or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Jobs: Apple TV a hobby because there's no market
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Jobs: Apple TV a hobby because there's no market - Page 2

post #41 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

You will, when you realize that the HD content you want regularly makes you bust your bandwith cap and rack up huge overages.

Yes but you are describing the present. I'm hypothesising the future.
post #42 of 86
If anyone is in the position to address the market's shortcomings from a technology perspective, it's Apple. Like Google, make ATV an embedded technology, not a separate box, controlled by iPad's, iPhone's, and Touch's, accessing local iTunes content or streaming media from Apple's serves. It wouldn't get much nicer than that.

I think the real problem is the business models of the content providers/cable operators. They're used to making certain monies certain ways (carriage agreements fees paid by cable operators to the network owners), and I think no one on that side of the fence is in any great rush to implement a competing source for identical content on a display already serving a cable/satellite signal.

And there's only so far people will pay double for the same content - it's one thing to pay for the convenience of purchasing shows/movies to watch anywhere on your iPad, laptop, or iPhone, but the model becomes more strained to "pay" for shows or movies you can otherwise DVR with your existing cable/sat service.

I think what Jobs is alluding to is the cable/sat operators have the prime seat at the table to sell on demand content, and it's not an easy task for Apple or anyone else to muscle into that territory. That's why there's the focus on alternative viewing on Apple's own products - where they are the primary content pipe.
post #43 of 86
If you can't beat them.. buy them....

post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

You never know for sure with SJ. Look how he ridiculed small screens shortly before releasing one. What were his words? "Who's want to watch a movie on a small screen?"
He could be throwing others off the scent.

I agree, and I read the interview with SJ. Here's what I got from it:

SJ understands that there is no current way to break the strangle-hold the cable warlords have on the industry.

SJ understands that a solution will come, someday, and the AppleTV is a place-holder so that Apple has a dog in that hunt... Same for Google and GoogleTV!

I believe the game changer will be a Personal TV-- where each family member can watch his own show while the others, each, do their own thing. Sure, we'll all gather 'round the Big (communal) TV to watch a good movie, hurricane, or sports event. But the Personal TV will gradually wean us away from "group-watch"... or it could even enhance and embelish it. It'll be so slow that we'll hardly notice... Then suddenly, one day, the revolution has been won!

The Personal TV revolution has already started: ABC, NetFlix and others on the iPad. There will be more, eventually streamed "live" events-- even WWDC keynotes, someday.

Yes, the iPad Personal TV depends on those very same Cable Companies who have their jackboot on the throat of the TV industry. The Cable Companies who refuse, or are unable, to enhance the TV viewer experience! We need their bandwidth!

To paraphrase Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (which I rarely do):

The Cable Companies will sell us the bandwidth with which we will hang them.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #45 of 86
Hmm... Everything he stated seems dead on, as usual, but I have to assume Apple has a plan in place. They certainly let the living room go or risk it affecting the rest of their ecosystem but it's certainly a tough nut to crack. I think they have a few basic options...

1) They can come out with the small and cheap device that is rumoured, thus making it pretty simple and inexpensive to network your TV to your LAN and the internet with the best and most familiar UI on the market.

2) They can come up with a very complex and expensive box to take on Scientific Atlanta, TiVO and others with an expensive box that uses CableCards for access, but with a much better UI and UX.

While these boxes can be expensive if Apple can solidify deals with cable companies throughout the US (an issue he addressed as an issue) then these devices can be rented to customers just as they are now. If they are sure of their product they can even offer profit-sharing again as it would keep the cable companies from having large upfront expenditures. The lifespan of a used cable boxes far exceeds the monthly rate at which it is rented, which usually seems nominal to the customer as it is.

This could be a win-win for Apple, the cable company and the customer. The only one who loses is Scientific Atlanta (now owned by Cisco) who now has some real competition to deal with.

3) Or, they could offer both of these items.


Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

You never know for sure with SJ. Look how he ridiculed small screens shortly before releasing one. What were his words? "Who's want to watch a movie on a small screen?"
He could be throwing others off the scent.

Sounds like classic Jobs misdirect to me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

I would say this makes it official. No new iPhone sized AppleTV announced at WWDC.

