Very curious how many ATVs Apple has sold so far...

[DJinTX]

I was back and forth about this purchase for awhile, but ultimately took the plunge on Saturday. It certainly has it's limitations, but I am still really enjoying it. And so now I am wondering how well the launch went. Obviously there are no AppleTV commercials, so probably not alot of people know it came out unless they are gadget/apple freaks like we are.

I can't wait to hear how many units they sold. With so many reports here about all these stores being sold out, it has to be going very well. I just wonder if it is selling better than Apple predicted. If so, it bodes well for them to give it the attention it needs and open an ATV app store.

 

[OmegaRed1723]

The forecast looks pretty strong:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11183326#post11183326

 

[OptyCT]

The forecast looks pretty strong:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11183326#post11183326

You can bet this was Apple's grand plan. It has recently been revealed that Apple makes the AppleTV for $64 and sells it for $99. Compare that with the iPad (16GB wi-fi) which costs $260 to make and sells for $499. As you can see, the AppleTV is being sold at a much lower margin. Why? Steve Jobs knows that the more households you can get the AppleTV into, the more leverage Apple will have when negotiating with the TV networks for content. In the U.S., there are approximately 100 million households. If Apple can put their AppleTV's into a couple of million households, it's simply too large a group for the networks to ignore. It seems that Steve Jobs is approaching AppleTV's content in much the same way as he did the record companies with iTunes. Like the TV networks, the record companies weren't thrilled with the idea of $0.99 downloads. So, what did Apple do? They put iTunes into the hands of as many consumers as they could. The record companies had no choice but to capitulate. Let's hope the TV networks follow suit.

 

[ldaustin]

For Apple TV, there is more money to be made selling the blades than the razors.

 

[DJinTX]

For Apple TV, there is more money to be made selling the blades than the razors.

Is that the AppleTV Mad Max edition? Sounds badass to me.

 

[Omne666]

You can bet this was Apple's grand plan. It has recently been revealed that Apple makes the AppleTV for $64 and sells it for $99. Compare that with the iPad (16GB wi-fi) which costs $260 to make and sells for $499. As you can see, the AppleTV is being sold at a much lower margin. Why? Steve Jobs knows that the more households you can get the AppleTV into, the more leverage Apple will have when negotiating with the TV networks for content. In the U.S., there are approximately 100 million households. If Apple can put their AppleTV's into a couple of million households, it's simply too large a group for the networks to ignore. It seems that Steve Jobs is approaching AppleTV's content in much the same way as he did the record companies with iTunes. Like the TV networks, the record companies weren't thrilled with the idea of $0.99 downloads. So, what did Apple do? They put iTunes into the hands of as many consumers as they could. The record companies had no choice but to capitulate. Let's hope the TV networks follow suit.

If he actually thought like that, he's slow to the starting line. Whats it been? 4 years with the appletv v1??? He could have had a foothold beyond belief by now if his 'hobby' TV mark1 had been more competitive price wise. (AU$349 was just to high)
It had the UI that people are still screaming for, and for 2 years now, more then enough content via iTunes Store, is more versatile then TV v2 because of its internal storage. Afraid Jobs has created his own battle now with the competition because he didn't go hell for leather when he was the only 'big' player. WD had their version out what? 12 months ago at the same price point apple have just now hit. They had an inferior UI and no content store to back it up.
Im an Apple man thru and thru, but in this, Apple dropped the ball when the other players werent even on the field yet.

 

[DJinTX]

If he actually thought like that, he's slow to the starting line. Whats it been? 4 years with the appletv v1??? He could have had a foothold beyond belief by now if his 'hobby' TV mark1 had been more competitive price wise. (AU$349 was just to high)
It had the UI that people are still screaming for, and for 2 years now, more then enough content via iTunes Store, is more versatile then TV v2 because of its internal storage. Afraid Jobs has created his own battle now with the competition because he didn't go hell for leather when he was the only 'big' player. WD had their version out what? 12 months ago at the same price point apple have just now hit. They had an inferior UI and no content store to back it up.
Im an Apple man thru and thru, but in this, Apple dropped the ball when the other players werent even on the field yet.

Here are my thoughts...

When steve was interviewed at All Things D conference he talked at length about the problems with trying to innovate in the TV industry...and I think this knowledge came about from Apple's efforts to make an impact. I think they tried to innovate in this space constantly over the last 3 years, and kept running into roadblocks. So at some point they realized that they weren;t making any inroads, and completely changed their path. That is when they decided on the billion dollar server farm, and buying LaLa, and developing a streaming/rental/airplay plan. And ever since they have worked on making an very inexpensive device that could infiltrate as many user's homes as possible. This is just the first step in releasing their planned strategy. More cool things are coming, and it should be interesting.

I say all this because I don't think Steve and Co. were just diddling themselves and not trying to improve on their living room strategy, I just think that it proved to be very difficult.

 

[newagemac]

Exactly. And it's all because the content providers and the cable companies don't want to disrupt the little golden goose egg they've been laying for the past half a century. They are now being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by all the leading tech companies aided by consumers who are starting to wise up and expect and demand more.

I cut my cable a few months ago and if there are tv networks and content providers who don't want to provide easy and affordable access to their content on the devices I own, then I just won't be watching their content anymore. It's as simple as that. I no longer feel compelled to pay exorbitant prices to cable and satellite companies to receive other people's content. If short sighted companies like NBC want to stick to the old media way of doing things, they are just going to fall further and further behind companies like ABC and Fox who are innovating and trying new and different things.

 

[BoulderBum]

Why? Steve Jobs knows that the more households you can get the AppleTV into, the more leverage Apple will have when negotiating with the TV networks for content.

