The way I remember that, Apple actually bought the rights to 'iTV" pretty much everywhere but in the UK where ITV (the station), blocked them. They had a choice of doing iTV everywhere *except* the UK, or doing "Apple TV" everywhere and they chose the later.
The idea that a TV station in one tiny country can block the use of a name world-wide is a falsehood. iTV has no recourse to sue Apple if they want to call it iTV anywhere else except where ITV (the station) operates.
The TV, if they make it, is a piece of hardware not an old-fashioned TV station and there are good arguments that the two are so different (and the names slightly different anyway because of the lower case "i"), that they could use the name even in the UK.
It's not a foregone conclusion by a long shot that they can't use "iTV" for the product name. There are many possibilities including making a deal with iTV, and also just not selling the product in the UK.
The only way I can see Apple getting around the TV station name is to call it the "Apple iTV" - explicitly adding the Apple name to all advertising and the product itself.
They'd have to partner w quite a few cable companies... but here's the thing. Using the cable companies licensing to content they could use the internet to create a national cable provider. I wouldn't be surprised if they partnered w the smallest one with the most content and then stripped the UI down from there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I can't see it working another way if Apple wants enter with a winning package. Content is king and without it Apple TV in whatever form will remain niche. If Apple can work out deals with existing content providers (I mean the cable guys, now) whereby they can package and present their content in a superior way, it could be a winning combination.
That is all assuming that the licensing deals the cable companies have with the content providers even allows such redistribution.
For example...
Quote:
Originally Posted by nytesky
The biggest weakness of cable providers is that they bundle a lot of channels you don't want with channels you do. So the best way for Apple to address the need in the market would be to provide a TV where you can subscribe to channels you want and pay an ala carte price per station.
What many people don't realize that at least some of the bundling isn't the choice of the cable compnay. Ever wonder why you have 4 different weather channels? It's not because of the intense competition in the weather channel market. It's because a major network such as CBS says, "You want to carry CBS on your cable network? Fine, but you also have to carry our weather channel, too." It can work both ways. Some networks tell the cable companies you must include our other channel properties if you want our main channel. Others say you can only carry our channel if you agree to not bundle it in certain ways. An example of this is the Big 10 Network telling Comcast that they coudn't bundle BTN in an exclusive sports bundle requiring customers to pay extra for it.
These types of entanglements are what make me doubtful that Apple could just form a partnership with a cable company to get access to all of their content in a manner that would be acceptable to Apple.
And I still can't think of anything that would entice a cable operator to play ball with Apple.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
I'm not a copyright barrister but I'd think Apple iTV would still cross the line.
...Yeah, I suppose my TV's screen itself is okay. But I'd happily toss it in the dumpster tomorrow if I had a chance to get rid of all of the other horrible cruft (the UI, the remotes, the cableCos) that comes with it.
I think you hit it right on the head! Who wouldn't want to control what comes over their tv! I personally would keep about a dozen channels, and dump the rest!
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
The only way itv would agree would be making sure the Apple item wasn't a device capable of viewing video images. Can you image them trying to call it the Apple BBC or Apple ABC?
The idea that a TV station in one tiny country can block the use of a name world-wide is a falsehood. iTV has no recourse to sue Apple if they want to call it iTV anywhere else except where ITV (the station) operates.
I think you'll find ITV has the naming rights worldwide given that they are not just a TV station in our tiny little country as you put it, but also a production company that sells content worldwide. They even have a production company in the US called ITV Studios America producing shows for the US networks.
I don't think content will be a major problem. Apple will build the hardware, add the basic free to air channels in each country and let content providers sell their content directly via apps on iTunes just like they do now.
Want to watch baseball - get the MLB app and stream live games.
Want to watch movies - get the Netflix, Lovefilm, Hulu, etc app and subscribe to their service.
Want to watch repeat TV - get the iPlayer, etc app
Want to play games - get the Steam app for online games
You can already get great content - movies, sports, tv shows, etc over the net now. It's simply a case of watching them on your Apple TV instead of your iPad.
If Apple are going to build a TV they will want it to be a mass market device albeit at the top end just like the iPhone/iPad. If the cable companies lose revenue from subscriptions I'm sure they will more than make up for it by selling faster broadband with unlimited data.
