or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Licensing deal with Rovi seen as more evidence of Apple HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Licensing deal with Rovi seen as more evidence of Apple HDTV

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
Apple's newly announced confidential deal with Rovi Corporation has been viewed by one prominent Wall Street analyst as more evidence of a connected HDTV, with live TV and DVR functionality, in the company's future.

Analyst Gene Munster with Piper Jaffray believes that the secretive deal announced Monday is evidence of a forthcoming HDTV from Apple. Rovi is the creator of an interactive program guide that has been licensed by cable and satellite operators, as well as set-top box makers.

"We believe this announcement is further evidence that Apple is developing live TV and DVR features for its Apple TV product, and will likely launch and all-in-one Apple Television in the next 2-4 years," Munster wrote in a note to investors. "Following its deal with Rovi, Apple would be clear to add live TV, DVR and guidance features to its Apple TV product, which we believe is a critical step towards an all-in-one Apple Television."

Munster has long believed Apple could push into the HDTV market in the next few years, and could "move the needle" in a market that as of January of 2010 was worth more than $30 billion. The analyst views the new Apple TV update as a stepping stone for the company's connected television.

Apple has stuck with its current set top box model, and has not attempted to enter into the cable box industry, because it's a difficult market to break into, the company's chief executive, Steve Jobs, said in June. Jobs said customers are used to receiving a cable box from their provider for free or for $10 a month.

"The only way that's ever going to change," he said, " is if you can really go back to square one, tear up the set top box, redesign it from scratch with a consistent UI across all these different functions, and get it to customers in a way that they're willing to pay for it. And right now there's no way to do that."



Rovi has not disclosed the terms of its multi-year deal with Apple, but the company licenses its interactive program guide to third parties, allowing users to "facilitate navigation of digital entertainment media."

Its TotalGuide product allows users to access "simple, centralized and intuitive access to multiple content types: broadcast, premium, Internet-based and personal." It also offers TV listings with imagery, enhanced data, and extended multimedia.

Other TV-based services from Rovi include TV Guide On Screen for North America, and similar products across the world, such as GUIDE Plus+ TV Programming Guide in Europe.
post #2 of 42
I’m all in for Apple finding new ways interact with the home entertainment center and the ‘TV’, but I don’t see them actually creating an HDTV.
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 #3 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im all in for Apple finding new ways interact with the home entertainment center and the TV, but I dont see them actually creating an HDTV.

I agree, but if they did, they might look at purchasing VIZIO. It's a California based television producer that is making quite a name for itself in both quality and competitive pricing.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #4 of 42
Munster could be right about Apple spending lots of time and money to make a product with rapidly-diminishing profit margins (manufacturing TVs)....

...or Apple could simply make a software product that allows anyone's tv or receiver to pick up video/audio signals from a mac or iOS device... hmm... if such a magical product existed maybe we could call it, "AirPlay"...?

Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #5 of 42
Let's hope Apple makes 3D TV's that don't require glasses. THAT would be amazing.

You all know an Apple HDTV would not just be an HDTV.
post #6 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I agree, but if they did, they might look at purchasing VIZIO. It's a California based television producer that is making quite a name for itself in both quality and competitive pricing.

Even then I think they would use licensing agreements and create an device that connnects to the HDTV or comes installed. If Apple wants to dominate TVs the ways it dominates the financial sectors of all its other areas of business I think that making it an open standard so any media extender company could attach a device would be the best way to give this AppleTV a real chance.
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 #7 of 42
Could Apple be reinventing the cable industry? An alternative to comcast, say? That cloud computer becomes more critical.
post #8 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

Could Apple be reinventing the cable industry? An alternative to comcast, say?

Be careful what you ask for. Chances are youll still be getting your internet through Comcast with this alternative method to Comcasts TV coming over your Comcast internet. If Comcast loses too many TV subscribers they wont be jacking up prices of their loyal TV subscribers as it will make them lose even more to these internet-based methods, theyll be jacking up your internet costs. Either way, Comcast will be make their money.
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 #9 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post

Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.

Precisely.
post #10 of 42
I don't use comcast, and have not had any broadcasted TV for 5 or 6 years now. ( Comcast drove us away from cable use)
I was only making a supposition. Just trying to figure out "one more thing"
post #11 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im all in for Apple finding new ways interact with the home entertainment center and the TV, but I dont see them actually creating an HDTV.

