Originally Posted by Osamede
As for the consumers, many understand what they are looking for and find a superior Apple product that they feel is worth the premium. However, a great many consumers do fork over money for Apple products as a result of herd mentality - not because they actually have a clue or could differentiate what is good or what they need. I mean how many folks out there have IPhones and basically actually use like 3 apps after buying 10? All too many.
Besides, If you are marketed to enough, fed product placements on TV and journalists who plug Apple products while supposedly reviewing other items, well no surprise on the outcome.
Apple has a lot to offer. However on the TV front my fear is they are out to line their pockets first and foremost and this will doom the while situation, as moving the TV forward requires the POV that one must serve the consumer and the technology first- by necessarily disintermidiating the current middlemen. All those mansions in Holloywood are in technological terms, excess profits of outdated middlemen. And Apple will never try to kneecap them, instead seeking a commission for perpetuating them. Which will never generate the type Apple TV that consumers deserve.
Well it is true that consumer products are often things we want but don't need. Marketing is effective in promoting consumption. This applies to almost everything around, not just Apple products.
I don't feel that the iTV is even a realistic rumour so it's difficult to talk about it.
As far as the way wealth is distributed, that is complicated. In a capitalist system people get what those around are willing to give them. You have sports' celebrities earning what many consider obscene salaries. The same goes for some in the entertainment industry. I don't see how you can change that easily. I suppose you could have a bunch of civil servants deciding who gets what. Doesn't seem appealing. Chaotic more than anything.
Just because you are the middleman does not make you worthless. It takes a lot of layers to deliver entertainment to billions of people. I really don't feel that consumers are badly served by the current system. I understand that the cable cutters feel they are paying for things they don't want. Unfortunately the pay as you go model for TV would result in more expensive products and fewer, not more, choice.
I am not sure what Apple can bring to the living room. The ATV1/2 are nice products. Not revolutionary. Noone else seems to be doing much better. Google TV is one big mess, Smart TV's are TV's with weak media players built in, the games' consoles seem to have brought the most to the TV ( other than sat/cable/telecom).
The bottom line is that I don't think we will see as big a change in the way TV content is delivered as we have with music. What would be nice would be to have ads placed before and after shows as opposed to every 8 minutes. For me, being able to avoid ads or having shows and sports games run without the interruption would be a revolution. As it is the content seems to be designed around the ads. Instead of worrying about iTV's it would better for people to figure out way of delivering content the way it is meant to be. Obviously ads are important. They have just evolved in the wrong way to the point where they are wrecking the product.