It sure looks that way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nees View Post

Why are they talking about set-top boxes? Every TV manufacturer is already integrating all that stuff into their TV's. If Apple wants a TV hobby, they should consider building an Apple TV, which is an actual TV, not a set top box.

No way! Do not you realize how many different TV sizes and types there are for consumer needs? Unless they license their OS, the only solution is to have a box that ties into your preferred TV. That doesn't mean it can't be attached to the back of the display, but Apple making a TV is no go.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nees View Post

Why are they talking about set-top boxes? Every TV manufacturer is already integrating all that stuff into their TV's. If Apple wants a TV hobby, they should consider building an Apple TV, which is an actual TV, not a set top box.

If Jobs is hinting at anything -- maybe, maybe not -- I think he's hinting that Apple won't make a big push in the TV space unless they bring out an actual TV.

Content is the bigger obstacle. Apple TV, Amazon VOD, etc., will be largely limited to the oops-I-forgot-to-record-CSI market unless they can compete directly with cable and satellite with a subscription-priced package of shows.

The cable portion of my Comcast bill (digital, HD, DVR) is about $90. That's about the same as 30 episodes a month on Apple TV or Amazon VOD with no access to live news, sports, and special event programming. For the vast majority of cable subscribers who watch more than 30 TV episodes a month, per-episode pricing is not a viable option.

Apple (or Netflix or Amazon or whoever) can't compete with cable and satellite until they convince NBCU, CBS, Disney/ABC, WB, Paramount and the big independent producers to provide shows for a subscription-based service that includes live news, sports and special event programming.
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Hang on... isn't Google TV built into the TV in some cases?

Lets say, hypothetically, that Google TV gets built into every single new TV. I have to wonder if Jobs would have the same opinion.

How does building smarts into a TV really change anything?

I mean, sure, it saves one extra set top box. But it doesn't provide an integrated experience, since the TV won't have access to the cable company's proprietary monopolistic locked-down box that's actually decoding the signal. The TV can't even record the signal without reencoding it, which would be lame.

Examples? CableCard. Clear-QAM.

I would love to have a TV that could just plug into a coax and tune arbitrary channels, like in the olden days with analog cable--but those days are gone. Now it's $10/month and a Scientific Atlanta (Cisco) / Motorola box.
post #48 of 86
the CableCard was supposed to solve the problem. one universal card you could plug into any TV or STB or computer or whatever for unified control of the TV, cable channels, and any device services. but only TiVo really implemented this idea. and the CATV companies did everything they could to kill CableCard. they don't tell you about it, you have to know to ask. now instead of kicking the cartel's butt, the feds are talking about designing something new ... someday.

so AppleTV is instead just a hobby, and iTunes extender. well, Steve, at least stick the iPhone OS on it so we can enjoy your hobby a lot more.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

well, odd as in:

With job's it's best to read between the lines. It's my guess that apple are up to something here.
Steve was strangely open. Thats not steve.


And the line ""i'm sure smarter people than us will figure this out," hmm whatever...

May as well be saying.. "you idiots go waste your time solving this 'problem' that i have misdirected you towards, whilst we come at this from an entirely different angle taking you all by surprise mwahahaha"

+1 .
post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

Well, odd as in:

With Job's it's best to read between the lines. It's my guess that Apple are up to something here.
Steve was strangely open. Thats not steve.


and the line ""I'm sure smarter people than us will figure this out," hmm whatever...

may as well be saying.. "you idiots go waste your time solving this 'problem' that I have misdirected you towards, whilst we come at this from an entirely different angle taking you all by surprise mwahahaha"

Maybe he was telling truth and people over analysis is words and get it entirely wrong, just a thought.
post #51 of 86
steve pointed two things in his showup yesterday:

1: on mobile device, or at least on mobile device, the way to do ad as google does is not the way he wanted
2: to revolutionize tv market is not just to provide another settop box as google is doing. google is doing it from ad point of view, while steve thinks it as user experience point of view. of course, both want to make money.

my understandings on his comments are that in order to do advertisement on mobile or tv devices, one has to think different. apple is waiting for the moment to enter tv market and yes, that time is not yet coming up. good luck to google's effort, maybe apple can learn something from their efforts when apple tv market campaign starts. and regardless what/how google might have done it, apple will be a great addon when it decides to enter tv market.

if you could watch the keynote speech video by that google vp during google tv conference and you compare him with steve's short and concise analysis, google guy looks like an amateur. i can see the bumpy road ahead for google since it is too young.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

It's "not a viable market" because Jobs hasn't figured out how to make money from it yet. But Google has. They'll give their OS out to every box, tv and tv accessory maker. All those subsidized boxes from your cable provider? They'll all be running Google TV in 2 years.

