Rogers, BCE rumored to already have Apple 'iTV' prototype in their labs

124»

Comments

  • apple ii plusapple ii plus Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Hey, quick question that is sort of relevant. Is the term 'Canuck' offensive? I suppose it depends on the context, but I'm asking about the inherent meaning of the word.



    I'm a Canuck and never find the word offensive at all and neither does any other Canuck I know! You'l have to google the word.
  • apple ii plusapple ii plus Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    Apple TV will be digital. Not available without a box and not free. It will via connect broadband.



    Cable companies buy content and disperse it. Under a number of plans, e.g., Basic, Premium, boxed sets/packages, etc.



    Right now my wife is watching Smash which is being streamed, free, to our Apple TV via the iPad 2/Air Play.



    And in the future, like Rogers offering a la carte cable TV to Canadian customers we will have choices that we only want and pay for.



    I have Rogers. What they are going to be offering is not really a la carte. It's 15, 30, etc channels as a package 'a la carte'. So if 8 channels are in one package and 1 is in another you have to buy two packages, ie 30 channels, just to get the 9 (8+1) you want. A la carte is like on a menu in a restaurant. You order the individual channels you want for $1-$2 each.
  • carmissimocarmissimo Posts: 837member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple II Plus View Post


    Apple is able to command a premium with a much better product that we carry in our pocket and use all day long. TV's are not the same and also they are not a replacement device these days like the iPod/iTouch/iPad/iPhone. People keep them for a long time and thus will not turf out their existing HDTV just to get an Apple TV. Also, the sheer different in raw cost that the iTV will have to be for Apple to achieve it's margins is astronomical and people won't pay it, especially when they can just buy Apple TV and hook it up to their existing TV.



    Why not do both, namely bring out a set-top device that allows customers to access the service using an-already-owned set and bring out an integrated product as a compliment. In addition, expand the iMac line to include larger screens and allow Apple's computers, iPads, etc. to also access the service in question.



    I think it would appeal to many to pay for a content service that is accessible from different devices, like computers, a TV and portable devices like the iPad. Pay one fee for that access and access it by whatever device you like.



    In fact, if a TV service was offered, if Apple continues to offer the TV set-top device, why would that device be excluded from this process, or, for that matter, Apple's other devices that are capable of delivering video content. The Apple-branded TV would just add another option as opposed to being an all-or-nothing sort of deal. If Apple's TV strategy is to bring out an expensive product that will takes years to gain a foothold, it's clear that the company is not going to maintain the momentum gained under the direction of Steve Jobs. Yet I can't imagine that Jobs surrounded himself with a bunch of fools. I doubt Jobs was the sort to suffer fools lightly.
  • mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    they have both imo, a set-top box and an actual Apple TV set.



    'set-top box'. Nothing can sit on top of a razor thin TV now days. We need a new term.
  • carmissimocarmissimo Posts: 837member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple II Plus View Post


    I have Rogers. What they are going to be offering is not really a la carte. It's 15, 30, etc channels as a package 'a la carte'. So if 8 channels are in one package and 1 is in another you have to buy two packages, ie 30 channels, just to get the 9 (8+1) you want. A la carte is like on a menu in a restaurant. You order the individual channels you want for $1-$2 each.



    I have Rogers, too. Right now Rogers has no a la carte scheme and has none announced, not as far as I know. I doubt that Apple would agree to letting Rogers dictate the terms of this deal. If Rogers wants in, it will have to be on Apple's terms, whatever they might be.



    There is, by the way, an additional option. Offer, for example, a 10-channel package for X dollars, a 20-channel package for Y and if what you want is a 10-channel package plus one, charge so much to add just one. Set the rates to encourage taking a package over signing on for an odd number of channels.



    Let's not forget, though, that the CRTC will have it's say and I doubt that say would allow a true a la carte set-up as in you can pick precisely the channels you want. Some channels that many of us have no use for will be mandated and there isn't anything Rogers, Bell or Apple can do about it. Not sure how this will play in the US but here in Canada, that's how it will be.
  • haarhaar Posts: 502member
    first, Bell has Fibe tv, a completely on-demand tv system... (I have it)

    the terminal bell uses, uses Win CE, ( and its a motorola terminal).