The biggest hurdle could be the willingness of the cable companies to let Apple get a foot in the door. What is their movitation to play ball?
We shall see...
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box or having to build an the ecosystem. Apple could provide the ecosystem and manage VOD and Cable gets less set-top box to manage and VOD profit is share.
Cable will not lose live TV, but they do face competition from internet VOD.
and then there'is the killer app : a plan.
Free 32" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 40$/month
299$ 42" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 50$/month
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name.
I wouldn't have known that. It's not as if I have iTV in my house or anything \
Besides, if you knew anything about word marks you'd be aware the case doesn't matter. I just filed my own trademark for something so I'm well versed in this.
Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
If you thought your cable bill was expensive before...
I think you hit it right on the head! Who wouldn't want to control what comes over their tv! I personally would keep about a dozen channels, and dump the rest!
Exactly! If you could pick your channels a la carte that would be awesome.
Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
Don't forget Apple is global, the crappy companies to which you refer are just in one country, albeit Apple's home one.
I wouldn't have known that. It's not as if I have iTV in my house or anything \
Besides, if you knew anything about word marks you'd be aware the case doesn't matter. I just filed my own trademark for something so I'm well versed in this.
Dang, you mean my application for "cOCA CoLA: The reaLThinG" will fail?
The only way itv would agree would be making sure the Apple item wasn't a device capable of viewing video images. Can you image them trying to call it the Apple BBC or Apple ABC?
Maybe ITV would love to mistaken as an Apple product.
ITV aside (the name won't happen, it will never happen)...
No one has yet explained to me how this thing will handle all the different TV standards around the world? It would at least need to handle DVB and PAL in the UK, baring in mind PAL and NTSC are not actually the same on many levels (number of lines, refresh rates). Apple TV gets around this by supporting both formats but ignoring broadcast... a TV would surely need to address this.
Not really. ITV is the name of the channel. No one calls them "Independent Television" anymore.. like, ever. ITV will be a really tough one for Apple to win, given they are an international corporation now.
Comments
The way I remember that, Apple actually bought the rights to 'iTV" pretty much everywhere but in the UK where ITV (the station), blocked them. They had a choice of doing iTV everywhere *except* the UK, or doing "Apple TV" everywhere and they chose the later.
The idea that a TV station in one tiny country can block the use of a name world-wide is a falsehood. iTV has no recourse to sue Apple if they want to call it iTV anywhere else except where ITV (the station) operates.
The TV, if they make it, is a piece of hardware not an old-fashioned TV station and there are good arguments that the two are so different (and the names slightly different anyway because of the lower case "i"), that they could use the name even in the UK.
It's not a foregone conclusion by a long shot that they can't use "iTV" for the product name. There are many possibilities including making a deal with iTV, and also just not selling the product in the UK.
The only way I can see Apple getting around the TV station name is to call it the "Apple iTV" - explicitly adding the Apple name to all advertising and the product itself.
They'd have to partner w quite a few cable companies... but here's the thing. Using the cable companies licensing to content they could use the internet to create a national cable provider. I wouldn't be surprised if they partnered w the smallest one with the most content and then stripped the UI down from there.
I can't see it working another way if Apple wants enter with a winning package. Content is king and without it Apple TV in whatever form will remain niche. If Apple can work out deals with existing content providers (I mean the cable guys, now) whereby they can package and present their content in a superior way, it could be a winning combination.
That is all assuming that the licensing deals the cable companies have with the content providers even allows such redistribution.
For example...
The biggest weakness of cable providers is that they bundle a lot of channels you don't want with channels you do. So the best way for Apple to address the need in the market would be to provide a TV where you can subscribe to channels you want and pay an ala carte price per station.
What many people don't realize that at least some of the bundling isn't the choice of the cable compnay. Ever wonder why you have 4 different weather channels? It's not because of the intense competition in the weather channel market. It's because a major network such as CBS says, "You want to carry CBS on your cable network? Fine, but you also have to carry our weather channel, too." It can work both ways. Some networks tell the cable companies you must include our other channel properties if you want our main channel. Others say you can only carry our channel if you agree to not bundle it in certain ways. An example of this is the Big 10 Network telling Comcast that they coudn't bundle BTN in an exclusive sports bundle requiring customers to pay extra for it.
