or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple eyeing billion-dollar acquisitions, push into TV market - rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple eyeing billion-dollar acquisitions, push into TV market - rumor - Page 2

post #41 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

the new mac mini is a great ATV
with the new HD AUDIO port you can access 500 g of tv shows and movies video podcast home movies and music of course FROM YOIUR ITUNES ACCOUNT

How much does the Mac Mini cost? Not a mass market device.

An A4 based solution could be built the same size as an iPod Mini. And with a manufacturing cost of $125.

So cheap that the build cost could be subsidized by a $30 per month subscription.
The best place to put it is inside a TV.

C.
post #42 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Exactly, I think an ARM-based Apple TV could arrive at a BOM cost of about $50-75. That would let Apple price the device under the magic $200 point.

It would probably retain a similar form factor, mostly because of the cable connectors (component video, HDMI, audio, Ethernet). The NAND flash memory would probably be the priciest part (for caching/storage buffer) followed by the A4-based SoC.

There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. While I think that it's low it's absolutely possible if Apple wants to finally take the living room and thinks that it can make money on selling/renting content/subscriptions and/or wants to use it as a "halo effect" to sell other Apple products.

I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.

I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming. )

Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.
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 #43 of 116
If Apple were smart they'd combine Apple TV, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme and Time Capsule into one device that becomes the hub for all of your other iDevices, such as iPhones, iPads, iMacs, etc. This would allow all those devices to share resources and have easy access to content, as well as act like a mini server and storage device that connects directly to your TV.

Now THAT is something I'd buy.
post #44 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobar View Post

Yeah, $99 is not going to happen!

Check out these items from the iPhone 4 component prices:

A4 processor: 10.75
256MB RAM: 6.50
16GB Flash: 27.00
Power Management: 3.93
WiFi/Bluetooth: 7.80
PCBs, Acoustics, Connectors, etc.: 14.40
Accessories, Literature, Box Contents: 5.50

That's $75.88 right there. It would likely include more stuff I don't know about, but maybe lower prices due to less miniaturizing.

And that doesn't include manufacturing, shipping and Apple's comfortable margins.

What do you mean by acoustics?

While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.
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 #45 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I agree that the form factor will probably be somewhat similar to what it is now, it could be made as small as the Nano looking at the iPhone 4 logic board. But that seems to be a lot o over-engineering in an area they don't dominate, so I think that would be prohibitively expensive.

I'd like to think they'll have a cheap steaming-only model for $99 so all TVs in the house can connected and a model that uses the new Mac Mini aluminium design. Still with the A4 SoC/PoP but space for a 3.5" HDD for local storage, like in Popcorn Hour. (okay, now I'm just dreaming. )

Isn't it impossible to HDCP protected content in full resolution over Component? If so, I would think Apple would go for HDMI and optical audio for output to a monitor/HDTV. This would surely help their case with the content owners who are afraid of piracy.

I'm not abreast on HDCP issues concerning Component, but it wouldn't surprise me.

It is likely that Apple would put the power supply in the box itself (like they did with the recent Mac mini design). You're right that the logic board would be tiny. Maybe they could move the SD card slot to the front though.

It appears that Apple thinks optical media is dead, but I wonder if it would make sense to try to put a Blu-ray drive in this thing. (I know, I know, Steve thinks Blu-ray is a big bag of pain.)
post #46 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Buying a network -- "looking for synergies from content + distribution" -- is a fool's errand.

Agreed. It also turns Apple into a direct competitor with the other content providers, which means their content begins and ends with the content they own. Not a good result. I think they are far better off trying to perfect distribution. They could blow away the competition in set top boxes if they had a serious interest in that market.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #47 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What do you mean by acoustics?

Speakers and microphones, I believe.
post #48 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Speakers and microphones, I believe.

That's the only thing i can think of but none of that would be needed for the TV. All of that would be taken care of by another device.
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 #49 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post


rant s over
i am home for the next month recovering from surgery
lucky you guys have my inane wisdom 24/7

Hey Brucep hope you have a quick recovery!

Ps. Always enjoyed your comments!

Best
post #50 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

People don't want to pay for yet another set top box.
If Apple does create a new AppleTV box - the price to consumers will be $0.00 - They'll pay for the hardware through service subscriptions.