Unfortunately for Jobs, the only way to make money on this front is to work with existing service providers (the cable cos.) - that means letting in cable/satellite TV on the box and selling Apple TV through the service providers (maybe for "free" like they do now, with other boxes). But Jobs can't stomach this model, so he says it's "not a viable market."

If he keeps up that attitude, Google will eat his lunch here. He has the potential for another iPhone here....if only he can get past his dislike of working with the cable cos.
post #52 of 86
crap I so wanted that new vaporware 99$ AppleTV with iphone OS that you can control with an ipod touch or iphone.
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

And the revenue for Google comes from gathering as much "personal" information as they are allowed to in order to deliver targeted advertising (which as I understand it is holy-grail territory for advertisers)... correct?

So the next question. Why can't Apple do something similar?

They could. They have iAds. Why not go into the TV box business? Just like the iPhone retailing through telcos, they could make a TV box and sell it through cable cos. However, the keep hoping that conventional cable TV will die (it won't...and it'll be a long time till IPTV services catch up) and that optical media will die (it won't.....as long as bandwidth caps remain fairly low anyway).

As for Google TV, no where in the keynote did Google mention targeted ads. Just like regular android (which has no ad software like iAds baked in), I think Google's strategy is just to get people online and using its services (search, gmail, youtube) more. Apple uses iTunes to sell iPods. Google uses Android as a loss leader to get people using Google services.
post #54 of 86
Talk about a smokescreen.

IPTV. The internet is the media provider. It's a standard. You only need 1 cable for it. You only need 1 remote and if you have an iphone or an ipad, those should double as remotes via wifi since apple decided that IR ports weren't useful (stupid move, apple). It's not difficult, dudes. It really isn't. They have how many billion dollars and they're building a huge datacenter out in BFE for cloud hosting? They could outstream netflix and call it a day.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #55 of 86
He's right on about people not wanting more set tops. It's amazing how many people simply can't wrap their mind around switching inputs on a TV. If you have a stereo system on top of that it does get a bit complex. Too many remotes, too much mess, too many wires. In the era of flat panel TVs you don't really see the classic 80's style big ass entertainment center anymore. It's just kind of a pain finding a spot for yet another box. Building it into the TV makes the most sense.
post #56 of 86
If the current version of the Apple TV is to be a content delivery device - what about adding Netflix streaming? Vudu? Hulu? ABC video? iTunes is not the sole source...
post #57 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Hang on... isn't Google TV built into the TV in some cases?

Lets say, hypothetically, that Google TV gets built into every single new TV. I have to wonder if Jobs would have the same opinion.

Apple has their own TV concept in the works as well, though how active who knows. The thing I found strange was that he complained about lack of consistency but I thought that was one of the greatest things about iPhone. Seems like you wouldn't be selling a subsidized box but rather partnering with cable companies to offer your box as an upgrade feature. The cable companies could then write their own cable app for the AppleTV that would turn the AppleTV into a standard DVR when in their app. With Background services in iPhone OS 4 it could continue to grab shows for you in the background while you do other fun stuff like surf the web or watch a movie.

It seems Steve is really just not interested in trying to deal with the cable companies at this point, which I don't blame him.
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

It seems Steve is really just not interested in trying to deal with the cable companies at this point, which I don't blame him.

As I previously stated, based on Jobs' statement I think there is a case to be made that Apple is mainly interested in dealing with cable companies.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #59 of 86
I can't help but disagree with SJ on this one... As an ATV owner since the original 40GB model, I see that there are many features that the if ATV had it would convince people to kick the cable habit.