I suspect you're right to a degree. Apple wants a foothold in living rooms, too, and it may be a case like game systems where you sell the console as a loss leader, then more than make up for everything with revenues from content. If Apple makes a lot of money from movie rentals and the Apple TV is all about movie rentals, then why not offer the hardware for cheap?

Ironically, however, since I got my Apple TV 2, I've actually been paying much less for TV shows: I simply use Netflix instead of iTunes! I wonder if Apple gets royalties from Netflix viewings on the new Apple TV.

 

[Omne666]

Ive no doubt that bringing the living room into the 21st century is difficult. (Hell, just configuring the stuff from multiple providers is bad enough let alone radically changing it!!), but like I said, iTunes in the video arena has been very close to damn good for some time now. This year in my book it took a leap forward...the very night a prime TV Show has appeared on Free To Air, its available for purchase at the store. For me thats fantastic. No not all shows, but hey, same day service is pretty good no matter how many it starts off with.

Adding Netflix (which I cant get here in Oz), is a beautiful move. But buying an TV v1 at over $300 dollars to watch not so latest releases at a cost made the whole thing slow down.

I was happy cause I ripped all my own stuff and instantly (well, 12mnths later anyway) my 700 plus DVDs were streaming to all my TVs.

I saw that same interview, and I agreed with his reasoning, but also new that rarely indulge in 'hobbies'. What we have now was well and truly in the making then.

I just want to release a 50" LED LCD (or bigger) with the damn thing built in!!!! We've all seen the scifi movies....rip out one board, plug in another and you get a whole new set of features added. I want that in TV's. Apple TV 50" day one, and year 2, you order he new board which just slots in place of the current one and vavavoom...1080p!!! (or whatever is the go by then)

 

[DJinTX]

I don't really have alot of interest in an Apple branded television yet. For one thing they don't have the content agreements, but also we just got a new flat panel plasma about 2 years ago, and for the price we paid it had better last another 8-10 years.

Now, if Apple spends the next 4-6 years wooing all the TV industry content providers and gets some agreements in place that have real teeth, and then delivers an amazing all-in-one living room solution (which they certainly have the ability to do), then I might not be able to resist it, but only time will tell.


As far as I am concerned the content providers are shooting themselves in the foot. They are putting the death grip on the current market and trying to hold onto it for as long as possible, and sure, this will get them some short term money...but the smart providers see a big change coming and will want to be part of that change. I think any company who works to make this transition happen is going to be extremely profitable in the long term, because they will be a part of the solution and not the problem.

 

[OptyCT]

IMHO, I don't believe it will take very long for the other major networks to jump on board. As we all know, the bulk of revenue for the networks comes from advertising. If they jump into the online rental space, they won't be able to charge as much for advertising. That means that the revenue from online rentals would have to, at the very least, offset this lost revenue from advertising. This can only be done if there's a large demand in the online rental market. That remains to be seen, but Apple is off to a good start with getting ATV's into homes at the rate of 1 million per quarter.

The last several years, since ATV v.1's release, has given Apple a very clear picture as to the price points that will entice consumers. I think they've learned that the $2.99 price to purchase a newly-released HD television episode has not caused consumers to open up their wallets. However, Apple now believes (as I do too) that the $0.99 rental price will capture those "impulse purchases". They're hoping that the iTunes rentals become the equivalent of the gum/magazines at the checkout aisle.

Personally, I've never purchased a television show or movie off of iTunes. However, I have rented two shows in the last two days (both "Top Gear" episodes). As a disclaimer, I'm one of those people with digital cable and all the premium channels. So why did I rent these episodes if I have so many other options to watch? The reason is because my cable provider doesn't offer BBC America-HD (they only offer BBC America in SD) and I wanted to watch the show in HD. Do I miss the $2 I spent on those shows? Not at all. Do I wish these shows were purchases so I can watch them again? Absolutely not. To the contrary, I'm actually waiting for them to expire and fall out of my queue.

I think we'll eventually see a domino effect with the networks coming on board. Do I expect CBS and NBC to be the first of the dominos to fall? Not a chance. What I think we'll see is, not the major networks, but rather other premium content providers entering the rental market. I noticed that the Food Network was recently added to iTunes for episode purchases (not yet rentals). The Food Network is owned by Scripps, who also owns HGTV, the DIY Network, the Cooking Channel, the Travel Channel, etc. If I was Apple, I would focus on getting these kinds of companies on board. If they add rental content from Scripps, another network like Discovery (who owns the Discovery Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, etc.), and AETN (who owns A&E, History, Lifetime, etc.), they would fill out their iTunes rental store quite nicely. This additional content would only draw more and more consumers to the rental model, so many in fact, that the major networks will not be able to ignore them. A funny thing about the major networks is that they already give their shows away for free on their websites or OTA. The only difference is these "free" shows come with advertising.

Of course, there's always the possibility that I'm overly optimistic and my ATV ultimately ends up being used as a paper weight. That being said, I'll gladly place my $99 bet down on Steve Jobs and Apple.

 

[dirkdirk80]

Just not sure it's worth it. Although, if I didn't have an X-Box I suppose it may be.

 

[OptyCT]

Just not sure it's worth it. Although, if I didn't have an X-Box I suppose it may be.

So you'll pay $60 for a newly released video game and $50/year for Xbox Live Gold, but you find it difficult to part with $99? FWIW, I have an Xbox 360 slim, PS3, and AppleTV, and Netflix will never again be streamed via Xbox/PS3 in my house going forward. The Netflix UI on the ATV is heads and shoulders above those on the Xbox/PS3. Further, streaming media to the ATV is a lot more user-friendly than it is on the Xbox/PS3.