Apple wouldn't want to be tied to Comcast or anyone.
Apple wants to replace Comcast.
Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.
This thing will be a true "convergence" device.
Thru what internet connection? Why would VZ allow someone else to offer TV through their lines. Offering TV isn't just getting agreements with the networks. A carrier must also get approval from the local government.
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?
Apple is going run cable to every home so they can be the ISP? No way.
Apple is going to get the networks to dump all their guaranteed payments to the cable providers and supply all the advertising but somehow run it like iTunes without ads in a costly Ã* la carte fashion? No way.
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
You assume too much about my comment. I never said anything about Apple piggybacking on their infrastructure (at least any more than their devices already do), nor did I mention anything about advertising streams.
The only revenue difference I mentioned would be a large upfront savings for cable cos in the form of cable boxes that Apple would be paid for each month through the cable co from the consumer using Apple's boxes. Boxes that are still pushing the cable co's channels with all there national, regional and local ads, and with all their deals with the networks still in place.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
Sorry..I mis understood...thanks for clarifying.
So why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
This pretty much summarizes it for me. If, if, if.
Apple could put out the coolest TV hardware on the planet (and we know they could) but if doesn't break both the cable box and remote control chains of pain, then they're just another pretty face in the TV business. Apple is missing one huge connective piece here and I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for how they can create an entirely new bridge between the content providers and the living room.
I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).
Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?
Exactly, it's just another entrenched revenue stream. I am so curious to learn how Apple proposes to disrupt this industry. At this point I'd settle for just one plausible theory.
Exactly. Nobody has yet described a scenario where giving Apple more control over the supplier's content stream and a bite of the revenue would be even slightly attractive to the cable and satellite companies. Failing that, they will have to either think huge with plans to replicate this infrastructure entirely on their own, or smaller, by replacing the cable box with iOS software that duplicates its function in a way that doesn't suck. The latter scenario is far more realistic.
I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).
If people drop normal cable or satellite they will have to pay more for bandwidth. I still haven't hit the ceiling my provider gives me but now that I have an Apple TV as well as Netflix it is only a matter of time, I'm sure.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like.
Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.
The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.
As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.
I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.
We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?
We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?
I completely agree! Not only very very costly but a very lengthy process. Contracts would have be negotiated between federal governmental agencies all the way down to municipalities.....not to mention all the content providers...it would take years to get it done. Not to mention cable and satellite companies fighting them every step of the way. Some content providers have exclusive contracts with cities so they could only get it done after the current contract runs out. Too big a hurdle even for Apple and their cash reserves.
Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.
The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.
As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.
Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.
Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)
They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
Apple sell HW at B/E prices? You must be dreaming, that will never even come close to happening.
Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)
1) Note the words "nut" and "crack". Also note that cable companies don't use their own boxes for this, they buy them from various HW vendors. If Apple could offer them something the others can't, like being cheaper or having the expense come from the customer, not from them, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Apple has a way with sourcing components and creating a system that works across every field thus reducing their costs which they could use to leverage their customers.
Remember, I made no mention of Apple superseding their their control of the content. No where did I mention that Apple would be the distributor they would basically be offering a more desirable UI for the cable company to offer customers. Apple might be able to swing a deal that cost them nothing up front and still paid them a monthly fee for the profit sharing. Or Apple could simply strong arm them by saying that if you don't we'll just sell the boxes ourselves with other method of superseding your content until you are nothing but a dumb pipe for us.
You're asking why to a question I've been asking for years regarding Apple breaking into this game. You either have to work them or you have to go completely around them. At least if Apple works with them the cable companies won't be jacking up your internet rates because you've doubled your usage while stop paying for TV access they are still paying billions a year to access from the networks.
3) Perhaps this isn't your secondary point, but putting the box inside the TV change anything for the better for Apple. It makes thing more difficult. Not necessarily impossible, just more difficult.
PS: If you are going to edit a comment it's better form to crop the relevant part instead of increasing the size while also including the entire post.