- Movie and TV show lending. Buying a movie on ATV is limiting, you cannot lend it to friends or resell it like you could with a DVD. Apple could at least offer a lending option, where you can lend a movie to a friend and you cannot watch the movie until you take it back. If this lending process happens from box to box, then Apple wouldn't have to loose bandwidth in the process.

- Reading and Writing reviews. On ATV I can see star ratings for a movie but I'm unable to read reviews without going to iTunes on my computer.

- Podcast and TV show management. I cannot tell if a new episode been added untill I actually go into each and every channel in my Faivorites. I'm also unable to organize them into folders or even put them in a certain order. How about bookmarks, I sometimes have a need to bookmark a certain episode.

- Monthly subscription. Yea!

- Volume control for the whole thing not just radio!

- Deciding to purchase a enter Movie, c'mon! If I already paid $5 and the movie resides on my ATV why not be able to pay the difference and keep it?!

That's about enough for now, but my point is, there are a lot of potential for the ATV to kick ass. I don't think it should be positioned as a competitor to a cable box, but as an addition to a home theatre system.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #60 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

Uhhh, that's because it's not a TV or Set-top box replacement; it never was. It's a DVD Player replacement. It's (at this moment) purely and simply about serving your iTunes media to your TV; that and nothing else. The "TV" in Apple TV is to do with connecting to a TV, not anything to with monitoring or storing programming from the traditional TV or Cable TV medium. Firmware or OS updates can change that in an instant.

And that's why Apple still class it as a hobby. When they shake up the TV industry like they have with the music, movie and phone industries, I am sure we will be the among the first to know. I bet they do have ideas. Furthermore, I bet those who have the current incarnation of Apple TV won't be disappointed, because whatever the shake-up is, they will be able to make use of it with their early Apple TVs.

If you like renting iTunes Movies for your large TV, if you like YouTube in your living room, if you like displaying photo albums of your grandkids with your own music in the background, if you don't like running out to the video store and running back to return movies, if you have lots of media in iTunes (and you can do a simple rip of your physical DVDs, then Apple TV is still a great product. Anyone expecting more may well be disappointed. Those who know what it does and use it for that really enjoy it.

Well said Krabelan!

I have said before that AppleTV pulls together different media (as you say from iTunes/iPhoto) and puts it into a very, very usable format. Typical Apple!

Take your example of photos....it used to be you would have a few of your best photos framed and hanging on the wall. The rest were most likely in a shoebox....if you were a really enterprising fellow you may put them into photo albums...but even then they may get looked at once every 2 years or so.

Then came digital/computers and you could email and share photos...whoo hoo! How often do we all sit around our PC a view photos...maybe the most recent ones. But not much else.

I submit, my photos on AppleTV are viewed and shared more when my friends come over and on the TV is a collage of photos with light music in the background. All my PC friends are amazed at how good they look and how entertaining it is...especially when I have photos of them! It really is amazing and worth the price of admission right there.

Best
post #61 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I see that there are many features that the if ATV had it would convince people to kick the cable habit.

This is much more tricky that it may seem. The cable companies pay for access to all those channels they offer, regardless if people are watching them or not. If data usage on their network increases while the payments for their TV viewership decreases then we'll see an increase in the cost of data to counteract this inevitable result.

Quote:
Apple could at least offer a lending option, where you can lend a movie to a friend and you cannot watch the movie until you take it back.

This is not up to Apple. I'm not aware of any digital distributor who has the rights to let you lease your content to your buddies. Apple seems to have the best leeway with allowing you to move your purchased and rented media between devices that use FairPlay DRM.

Quote:
Deciding to purchase a enter Movie, c'mon! If I already paid $5 and the movie resides on my ATV why not be able to pay the difference and keep it?!

Again, this is not up to Apple, this is up to the content owners.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #62 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Again, this is not up to Apple, this is up to the content owners.

I used to put the lions share of the blame on the content providers making it difficult for Apple to get them organized the way they did with Music. But listening Jobs, it seems a good portion of the problem is the 'balkanized' cable operators and TV stations around the country!
post #63 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

Talk about a smokescreen.