    Rogers has standard cable, (all digital within a month) with on-demand. and Rogerss on-demand is slow to navigate to the movie/ series I want. (on-demand, not cable)



    Bell uses VDSL2 to deliver the TV program along with the internet. the modem bell uses is either a CELLPIPE OR SAGEMCOM (I have the SAGEMCOM) The SAGEMCOM supposedly has the capability for FTTH.



    A rumour that the bell/iptv technical told ME was that bell has a 7 year plan to roll-out Fiber-to-the-home.



    while the terminal that i have from Bell is "FREE" , i would upgrade to terminal to the iTV Bell box... (why not it would be "shiny and new", just like the Fibe TV is/was.)
  • onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple II Plus View Post


    I have Rogers. What they are going to be offering is not really a la carte. It's 15, 30, etc channels as a package 'a la carte'. So if 8 channels are in one package and 1 is in another you have to buy two packages, ie 30 channels, just to get the 9 (8+1) you want. A la carte is like on a menu in a restaurant. You order the individual channels you want for $1-$2 each.



    True. However, in order for me to get 4 channels above the basics now, I have to purchase 3 bundles of programs that I don't want. Right now I am paying for over 350 channels and I rarely view a couple of dozen of them.



    Here is the menu and after printing it out, I would cut my current cable be a third to one half of what I am paying now.
  • shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    Apple TV will be digital. Not available without a box and not free. It will via connect broadband.



    I hope not. I'm not interested in cable tv. I would be quite happy with the free to air channels and the ability to stream my iTunes library to an Apple TV. I would not pay yet another monthly subscription.
  • herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,172member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple II Plus View Post


    I have Rogers. What they are going to be offering is not really a la carte. It's 15, 30, etc channels as a package 'a la carte'. So if 8 channels are in one package and 1 is in another you have to buy two packages, ie 30 channels, just to get the 9 (8+1) you want. A la carte is like on a menu in a restaurant. You order the individual channels you want for $1-$2 each.



    We do have full "a la carte" choices in Quebec, with both Videotron and Bell FIBE. It does looks like its only available in Quebec but imo I wish that was normal practice across north america.



    I dont like channel packaging at all and thank god I dont have to deal with it anymore.
  • onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    I'm sorry, and I know there are tons of theories, but I don't believe for a second that this new TV will include a display.



    The current TV is $99.

    Most TV manufacturers are losing money selling TVs

    Since there is no profit in a display, Apple is not going to integrate TV with a display.



    Consumers will put 2+2 together....



    An average price for a much better than average 50" display is about $2000, give or take a couple hundred.

    +

    TV costs (in its current form) $99





    Then the consumer will start scratching their collective heads and say: "Hey, why am I buying this integrated TV for $3500 (which is what Apple will have to sell it for in order to keep their gross margin at ~40%) when I can get a display and an TV separately and save $1200-1300?"



    I just don't buy it.





    IMHO, I think it's going to be a beautiful little box (similar to the current form) with a lot of magical goodness inside (in the form of a specialized iOS) and the killer app is how you control it. That's what Steve "cracked".



    Sale price.......$299







    It has been projected that the component/manufacturing cost of the iPad 2 is less than $325.



    That includes the cost of battery and touch display, which without 3G would bring the internal cost to less than $250. Now insert that behind a 42" screen, larger case, add Thunderbolt, upgrade the iOS to include whatever Apple TV includes in addition if anything and I doubt that you are still talking less than $500. Heck throw in a cable decryption software and an Apple TV Remote for an extra $100 and manufacturing a few bucks more and I doubt you could drive the cost anywhere near $750 even if they upped the storage drive.



    So doubling the cost to cover R&D, Packaging/Distribution, Service/Support and still achieve your margins, I think that $1500 would be gladly be shelled out to see and hear what and when you want for less than you are paying now.
  • nhtnht Posts: 3,017member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    Aint multicast limited to the cable feeds? You can deliver multiple live feeds coming from the net in volume? I know Bell IPTV use multicast (for there TV feeds), but i was not going to say this here, much more easier to understand that you broadcast to nodes then stream to house then trying to explain multicast to nodes than stream to house.