It's hard to imagine how apps on an Apple HDTV will make up the loss of profit in the long term when the HW for the apps will be quickly outdated. I don't expect AppleTV HW to be updated yearly once they move to apps, but every 2 or 3 years seems reasonable. Certainly not the 5 or 10 years that TVs tend to be used.
Like I said before, my belief is that native AirPlay+802.11N support in HDTVs would solve a lot of these problems.
1) The spec should be fairly stable and the hw requirements stay largely the same...as much as it matters for that specific model of TV anyway. Any display enhancements probably aren't renderable on the TV anyway (4K rez, 3-D holograms, etc).
2) The device with the CPU/GPU is a iOS device that folks replace every 2-3 years anyway.
3) The native device provides a rich UI interface not dependent on the HDTV manufacturer.
4) Comcast, Verizon, Rogers, etc can brand and tailor their product offerings via iOS apps
5) Automatic updates since the iOS device is being updated automatically anyway.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)
The only problem with building an integrated HDTV is trying to convince people to upgrade a possible US$1500 TV each year every time Apple brings out a new processor/GPU, US$100 is an easier on to try.
And Apple owning the HEC? That would be an individual thing, I have no Apple equipment in my HEC, if Apple ever decides to drop iTunes from the ATV equation then that may change. And PHEC, that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
It flopped. AT&T seemed to love it and it was good for consumers but Apple had a hard time selling it to the cellular industry and abandoned it by the time the iPhone 3G arrived. It's rumoured that Apple had to agree to another year of exclusivity in order to get AT&T to dump the model.
I would love to see some references on you claims. And please no blogs.
I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
Apple would have to show how it benefits them financially. How they do that, I have no idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
This is a lot like arguing that Apple loses money on every iPad they manufacture, until they actually sell them. Renting cable boxes to customers is a profit center, no matter how you slice it. If Apple can't show the cable companies how this revenue is replaced at a minimum, then it's going to be a no sale situation.
Comments
Apple wouldn't want to be tied to Comcast or anyone.
Apple wants to replace Comcast.
Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.
This thing will be a true "convergence" device.
Thru what internet connection? Why would VZ allow someone else to offer TV through their lines. Offering TV isn't just getting agreements with the networks. A carrier must also get approval from the local government.
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?
Apple is going run cable to every home so they can be the ISP? No way.
Apple is going to get the networks to dump all their guaranteed payments to the cable providers and supply all the advertising but somehow run it like iTunes without ads in a costly Ã* la carte fashion? No way.
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
You assume too much about my comment. I never said anything about Apple piggybacking on their infrastructure (at least any more than their devices already do), nor did I mention anything about advertising streams.
The only revenue difference I mentioned would be a large upfront savings for cable cos in the form of cable boxes that Apple would be paid for each month through the cable co from the consumer using Apple's boxes. Boxes that are still pushing the cable co's channels with all there national, regional and local ads, and with all their deals with the networks still in place.
I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.
Sorry..I mis understood...thanks for clarifying.
So why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
This pretty much summarizes it for me. If, if, if.
Apple could put out the coolest TV hardware on the planet (and we know they could) but if doesn't break both the cable box and remote control chains of pain, then they're just another pretty face in the TV business. Apple is missing one huge connective piece here and I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for how they can create an entirely new bridge between the content providers and the living room.
I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).
Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?
Exactly, it's just another entrenched revenue stream. I am so curious to learn how Apple proposes to disrupt this industry. At this point I'd settle for just one plausible theory.
Netflix Movies (HD): These guys are around 3.8Mbit, which means it's about 3600MB for a 2 hour HD movie.
Netflix Movies (SD): Each of these movies are around 500-700MB each, depending on the length of the movie.
Netflix TV Shows (HD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 1500MB.
Netflix TV Shows (SD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 400MB.
Add in your other internet usage and there's not much left.
Exactly. Nobody has yet described a scenario where giving Apple more control over the supplier's content stream and a bite of the revenue would be even slightly attractive to the cable and satellite companies. Failing that, they will have to either think huge with plans to replicate this infrastructure entirely on their own, or smaller, by replacing the cable box with iOS software that duplicates its function in a way that doesn't suck. The latter scenario is far more realistic.