If the box is iPhone small, with an A4 and some flash memory - a better direction for Apple is encourage TV makers to create TVs with the hardware built-in. Or perhaps with a slot to accommodate the device. No additional remotes. No wires.

The AppleTV would just be another channel on the TV with downloadable content. apps (like AirVideo), YouTube.

C.

Your assertions beg the question of how Apple profits from this.

Will the TV set makers give Apple a small cut of the purchase price? Will Apple charge a fee for service? Will the "channel" run iAds but the content be free? A mixture of all of the above?

EDIT: Ah, I see you've already fielded similar questions. Pardon me for responding to your initial post before observing the response thread.

THompson
post #51 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

If Apple were smart they'd combine Apple TV, Mac Mini, Airport Extreme and Time Capsule into one device that becomes the hub for all of your other iDevices, such as iPhones, iPads, iMacs, etc. This would allow all those devices to share resources and have easy access to content, as well as act like a mini server and storage device that connects directly to your TV.

Now THAT is something I'd buy.

I have often thought that too. one pwr chord no pwr bricks and one HDMI cable. Think of the reduction of clutter, wires, etc.

Best
post #52 of 116

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply

TechnoMinds

We are a Montreal based technology company that offers a variety of tech services such as tech support for Apple products, Drupal based website development, computer training and iCloud...

Reply
post #53 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

$1 billion? A short pile of chips in today's marketplace. Apple can afford to bet a lot more if they indeed have another game-changer up their sleeve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I thought the same thing. $1B won't get you an Adobe ($14B), Intuit ($11B), Direct TV ($31B), etc.

I agree. I'd go for something bigger - especially since Jobs is talking about 'big, bold risks'.

Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #54 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

some family just bought a new $1300 LED LCD TV. it has netflix, vudu, yahoo and google built in. i even uploaded some photos to their picasa this morning and a video to youtube so they can watch it tonight. next year this TV will be under $1000.

there is no computer required, no itunes needed, my inlaws can watch a lot of movies over netflix and rent movies from vudu. other TV's and blu ray players are even including pandora. if apple doesn't do something then iTunes is going the way of the dodo.

apple TV is overpriced and under featured when you compare it to game consoles and internet enabled TV's and blu ray players

I bought my LCD Sony about 4 years ago just before the Internet connect trend started. I also want to upgrade my alarm system to Internet connected model.

Are these TVs wifi enable or ethernet?

I'm not really looking forward to climbing around in the attic with a drill and a spool of Cat 6.

The one thing I don't like is my lack of choices in broadband connectivity. I have cable and the service/price ratio is really terrible.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #55 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickeno View Post

As your guess seems most appropriate, I'd rather suggest a move towards german-american Elgato www.elgato.com/, whose EyeTV hardware/software for both Mac and PC (and iPhone/iPad) are among the most innovative and as I see it goes even more beyond "TV" as we know it than TiVo.

I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.
post #56 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjs View Post

I've been using a couple of older EyeTV 500 units and the EyeTV software (version 2.X) for a number of years. The software is excellent and the hardware reliable. If Apple could aquire Elgato and incorporate that company's expertise into the next generation Apple TV and give the software an Apple "twist" I think it would be a real winner.

I use EyeTV as well in my office. I have often thought that Apple should buy them, however they are in Spain so I don't know how easy it would be to assimilate their knowledge/technology into the Apple corporate culture.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #57 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

It wont be an Apple Television, just a new Apple TV device/OS and service. One that will also enable you to record TV shows from a cable connection in addition to buying content from iTunes and surfing the Internet from your E-Z Boy recliner.

As cable companies control the pipe that many people get their Internet service through, it would be hard for Apple to attempt to compete directly with cable companies in supplying content if they weren't somehow part of the whole deal, like AT&T and the iPhone. Unless Apple is planning to buy an entire TV Network and cable company, which it easily could with that much spare cash laying around,

this is all great speculation...I could even see Apple pairing with ATT's new U-Verse cable. Keeping it in the family, but in a good way. Apple does the UI for ATT program guide, includes a link to iOS, or even integrating the Cable Guide into the UI like an app. A DVR would have to happen thougth, and given that Jobs hates moving parts in his devices, a 64 GB hard-drive would hardly do it for a DVR. I could definately see that. Yet another thing for ATT to push. My household has thought of switching to ATT U-Verse, but the channel guide sucks, and it's about the same price as we pay for our Charter Cable and Internet.