    If this tech is still in labs and not deploy imo lots of networks still can't handle large numbers of feeds. Would be nice indeed to be able to multicast anything the net brings, that would mean IPTV without using the ISP feeds. Lots of people want this to cut cable.



    I answered earlier here:



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=95



    If you're really in the industry you should know more than me since I left a decade ago and more on the long haul side of things.
  • nhtnht Posts: 3,017member
    Working with the MSO's has significant advantages for Apple if the MSO's buy into the concept. Would I dump FiOS for Comcast if Comcast went with an Apple set top box and Verizon didn't?



    I dunno but I'd sure think long and hard about it.



    And it's not without precedent given Comcast added TiVO service to their DVRs.



    Still, my opinion is that AirPlay can crack the TV problem. If the iPad is getting content and we can push that content to an airplay enabled HDTV then that's a solution that promotes the iOS ecosystem while breaking into the living room in a big way.



    The next option is to partner with the MSOs and ISPs since they have the last mile to connect to the user AND are the ones spending billions on content. Still, it's a huge can of worms for Apple engineering wise to make seamless.



    The other plus side is it would neuter part of the reason why Google wants Moto...their STB business.
  • ltcompuserltcompuser Posts: 219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a-maze View Post


    What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.



    I'm skeptical of Rogers going for this. Currently...



    Rogers Ultimate Internet package offers 250GB for $99/mth.

    The next package, Extreme Plus, offers 150 GB for $69/mth.



    Rogers offers on demand viewing of shows that you subscribe to but they count the bandwidth used watching those shows towards your monthly cap.



    if one has two children who like to watch Netflix, Vimeo and YouTube, it's very easy to go above those limits.



    It would be very interesting to see what Rogers would charge considering they charge $24.95 to rent a PVR.



    If it was just up to me, I'd buy all my shows through iTunes. Currently, my cable bill is $85/mth. If it were up to me, I'd ditch cable and get shows through iTunes. It wouldn't save much money, but I'd have a copy of the TV show so others can watch at different times.



    The one thing that gives me hope that they may offer a good value is that they don't charge for Tethering to your iPhone.
  • ajcarrollajcarroll Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    I'm sorry, and I know there are tons of theories, but I don't believe for a second that this new TV will include a display.



    The current TV is $99.

    Most TV manufacturers are losing money selling TVs

    Since there is no profit in a display, Apple is not going to integrate TV with a display.



    Consumers will put 2+2 together....



    An average price for a much better than average 50" display is about $2000, give or take a couple hundred.

    +

    TV costs (in its current form) $99





    Then the consumer will start scratching their collective heads and say: "Hey, why am I buying this integrated TV for $3500 (which is what Apple will have to sell it for in order to keep their gross margin at ~40%) when I can get a display and an TV separately and save $1200-1300?"



    I just don't buy it.





    IMHO, I think it's going to be a beautiful little box (similar to the current form) with a lot of magical goodness inside (in the form of a specialized iOS) and the killer app is how you control it. That's what Steve "cracked".



    Sale price.......$299







    I think it could be legit. Imagine if the strategy apple has taken is to partner with Cable TV companies, so the set-top box completely disappears, and a single remote has complete access through a single seemless menu system, to TV, Netflix, Movies on demand, iTunes.



    Today your cable providers set-top box has one menu system, the TV itself another, and other devices such as Roku, apple Tv another menu system. sure, a decent remote will let you switch modes, so you can be controlling the TV (volume) or the setop box (cable channels), DVR, except the UI is modal - you switch from one mode to another. Sure to techies this is no big deal - technies grok what is happening, but to non techies its a mystery - think what its like to explain the different modes you jump between to non technical users.... now suppose apple does a deal, (with some revenue sharing scheme) with the cable companies, so the cable companies give up control of the setup box - and instead your apple TV through a single menu system has iTunes, live TV, DVR, Movies on demand, Netflix.... one remote, but a single seemless UI....



