phone to control my TV, I vastly prefer the small aluminium remote Apple shipped with the Apple TV. The new remote for the latest Apple TV is quite good too (though it's hard to tell which way around it should be by feel alone).
Unlike you, I want a limited remote control based UI pattern for the TV. Complexity, location of my phone, and battery life are not things I'd like to worry about when I'm at home and want to navigate the TV. Nor do I want to be staring at a little screen to setup which content to play next.
From an interaction perspective, what I disliked in a smartphone-as-remote was the following:
* Not able to navigate by feel alone, in the dark
* Had to unlock phone to use it. Can't just pick it up and press a button without looking at the little screen
* Screen lights up and creates a distraction
* Battery life is measured in one or two days (and often, at night when you want to watch TV, is at its low point)
* Not good when you watch with a group of friends and like to navigate through shows, actors, directors on the big screen
* It just didn't feel good. I realise this is a vague point, but I didn't realise how much I valued the tactile sensation of a nice remote until its battery died and I was stuck with my phone for a while.
* It's far too easy to come across the touch surface and fast forward.
* Several times we've accidentally hit the search button
(Siri is disabled in Sweden) causing it to jump out of whatever we're watching on
Netflix and go to the search view.
* Needs better keyboard input.
I would prefer a circle and quick buttons for space/delete. Also would love previous search terms or a T9 interface for alphabet input.
Yeah I have that first issue exactly. While the touch pad is a fun addition, it's annoying when accidentally triggered. Might be good if they let you lock and unlock the remove by giving it a little shake.
I also accidentally hit the Siri button, but it's enabled here so it just triggers the Siri tutorial overlay. Which is less annoying than what you experience.
On keyboard input, that's probably the only place where a smartphone becomes valuable. The old Apple TV remote iOS app was good for entering usernames, passwords and search terms.
Is the same remote interface really ideal on every app, or are you constraining the app to the remote? Perhaps tailor the remote to each individual app? Something like http://www.jumpwick.com?
I'm not sure the correct TV remote interface exists yet. I have a tiny wireless keyboard-and-trackpad to control my WMC, and it's a real pain moving a mouse cursor around. Navigating a games console interface with a joystick is much more comfortable.
I agree that coupling the content-spigot-device tightly to the screen like "smart TVs" is a really bad idea until the technology matures enough that it can sensibly last 10 years. Otherwise people are going to end up with stranded icons. And then there's the usual privacy issues of closed devices (Samsung TV passim).
"Why are apps the future of TV?"
Because apps are how you monetize content on mobile devices, and sooner or later all your media will go through a mobile device.
"Why should TVs have a future?"
They don't mean TVs, they mean streaming video.
"Why develop another ecosystem just for an larger output device?.. let the smartphone be the TV's brain—and again we talk about Chromecast."
Yes. And the software that will control that brain will be written in an app.
Since Disney owns ABC, and ABC is a co-owner of the Hulu web app for watching TV and movies, it seems to me that Disney already has positive experience in this space.
BTW, Hulu with no commercials for $12/month is really nice.
20 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 53.9 ms ] threadI should add that you shouldn't expect to save much money from this, you'll likely end up spending the same or more trying to recreate everything you watch (the savings will only be to someone who watches a very small amount of content). The economics of bundling are almost impossible to beat. The difference will be improvements in user experience and enabling new experiences entirely (see the QVC app).
This isn't necessarily bad for cable either, their content acquisition costs will go down and the ISP business will only grow.
If I have to buy an Apple TV for some things, an XBox One for others and an Amazon TV (if they ever release it) for Unnamed New Top Gear Show I'm just gonna give up and use my extra time to learn Haskell.
(I did try IPTV, but my downstream speed is 8 megabit on a good day and it wasn't enough).
Your post is otherwise good; however its worth mentioning that the services tend to be narrow but extremely deep.
This will have interesting market fragmentation effects... Theoretically I could change the channels tonight between full metal alchemist reruns and ESPN, although not being interested in sports, I won't. But I could, and if I was really bored maybe I'd magically transmute into a rabid rugby fan. In an era where credit cards have to be whipped out and customer service argued with to change the channel-app, its likely I'll subscribe to an anime streaming service and never even have the ability to see ESPN.
And the follow on to that, is as a long term survival strategy, "TV apps" will almost need to let people stream one show per week for free with no subscription, otherwise due to normal churn you'll get 5% of your subs leaving annually and 0% new subs. At least currently, middlemen publishers need a smooth on ramp to survive.
And the follow on to the follow on, is people who only watch one show on XYZ network will likely watch for free, and the "TV app" ecosystem will likely smell a lot like the existing premium channel marketplace.