These types of entanglements are what make me doubtful that Apple could just form a partnership with a cable company to get access to all of their content in a manner that would be acceptable to Apple.
And I still can't think of anything that would entice a cable operator to play ball with Apple.
They will use it.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
I'm not a copyright barrister but I'd think Apple iTV would still cross the line.
...Yeah, I suppose my TV's screen itself is okay. But I'd happily toss it in the dumpster tomorrow if I had a chance to get rid of all of the other horrible cruft (the UI, the remotes, the cableCos) that comes with it.
Exactly. I used to be happy with my Blackberry.
That is all assuming that the licensing deals the cable companies have with the content providers even allows such redistribution.
True. CBS and FOX are now putting a good amount of content online. Its gotta be going this way. But I feel like I'm trying to solve a Rubick's Cube...
I don't know. I don't think any of us know.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.
The only way itv would agree would be making sure the Apple item wasn't a device capable of viewing video images. Can you image them trying to call it the Apple BBC or Apple ABC?
The idea that a TV station in one tiny country can block the use of a name world-wide is a falsehood. iTV has no recourse to sue Apple if they want to call it iTV anywhere else except where ITV (the station) operates.
I think you'll find ITV has the naming rights worldwide given that they are not just a TV station in our tiny little country as you put it, but also a production company that sells content worldwide. They even have a production company in the US called ITV Studios America producing shows for the US networks.
Want to watch baseball - get the MLB app and stream live games.
Want to watch movies - get the Netflix, Lovefilm, Hulu, etc app and subscribe to their service.
Want to watch repeat TV - get the iPlayer, etc app
Want to play games - get the Steam app for online games
You can already get great content - movies, sports, tv shows, etc over the net now. It's simply a case of watching them on your Apple TV instead of your iPad.
If Apple are going to build a TV they will want it to be a mass market device albeit at the top end just like the iPhone/iPad. If the cable companies lose revenue from subscriptions I'm sure they will more than make up for it by selling faster broadband with unlimited data.
The biggest hurdle could be the willingness of the cable companies to let Apple get a foot in the door. What is their movitation to play ball?
We shall see...
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box or having to build an the ecosystem. Apple could provide the ecosystem and manage VOD and Cable gets less set-top box to manage and VOD profit is share.
Cable will not lose live TV, but they do face competition from internet VOD.
and then there'is the killer app : a plan.
Free 32" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 40$/month
299$ 42" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 50$/month
399$ 52" Apple TV with 3 years subscription.
Subscription:
20$ mandatory base package.
+20$ for 20 channels of you're choosing. or
+30$ for 35 channels. or
+40$ for 50 channels.
Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name.
I wouldn't have known that. It's not as if I have iTV in my house or anything
Besides, if you knew anything about word marks you'd be aware the case doesn't matter. I just filed my own trademark for something so I'm well versed in this.
Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
If you thought your cable bill was expensive before...
I think you hit it right on the head! Who wouldn't want to control what comes over their tv! I personally would keep about a dozen channels, and dump the rest!
Exactly! If you could pick your channels a la carte that would be awesome.
Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
Don't forget Apple is global, the crappy companies to which you refer are just in one country, albeit Apple's home one.
I wouldn't have known that. It's not as if I have iTV in my house or anything
Besides, if you knew anything about word marks you'd be aware the case doesn't matter. I just filed my own trademark for something so I'm well versed in this.
Dang, you mean my application for "cOCA CoLA: The reaLThinG" will fail?
Its more than likely, nearer impossible, that they wont use the iTV name in the UK for obvious reasons.
I think it all depends on the definition of 'i'.
The only way itv would agree would be making sure the Apple item wasn't a device capable of viewing video images. Can you image them trying to call it the Apple BBC or Apple ABC?
Maybe ITV would love to mistaken as an Apple product.
No one has yet explained to me how this thing will handle all the different TV standards around the world? It would at least need to handle DVB and PAL in the UK, baring in mind PAL and NTSC are not actually the same on many levels (number of lines, refresh rates). Apple TV gets around this by supporting both formats but ignoring broadcast... a TV would surely need to address this.
I think it all depends on the definition of 'i'.
Not really. ITV is the name of the channel. No one calls them "Independent Television" anymore.. like, ever. ITV will be a really tough one for Apple to win, given they are an international corporation now.