    It would take one heck of a deal between apple and the cable companies to pull it off - but if they have, it then means utter novices who typically are baffled by all the different modes of the TV, cable box, DVR, roku, netflix etc. will suddenly be able to actually make use of the functionality that today only techies really master......



    sure, no techie would ever by it, because no doubt it will be much more expensive and may not actually have new features per se, but will have a unified user interface.



    if that is indeed what they have done, it would make sense their partners would be cable companies.
  • ronsterronster Posts: 153member
    Bell Canada (and Rogers) own a ton of content and major sports properties in Canada. TV networks like CTV , TSN, RDS and sports teams like the Blue Jays (MLB), Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple leafs TBD (NHL).



    With this much owned content, it fits in the model Apple is trying to achieve with the TV initiative. Thru this, Bell and Rogers can offer specialized content to their subscribers, something that is asked all the time.





    Also Bell is putting in FTTH in their premier markets and already offer an IPTV solution. I would say Bell is in a great position in eastern Canada, which is the majority of their revenue. Don't forget they own a satellite TV business as well.





    I am surprised Shaw isn't involved as well being they have the lionshare of the TV business in the west (yes Telus is gaining, but Shaw is still the big dog).







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


    In the western half of Canada at least, neither of these companies have anything but cell towers. They are phone companies. Neither Rogers nor Bell even effectively covers my city with phone signal let alone the 50-100 Mbps required for TV



    I meant "first" as in before talking to the cable companies or the media companies.



    WiFi is not cell, and bandwidth is more expensive on the phone than any other way.



    Again, what problems are solved by partnering with cell phone companies? (the two mentioned in the USA are also cell phone companies). What possible involvement could the phone companies have with an Apple branded television that they need prototypes of the device to test?



    Remember also that according to supply chain reports, if an Apple branded TV exists it's in the part sampling, early prototype stage. Yet there is something about it that necessitates the phone companies signing off on the design?



    If this is real, then it must be something completely unexpected and from further afield than any other Apple product ever known. If true it will be more surprising that their most surprising product announcement (the iPod), which was only surprising because it was an entirely new kind of device for them at the time. An Apple TV is not that. It's an expected extension of their current business.



  • ronsterronster Posts: 153member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple II Plus View Post


    I'm a Canuck and never find the word offensive at all and neither does any other Canuck I know! You'l have to google the word.



    While the term Canuck is not offensive to me, the Vancouver Canucks ARE offensive...as in I hate that hockey team.
  • apple ii plusapple ii plus Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post


    I have Rogers, too. Right now Rogers has no a la carte scheme and has none announced, not as far as I know. I doubt that Apple would agree to letting Rogers dictate the terms of this deal. If Rogers wants in, it will have to be on Apple's terms, whatever they might be.



    There is, by the way, an additional option. Offer, for example, a 10-channel package for X dollars, a 20-channel package for Y and if what you want is a 10-channel package plus one, charge so much to add just one. Set the rates to encourage taking a package over signing on for an odd number of channels.



    Let's not forget, though, that the CRTC will have it's say and I doubt that say would allow a true a la carte set-up as in you can pick precisely the channels you want. Some channels that many of us have no use for will be mandated and there isn't anything Rogers, Bell or Apple can do about it. Not sure how this will play in the US but here in Canada, that's how it will be.



    Requiring one to order a base package of a bunch of channels and then paying a la carte for each one added is reasonable. So is saying you can order what channels you want but you have to order a minimum number. What is crazy is that right now I have to order groups of channels and sometimes I have to order an entire additional group just to get the one single channel I want.
  • apple ii plusapple ii plus Posts: 20member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajcarroll View Post


    I think it could be legit. Imagine if the strategy apple has taken is to partner with Cable TV companies, so the set-top box completely disappears, and a single remote has complete access through a single seemless menu system, to TV, Netflix, Movies on demand, iTunes.



    This is precisely the problem and Steve Jobs talked about it in an interview about 4 years ago. The cable co's control the set-top box and have strong economic reasons not to have it disappear. Now, maybe this will change over time but it's one huge hurdle.
Sign In or Register to comment.