And the follow on to the follow on to the ..., is existing premium channels need to watch out... if the history channel gave up hitler, truckers, pawn shops, fishermen, and all the other stereotypical reality TV shows and actually did history for a change, HBO better look out if they think they can do everything with a headliner of a medieval g0repr0n series, surely a dedicated premium history app-channel could blow them out of the water, in fact trying to do everything will get them blown out of the water for everything, and given the lack of subscriber interest overlap, they're likely utterly doomed.
crunchyroll.com
I use it on my PS4 (I think they have a Wii-U app as well).
I think the idea of television as a big dumb screen driven by something else has a lot of merit, but I doubt it'll be run by a smartphone.
The thing that really struck me about Popcorn Time wasn't the fact that it was "OMG piracy!" or anything groundbreaking (torrents aren't new and some clients feature watching while you download). It was the fact that I could skim through every show, bookmark favorites, and see which episodes I already watched. You could search by genre or popularity or year like on Netflix. And there were no issues of trying to figure out which service has the show I want to watch, which one has the site that only works properly in that one browser, etc.
My takeaway, as someone who constantly flirts with cord-cutting, is that I'd totally pay someone (even Comcast) for a legal service like that. Hell, I'd even pay $50/mo or whatever cable costs on top of my internet service. In fact, I might even pay more because I could skip some of the other subscriptions. In fact, if cable is feeling the crunch from Netflix, then maybe they ought to out-Netflix Netflix.
I already treat Netflix like a low-cost equivalent to basic cable where you can't just go in expecting to find a certain new movie or show but you can usually flip around and find something you'd like to watch. I understand why it would be tough for some companies to negotiate the contracts for all that content but if anything, cable companies have loads of experience and existing partnerships for this sort of thing.
TL;DR: I'd gladly pay $50/mo for a legal Popcorn Time that delivers current and previous seasons of lots of shows in an easily searchable and bookmark-able interface via on-demand streaming. Streaming shows/series isn't new anymore but the missing piece is consistency and a single interface. I'm sure they'd screw it up in reality but if I'm fantasizing about the "perfect TV" that I'd gladly pay for, that would be it.
Why should TVs have a future?
Why develop another ecosystem just for an larger output device?
The TV—or I would rather call it 'large screen' will have a future as a dumb device which will be employed by other devices just for outputting content (best example is Chromecast). Yes, there still will be TV apps from manufacturers, from Apple and from whoever who needs to push new 'marktes' but they won't be able to build relevant ecosystems. The TV with its limited remote-control based UI patterns is too inflexible compared to a touch interface like that from a smartphone. So why not just let the smartphone be the TV's brain—and again we talk about Chromecast.
Unlike you, I want a limited remote control based UI pattern for the TV. Complexity, location of my phone, and battery life are not things I'd like to worry about when I'm at home and want to navigate the TV. Nor do I want to be staring at a little screen to setup which content to play next.
From an interaction perspective, what I disliked in a smartphone-as-remote was the following:
* Not able to navigate by feel alone, in the dark
* Had to unlock phone to use it. Can't just pick it up and press a button without looking at the little screen
* Screen lights up and creates a distraction
* Battery life is measured in one or two days (and often, at night when you want to watch TV, is at its low point)
* Not good when you watch with a group of friends and like to navigate through shows, actors, directors on the big screen
* It just didn't feel good. I realise this is a vague point, but I didn't realise how much I valued the tactile sensation of a nice remote until its battery died and I was stuck with my phone for a while.
I would prefer a circle and quick buttons for space/delete. Also would love previous search terms or a T9 interface for alphabet input.
I also accidentally hit the Siri button, but it's enabled here so it just triggers the Siri tutorial overlay. Which is less annoying than what you experience.
On keyboard input, that's probably the only place where a smartphone becomes valuable. The old Apple TV remote iOS app was good for entering usernames, passwords and search terms.
Sounds like it's so obvious that Apple is probably planning it :)
I use my Xbox to access other on demand services (C5 and C4) as the native sony support is so poor.
I agree that coupling the content-spigot-device tightly to the screen like "smart TVs" is a really bad idea until the technology matures enough that it can sensibly last 10 years. Otherwise people are going to end up with stranded icons. And then there's the usual privacy issues of closed devices (Samsung TV passim).
"Why should TVs have a future?" They don't mean TVs, they mean streaming video.
"Why develop another ecosystem just for an larger output device?.. let the smartphone be the TV's brain—and again we talk about Chromecast." Yes. And the software that will control that brain will be written in an app.
BTW, Hulu with no commercials for $12/month is really nice.