My only consideration as to this being out of the question to a potential cable partner would be the Pay-per-View service. Itunes would eat into those profits and it would be a huge compromise for a cable company (as many are just skidding by on fumes) for apple to eat into what little profits they already make. On the Apple side, having to give up a little reliability of service, granted cable is (IMO) more reliable than SATV or DirectTV. But if it's ATT, most people would already know the story there.
post #58 of 116
to add to my previous post...
It could be that Apple just releases an updated ATV box with the iOS built-in, and then let the cable/SATV/Dish/Over-air companies come up with Apps for the device. For example, if you have Cable (i.e. Charter, ATT, Comcast, etc). They would be able to offer an App for the ATV that allows a cable guide and DVR or OnDemand programming. We've already seen an ABC TV app for the iPad, why not NBC, CBS, TBS, FOX, etc. probive thier own app?

Heck, this in a way could elimante the need for Cable/SATV providers in general...It would also eliminate the need for scheduling, for the Neilson Ratings as well, they could track viewership by hits to shows and streams. Many how cool would that be? A-la-Carte TV, just the way iTunes does
post #59 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What do you mean by acoustics?

While I agree that $99 is unlikely, all the components for the iPhone 4 are very condensed and therefore pricier. This would not have to be the case for the next TV. Only the A4 would likely remain at that cost, if not more for the 1080p capable VXD decoder which is likely not in the iPhone 4. Everything else looks to me like it could be made at a reduced price.

Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.

But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.

Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.

If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.

C.
post #60 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.

But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.

Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.

If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.

C.

I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.

What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
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 #61 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There is that rumour of a $99 TV floating around. .

Consumers do not perceive a 3" device as a television. And a large screen HDTV cannot sell for $99, let's get real. Consumer expectations in regards to CE pricing has really gotten out of hand. We should expect to pay higher prices in the future as the dollar drops and the Chinese labor market demands to be treated better.

Most consumer electronics companies are very low margin. Apple does not want to play in that space. And furthermore, even if Apple did decide to produce a television, they would probably walk away from almost every industry standard established and produce a set with perhaps one HDMI port, an Ethernet port, a USB port and those "combined" audio ports that Apple uses on other devices.

There was a time when I thought that Apple should produce an A/V receiver, because the user experience on most current receivers is absurdly bad and complex, but lately I've decided that Apple is not the right company to build such a device. While their drive for simplicity is worthy in theory, they would probably destroy much of the needed capability and quality of a modern audio receiver. Steve only believes in portable devices anyway.


In regards to other posters' comments, Apple is not going to buy either ABC or NBC. Such networks might not even exist in ten years, the business is risky and it's also relatively low margin with very high infrastructure and content development costs. And even if he wanted it, any attempt by Jobs to purchase ABC would be seen as a conflict of interest. He would have to resign his seat on the Disney Board to do so. In fact, if he tried to acquire NBC, he'd also probably have to resign from the Board.

And Steve has already commented that he'd never buy an MSO cable company, because there are none that cover the entire U.S.

So I'm guessing that if Apple is going to get involved with TV, it's going to be something that makes it easier for consumers to get content onto their devices, but I'm unsure as to what form that would take.
post #62 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Consumers do not perceive a 3" device as a television. And a large screen HDTV cannot sell for $99, let's get real.

¿Que? is your argument that the name is wrong or are you under the impression that TV has a monitor because it has the letters 'T' and 'V' in it?
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 #63 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.

What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.

Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?

We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #64 of 116
Possible targets if they really wanted to break in to the TV STB business

Motorola - #1 in the world
Pace - #2 in the world
Thomson - #3 in the world
Cisco - #4 in the world

Well actually Pace Thomson and Cisco are all tied or nearly ties. Of the four Pace makes sense, since they have globe solutions, they have CATV, Telco, IP and SAT based solutions. So does Motorola but I highly doubt Motorola will sell that business to Apple, Cisco does not have a global present and doubt they would sell that either.

Lastly, it would need to be more than a $1B more like $4B to $8B acquisition, this is the only way apple could solve it go to market problem in the video world.
post #65 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?

We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?

I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.
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 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?

We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?

hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks
post #67 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.

Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks

I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #68 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.

But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.

Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.

If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.

C.