IPTV. The internet is the media provider. It's a standard. You only need 1 cable for it. You only need 1 remote and if you have an iphone or an ipad, those should double as remotes via wifi since apple decided that IR ports weren't useful (stupid move, apple). It's not difficult, dudes. It really isn't. They have how many billion dollars and they're building a huge datacenter out in BFE for cloud hosting? They could outstream netflix and call it a day.

Great dream, but sadly just a dream.

"The internet" doesn't exist unless you pay someone for access to it. That someone is a cable or telephone company. They own the pipes so it's quite literally impossible to avoid paying them.

Without strong net neutrality rules they can easily push their own content and hold back others'. Even with such laws they can using pricing models that make television a very low price add-on to internet service. Why pay Apple for something you already get 'free' from your ISP?
post #64 of 86
I have a huge interest in ATV's success and have owned one for a few years now.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the following notions.

- Apple buys (or controlling interest in) directv or similar company to roll out a world wide service that features their own "magical", "incredible" branded box.

- ATV becomes more a mobile extension of an iPad/iPhone - a wireless HDMI dongle with some embedded UI or software that can plug into projectors and HD tvs.

- ATV becomes a proper gaming console - Steam on the big screen? - cloud based games?


But besides the content or major redesign, what would get the ATV out of the garage is the apps potential. Something beyond a simple collection of dashboard widgets - I mean come on guys.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #65 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I used to put the lions share of the blame on the content providers making it difficult for Apple to get them organized the way they did with Music. But listening Jobs, it seems a good portion of the problem is the 'balkanized' cable operators and TV stations around the country!

In regards to the actual content being distributed the way the OP suggested it's clearly them. In regards to making a great AppleTV the division Jobs stated does seem to be an issue with the cable companies.

My first comment on this thread was a potential move from Apple to work with most, if not all, of the cable companies to supply a a device they could all use. Scientific Atlanta seems to have a monopoly on that market. I think Apple could undercut them while offering a better solution with a better UI and UX. The consumer wins by getting a choice, & cable companies win because they get a choice of boxes, potential low-cost up-front option from profit-sharing, and Scientific Atlanta steps up services and lowers prices to better compete. The only one who really loses here is Scientific Atlanta. If it uses CableCards the customer can still buy their own at full price and use on any cable company in the US as I think this is now a requirement. I think the only issue would be with satellite.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #66 of 86
Pfff its because of iTunes horrific movie quality. No one wants to buy "HD" movies off iTunes if its not HD. Add blu-ray to "Apple TV" and to you computers too, thats long over due. In fact, blu-ray alone would sell Apple TVs as most consumers still think a blue ray player cost $600. And get the name iTV back, why don't you own that Apple?
post #67 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert.Public View Post

Possibilities / It's the Apps stoopid!

I agree that apps would be a great way to sell the AppleTV using A4 running the iPhone OS sans Cocoa Touch.

However, I can't agree with anything you stated in your body. If you've seen what an iPhone app looks like 2x scaled on an iPad you've see that running those apps on an HDTV would be utter crap. And that's just the look, note that you don't turn your TV as it's always in landscape mode with an aspect ratio that doesn't fit any iPhone-OS iDevice, there are no accelerometers, and no way to use the CocoaTouch buttons.

The only this will work is if Apple makes an SDK for the next AppleTV specifically for the 10-foot user interface.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #68 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

My first comment on this thread was a potential move from Apple to work with most, if not all, of the cable companies to supply a a device they could all use. Scientific Atlanta seems to have a monopoly on that market. I think Apple could undercut them while offering a better solution with a better UI and UX. The consumer wins by getting a choice, & cable companies win because they get a choice of boxes, potential low-cost up-front option from profit-sharing, and Scientific Atlanta steps up services and lowers prices to better compete. The only one who really loses here is Scientific Atlanta. If it uses CableCards the customer can still buy their own at full price and use on any cable company in the US as I think this is now a requirement. I think the only issue would be with satellite.

