DirecTV CEO Scoffs At Competition From Apple TV 264
theodp writes "In a move that evokes memories of Steve Ballmer's initial pooh-poohing of the iPhone threat, DirecTV Chairman Michael White downplayed the Apple TV hype, expressing doubts that 'Apple's interface will be so much better than DirecTVs' that people will be willing to pay for an extra box. So, will White's statement — 'It's hard to see (it) obsoleting our technology' — come back to haunt him?"
Re:Irony alert! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm the one he's not worried about. (Score:5, Interesting)
At one time hooked to our TV was a DirecTV box only. Today we have (in order of usage):
- Apple TV. This is what the kids hit first when looking for something to watch. Mostly Netflix cartoons, our Vimeo home videos, and our Photo Stream. We have never purchased or rented a program from Apple!
- XBox with Kinect for a gaming fix.
- Old re-purposed Dell. This is full of all the DVD's I did not want my kids destroying (locked safely away, and yes we do own them), and a way to access anything on the net the first two don't.
- A real antenna. Sports look horrible on my friends HDTV with all the compression! (needs fed through the computer... someday).
I would be OK with just the first two if Apple would open the interface up for more content. I would happily pay a small ($1-5) monthly fee for channels such as Discovery, Science, etc. I'm guessing this will only happen once these channels are replaced by new content producers that are 'net only.
Re:Kind of reminds me of (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Idiot (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, I don't own any Apple products, and I don't particularly have any plans to at this particular moment. (Not that I have anything against it.) But is there seriously no other company in the industry competent enough to step into a market and kick everyone in the ass in the way Apple has been doing? Music players, phones, tablets, ultrabooks, etc., and now potentially TVs. Where will the industry go after TVs? Or will Apple have to hold everyone's hands in that adventure too?
Well lets see (Score:4, Interesting)
...I've been a directv subscriber since around 1994 when they had 50,000 customers and have their current HD DVR technology.
Pro's: nice picture quality, lots of channels, plenty of downloadable shows.
Cons: Cant stream anything except youtube from a search. No netflix. No hulu. Have to download all shows which can take quite a while and can only start viewing when you have buffered a lot. Most hardware platforms are slower than molasses going uphill on a cold monday morning, and if your brand new HR24 craps out, chances are they'll ship you a replacement HR 20/21/22 that are basically too slow to use. You hit a button on the remote and a while later something happens. Completely opposed to and unsupporting of anything coming through the box that isn't directv supplied and branded.
In short, unacceptable for 2012, poised for a major faceplant from someone elses set top box. Obstructionism and protectionism only work until someone has something as good for less money that works better. I don't think thats Apple TV because I can't see anyone seriously spending a couple of bucks per tv show. Netflix and hulu are incomplete. But as soon as someone puts out a streaming package with full sports, all local broadcast and pretty much everything I can get from directv minus the big dish and tons of wires and little boxes for under $100...directv will start hemorrhaging money and subscribers.
Having had the chance to speak to a number of directv senior and middle management, they consider the customer a barely necessary evil and have absolutely no idea as to how to treat customers. When you're the best show in town, you can get away with that.
Re:What is he supposed to say???? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is he supposed to say: "Apple's interface will surely be much better than the one we've spent the last 10 years working on and we expect to lose much if not all of our customers to the Apple juggernaut."
I doubt that their shareholders would be very pleased with such pronouncements.
Of course! The Followers of the Book of Jobs demand that all potential competitors bow down before the greatness of all that is Apple and its greatness, surrender to the forces of the inevitable, and acknowledge they are powerless to stop the Cupertino Juggernaut.
but... considering Apple has been trying to do this for years, already, and failed so far... and no longer enjoys the presence of the Best Leader to guide the holy jihad against regular TV... AND most consumers prefer buffet pricing for things like media, the DirectTV guy might have a point, too.
Why is anybody excited over an overpriced TV and pay-per-view pricing (that pretty much only works well for Wrestling, Boxing and Porn), just because it's got an Apple brand name?
Very few holes now (Score:4, Interesting)
iTunes is fine if it has what you watch.
As far as TV goes, there is very little you cannot get between iTunes and Netflix.
Even HBO is present, though on substantial delay (1 year wait for game of thrones on iTunes).
But if you are simply wiling to wait a while for TV shows there is almost no gap. And even for current stuff if you throw in Hulu you'd probably only be missing HBO.
So basically, all Apple has to do is bribe HBO, and get Hulu working with Apple TV to give users a box that should make DirectTV worry... that and support either OTA HD or some other way to get live sports (the real gap at the moment between the hell of cable/satellite TV boxes and freedom).