I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).
If people drop normal cable or satellite they will have to pay more for bandwidth. I still haven't hit the ceiling my provider gives me but now that I have an Apple TV as well as Netflix it is only a matter of time, I'm sure.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like.
Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.
The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.
As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.
Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.
You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.
They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.
I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.
We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?
We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?
I completely agree! Not only very very costly but a very lengthy process. Contracts would have be negotiated between federal governmental agencies all the way down to municipalities.....not to mention all the content providers...it would take years to get it done. Not to mention cable and satellite companies fighting them every step of the way. Some content providers have exclusive contracts with cities so they could only get it done after the current contract runs out. Too big a hurdle even for Apple and their cash reserves.
Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.
The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.
As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.
Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.
Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)
They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?
Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.
Apple sell HW at B/E prices? You must be dreaming, that will never even come close to happening.
Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)
1) Note the words "nut" and "crack". Also note that cable companies don't use their own boxes for this, they buy them from various HW vendors. If Apple could offer them something the others can't, like being cheaper or having the expense come from the customer, not from them, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Apple has a way with sourcing components and creating a system that works across every field thus reducing their costs which they could use to leverage their customers.
Remember, I made no mention of Apple superseding their their control of the content. No where did I mention that Apple would be the distributor they would basically be offering a more desirable UI for the cable company to offer customers. Apple might be able to swing a deal that cost them nothing up front and still paid them a monthly fee for the profit sharing. Or Apple could simply strong arm them by saying that if you don't we'll just sell the boxes ourselves with other method of superseding your content until you are nothing but a dumb pipe for us.
You're asking why to a question I've been asking for years regarding Apple breaking into this game. You either have to work them or you have to go completely around them. At least if Apple works with them the cable companies won't be jacking up your internet rates because you've doubled your usage while stop paying for TV access they are still paying billions a year to access from the networks.
3) Perhaps this isn't your secondary point, but putting the box inside the TV change anything for the better for Apple. It makes thing more difficult. Not necessarily impossible, just more difficult.
PS: If you are going to edit a comment it's better form to crop the relevant part instead of increasing the size while also including the entire post.
It's hard to imagine how apps on an Apple HDTV will make up the loss of profit in the long term when the HW for the apps will be quickly outdated. I don't expect AppleTV HW to be updated yearly once they move to apps, but every 2 or 3 years seems reasonable. Certainly not the 5 or 10 years that TVs tend to be used.
Like I said before, my belief is that native AirPlay+802.11N support in HDTVs would solve a lot of these problems.
1) The spec should be fairly stable and the hw requirements stay largely the same...as much as it matters for that specific model of TV anyway. Any display enhancements probably aren't renderable on the TV anyway (4K rez, 3-D holograms, etc).
2) The device with the CPU/GPU is a iOS device that folks replace every 2-3 years anyway.
3) The native device provides a rich UI interface not dependent on the HDTV manufacturer.
4) Comcast, Verizon, Rogers, etc can brand and tailor their product offerings via iOS apps
5) Automatic updates since the iOS device is being updated automatically anyway.
Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)
The only problem with building an integrated HDTV is trying to convince people to upgrade a possible US$1500 TV each year every time Apple brings out a new processor/GPU, US$100 is an easier on to try.
And Apple owning the HEC? That would be an individual thing, I have no Apple equipment in my HEC, if Apple ever decides to drop iTunes from the ATV equation then that may change. And PHEC, that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
It flopped. AT&T seemed to love it and it was good for consumers but Apple had a hard time selling it to the cellular industry and abandoned it by the time the iPhone 3G arrived. It's rumoured that Apple had to agree to another year of exclusivity in order to get AT&T to dump the model.
I would love to see some references on you claims. And please no blogs.
I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....
Apple would have to show how it benefits them financially. How they do that, I have no idea.
They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.
This is a lot like arguing that Apple loses money on every iPad they manufacture, until they actually sell them. Renting cable boxes to customers is a profit center, no matter how you slice it. If Apple can't show the cable companies how this revenue is replaced at a minimum, then it's going to be a no sale situation.