They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers. Last year, the top manufacturer in the world was Pace, followed by Technicolor (formerly Thomson), Motorola, and then Scientific Atlanta/Cisco. And Pace only accounted for 7.0% of the market, and the top four manufacturers combined only accounted for 22% of the global STB market. It might seem like a particular box manufacturer dominates the market because a cable company (which has a local monopoly) standardizes around their offerings and that's all you see locally. But, in the big picture, there is no single dominant player.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/...009_Report.php

The problem with trying to make inroads in the TV market is that the only truly national players are the satellite companies, and together they control less than 1/4 of the US TV market. Everybody else serves a local/regional monopoly. You can't grant exclusivity to one cable company, because that would completely lock you out of particular markets. The cable operators have effectively locked out regional competition by colluding with one another to horse trade their territories.

For example, Comcast and Time Warner traded their California territories so that now Comcast has a near monopoly on the entire SF Bay Area, and Time Warner controls most of the LA region. You can't serve the Philly market without talking to Comcast, and you won't get a sniff of the New York market unless you play ball with Cablevision and Time Warner.

This is not like breaking into the cell phone market, where Apple had a choice of national service providers to negotiate with -- each of whom could gain Apple significant market coverage at the outset. Apple built the iPhone so that it would work on AT&T's network, and that same GSM standard is used in other markets around the world.

TV is not that simple. The hardware specs are different between different service providers, and broadcast standards vary from country to country. Apple could market their own souped up STB to cable/satellite operators, but how many consumers would take the Apple option (esp if it's more expensive) and are there potential compatibility issues from system to system?

No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).

Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market.
post #69 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post

They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers. Last year, the top manufacturer in the world was Pace, followed by Technicolor (formerly Thomson), Motorola, and then Scientific Atlanta/Cisco. And Pace only accounted for 7.0% of the market, and the top four manufacturers combined only accounted for 22% of the global STB market.

http://www.multichannel.com/article/...009_Report.php

The problem with trying to make inroads in the TV market is that the only truly national players are the satellite companies, and together they control less than 1/4 of the US TV market. Everybody else serves a local/regional monopoly. You can't grant exclusivity to one cable company, because that would completely lock you out of particular markets. The cable operators have effectively locked out regional competition by colluding with one another to horse trade their territories.

For example, Comcast and Time Warner traded their California territories so that now Comcast has a near monopoly on the entire SF Bay Area, and Time Warner controls most of the LA region. You can't serve the Philly market without talking to Comcast, and you won't get a sniff of the New York market unless you play ball with Cablevision and Time Warner.

This is not like breaking into the cell phone market, where Apple had a choice of national service providers to negotiate with -- each of whom could gain Apple significant market coverage at the outset. Apple built the iPhone so that it would work on AT&T's network, and that same GSM standard is used in other markets around the world.

TV is not that simple. The hardware specs are different between different service providers, and broadcast standards vary from country to country.

No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).

Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market. There are many ways that they can try to break into the TV market, but whether that presents any revenue and profit opportunities is another story.

Well said...I a bit surprised at Job's description of Apple...'we don't have the resources other big companies do...we put the iPad on the shelf and made the iPhone, not AppleTV, then we took the iPad off the shelf and made it, not the ATV...' He made Apple sound like 5 guys working in a garage!
post #70 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post

They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't.
[...]
Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market.

Thanks for the excellent post.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #71 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post

No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).

Yes! And if Apple were successful and delivered a superior customer experience, the Feds would, surely, start an investigation...

... Oops, didn't mean to call you Shirley.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #72 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Maybe he was telling truth and people over analysis is words and get it entirely wrong, just a thought.

Oh come on, where is the fun in taking that attitude?
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #73 of 86
I think what Steve is really saying here is that cable companies themselves are the barrier and that Apple is in the process of innovating away from cable/satellite/etc and toward an internet-only, standards-based, "cable" company. With iTunes having such broad, world-wide, membership being fueled by Macs, iPods, iPhones and now iPads, and internet speeds continuing to rise, it's just about the perfect time to take on all cable companies everywhere.

Just look at the name "cable company". How old school is that in today's wireless culture?!?

I think Apple will be attempting a piercing blow toward the heart of ALL cable companies and Steve Jobs is merely setting the stage for that attack. In our household, we gave up cable 5 years ago and have been primarily using the AppleTV. The new $99 AppleTV based on cloud tech may or may not be announced next week but if it is it could either be the boxer entering the ring or the ding of the bell to begin the fight. Just my 2ยข.
post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Thanks for the excellent post.