Actually this is not true, Directv make people buy the hardware and it not cheap unless they are doing some sort of deal. The Cable companies do not want to sell hardware to you since they make more money renting the hardware. A STB cost them between $50 and $250 and then rent them to you for at little as $3 to $15 a month depending on the feature and these product are usually in the field for 5 to 7 years so do the math you see why they do not want you owning your hardware.

The FCC is in the process of outlawing STB or at least one which are locked to 1 provider which is the way it is done today. There was talk about a software encryption solution which would allow any STB to be plugged into any provider but that failed and I believe Apple was waiting for this to happen then they could sell boxes at retail to anyone.
post #69 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

The FCC is in the process of outlawing STB or at least one which are locked to 1 provider which is the way it is done today.

I don't live in the US.
But I thought the FCC was in control of broadcast and satellite communications. Do they also control what comes in through the internet?

C.
post #70 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.



I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.


Most Cable provide buy form Motorola, Cisco or Pace these days, some providers so single source with one which goes back to the good old boy network.

I can tell some Motorola solutions work really well depending on the provider, all the STB is doing is decoding the transmitted signal and putting up the on screen messages and guides. It has been my experience when the video looks bad it is the cable operator's fault they doing something screw at the head end. Same thing if the guild does not work right it was who every the cable operator contracted to develop guide.

This is the reason I use Directv, best in class video and theirs just works and it all digital unlike the Cable guys many times they digitize a analog signal which has lots of noise on it, they do not bother cleaning it up.
post #71 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.

Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors.

With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.

C.
post #72 of 116
i can never remember john malone's company? that gets you direcTV & sirius/xm in one deal...
post #73 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

I don't live in the US.
But I thought the FCC was in control of broadcast and satellite communications. Do they also control what comes in through the internet?

C.


I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.
post #74 of 116
"They'll find out sooner or later." -- S. Jobs.

What if they are going in with Google on the dark fiber?

Ok, I don't think so either but it would be another kick in the butt of a moribund, uncompetitive industry.
post #75 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.

Will not happen, Apple would have to buy the cable card from Motorola since Motorola own the IP and the only manufacturer of the cable card today, Cisco and Pace both buy from Motorola, I do not think Apple would want to give Motorola a heads up on what they are doing, considering Apple put the screws to them with ROKR phone.
post #76 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.

My idea makes the box free or rented for the consumer as they are selling to the cable providers, not the consumer.

Quote:
With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.

I don't think it'll happen either, but I'd like to. Note that historically, Apple's primary focus has been on HW sales and their primary profits are from HW. I think even the iPad takes in more revenue than all their SW and services combines. Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.
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 #77 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.

The BBC licence/license fee is both deeply unfair .... but is also extraordinarily good value. It's a love/hate historical anomaly thing.

So...

However the AppleTV evolves, It will remain as a device that connects a television screen to internet delivered content. It's not going to turn into a cable box or a TiVo.

And if there are technical limitations on the volume of data now. There were many more restrictions in the past and there will be far fewer restrictions in the future.

Currently, in the UK for instance, all of the BBC content is available in standard-def over the internet via the iPlayer. Some of it is in HD.

TV and Movies are just files. The internet is designed to move files. And keeps getting better at it.
This trend will continue.


C.
post #78 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.

If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.

C.
post #79 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.

You may be onto something there. More than a few have wondered if that may be the reason Apple has put so much energy into lowering Adobe's value....
post #80 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.

C.

I highly doubt this will happen. Like i said in a post earlier, i think it's going to be something like iOS in a new form-factor STB. If anyone has noticed yet, there are several apps out there that are surfacing to replace regular over-air TV. Hulu App with subscription, Netflix app, ABC Network App. and now HULU's subscription App. So i think the iTunes subscription would be overkill and unnecessary.

The partnering with ATT and U-Verse IMO is the most likely sinario if they want to start cannibalizing the traditional STB. But even that's a long shot. I could easily see the "App" format as the new way to market the aTV.

CBS, FOX, NBC and ABC are the big 4, they are owned by larger companies that own many many more Cable networks (i.e. Disney owns ESPN, ABC, etc.). The Big companies start investing in the App idea for TV, we might see the end of Network TV and more of the a-la-carte programming, exactly the way SJ want's it...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple eyeing billion-dollar acquisitions, push into TV market - rumor