Yes it was well laid out as how it is now for traditional TV delivery. Yet I can't help wondering if the solution is to totally ignore what went before (which is an holy mess for sure) and, as someone else suggested, approach TV from a totally new perspective.

If you use the internet (high speed) you have total coverage at home so that's one issue done with, leaving only content, advertisers and UI. If content is there advertisers will follow. We know SJ can get ABC and Disney and the only thing holding back the others is they all want to do this themselves. No other company can do UI like Apple. If Apple ever did come up with a great solution (iPad and new data center maybe?) and got the eyeballs, others will follow as they did with music. My money is still on Apple going into TV sooner than later and seriously this time not as a hobby. I could be wrong but SJ seemed to be teasing us all ... just my take.

How this differs from ATV is a matter of the how as in what hardware, at what cost and the revenue model at Apple's end I guess...
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

SJ seemed to be teasing us all ... just my take.

Definitely looks like he's been thinking A LOT about this market. I believe he has something up his sleeve and will pull the rabbit out of the hat soon (maybe next week). ;-)
post #76 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post

Maybe he was telling truth and people over analysis is words and get it entirely wrong, just a thought.

I have been stalking this dude for 20 years. I know what he had for breakfast just by counting the crumbs on his black turtleneck.

But no, I do not think I am over analysing. I'm very confident in my BS detecting skills (i have worked with enough!). I would say there is only 10% chance that the interview wasn't loaded with misdirection.
post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post

They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers.

Excellent post. There's a lot of very US-centric views of the world here... but if you think it is complicated in the US, just wait until you look everywhere else with a plethora of satellite, cable, IPTV and terrestrial broadcasters, manufacturers, TV standards and local regulations. "balkanised" doesn't even come close to describing how fragmented things are.

A reason why there is no global dominant STB supplier is the high degree of customisation they all do for individual broadcasters and countries/regions... global standards just don't apply.

It look like Apple wants to build global products... thats why they went for GSM/3G for the iPhone. So other than serving up content over the internet, or from Apple's own boxes (iTunes) like Apple TV does now... I can't see much prospect of a global TV product from Apple.

If Apple did something with a US cable company, for example, you can guarantee it wouldn't be applicable anywhere else.
post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

steve pointed two things in his showup yesterday:

1: on mobile device, or at least on mobile device, the way to do ad as google does is not the way he wanted
2: to revolutionize tv market is not just to provide another settop box as google is doing. google is doing it from ad point of view, while steve thinks it as user experience point of view. of course, both want to make money.

Can you point out where in the Google TV keynote and demo they showed an "ad point of view" or any ads at all?
post #79 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhanded View Post

Excellent post. There's a lot of very US-centric views of the world here... but if you think it is complicated in the US, just wait until you look everywhere else with a plethora of satellite, cable, IPTV and terrestrial broadcasters, manufacturers, TV standards and local regulations. "balkanised" doesn't even come close to describing how fragmented things are.

A reason why there is no global dominant STB supplier is the high degree of customisation they all do for individual broadcasters and countries/regions... global standards just don't apply.

It look like Apple wants to build global products... thats why they went for GSM/3G for the iPhone. So other than serving up content over the internet, or from Apple's own boxes (iTunes) like Apple TV does now... I can't see much prospect of a global TV product from Apple.

If Apple did something with a US cable company, for example, you can guarantee it wouldn't be applicable anywhere else.


And that's where Google's approach might actually work better. At least licensing their OS to different STB makers might bring some level of standardization (the same platform) across the board.
post #80 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

And that's where Google's approach might actually work better. At least licensing their OS to different STB makers might bring some level of standardization (the same platform) across the board.

Its unlikely there will ever be standardisation... there is a similar variation in the STB market as there is with mobile phones... the majority being cheap, dumb boxes.

Once a box is out there, it will be left there for years until it stops working or the customer wants new functionality that needs a new box (like HD or a PVR).

In addition to the STB hardware manufacturers, there is another set of competitors for STB conditional access software from vendors like NDS and Nagravision and this is also unlikely to be standardised.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Jobs: Apple TV a hobby because there's no market