I agree. A TV isn't something I expect to have to replace very often, and right now things are too dynamic to expect any tuning/streaming device to still be relevant 3-5 years from now. It's bad enough that I need to discard a perfectly good iMac monitor if/when I want to upgrade, I have no intention of discarding a perfectly good TV. Cable companies don't even all use the same standards, never mind satellite. How would Apple make a tuner/DVR type of device?

Maybe many years down the road, after the cable companies have been defeated and some sort of unified standard is established, then you might be able to make a truely integrated device. Until then, everything is simply an add-on. So best to stick with a set-top box option for now.
post #12 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by 801 View Post

I don't use comcast, and have not had any broadcasted TV for 5 or 6 years now. ( Comcast drove us away from cable use)
I was only making a supposition. Just trying to figure out "one more thing"

Where do you get your internet connection from?
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"We believe this announcement is further evidence that Apple is developing live TV and DVR features for its Apple TV product, and will likely launch and all-in-one Apple Television in the next 2-4 years,"

These guys just look at the money the market holds, pick ideas out of thin air and leave common sense behind. There is no reason for them to build an all-in-one TV because they either limit access to their services or they cannibalise sales of their own product. Apple don't make displays, they put things into the box around the display. When the box is so small that it is almost the size of a plug, why bother putting it inside the display?

They talk about DVR implying that Apple will bring back the HDD part. Apple have purposefully declared that they are going streaming-only. If they broadcast live, Apple can record the shows themselves and offer a streaming playback of any and every show on demand up to a certain amount of time whether you remember to record it yourself or not.
post #14 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

I agree. A TV isn't something I expect to have to replace very often, and right now things are too dynamic to expect any tuning/streaming device to still be relevant 3-5 years from now. It's bad enough that I need to discard a perfectly good iMac monitor if/when I want to upgrade, I have no intention of discarding a perfectly good TV. Cable companies don't even all use the same standards, never mind satellite. How would Apple make a tuner/DVR type of device?

Maybe many years down the road, after the cable companies have been defeated and some sort of unified standard is established, then you might be able to make a truely integrated device. Until then, everything is simply an add-on. So best to stick with a set-top box option for now.

Yes - I tend to agree, but then again Apple makes the iMac in spite of there being a ton of cheap monitors around (as you suggest), so you never know. Apple loves to create complete solutions. In this imagined future it is conceivable that Apple 'could' offer two or three integrated solutions (large screens) and also ship a tiny unit that can handle screen sizes up to a given limit. This last piece would require additional hardware such as a Mac to function, of course.
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Let's hope Apple makes 3D TV's that don't require glasses. THAT would be amazing.

You all know an Apple HDTV would not just be an HDTV.

Hey if nintendo could do it with their nintendo 3Ds so can Apple. But then again were talking about a HDTV not a portable game device.
post #16 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post

Munster could be right about Apple spending lots of time and money to make a product with rapidly-diminishing profit margins (manufacturing TVs)....

...or Apple could simply make a software product that allows anyone's tv or receiver to pick up video/audio signals from a mac or iOS device... hmm... if such a magical product existed maybe we could call it, "AirPlay"...?

Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.

I have been very skeptical about Apple introducing an actual HDTV, and I think that you are likely right...but I am starting to wonder if I am missing something. With this report about the secret deal with Rovi, maybe things aren't as they seem. I am starting to see reasons why Apple might actually someday try their own TV...


1. Apple loves to control all aspects of their products. Instead of just having a awesome black box that connects to every TV, I could see them wanting to control all hardware and software and not have to rely on anyone else F***ing it up somehow. They would love to be able to get rid of a nest of cables and add-on boxes, and simplify this in a very elegant way. I think they want to unleash the total package. Don't forget, Apple's main drive is creating the devices that Steve and the other Executives at Apple want to own and use themselves. So what better than the ultimate all-in-one Apple HDTV?

2. Besides making products they want, Apple (Steve) loves the attention he gets from announcing breakthrough products. He loves beating the other tech companies to the punch, and announcing products that make us all salivate. And an all-in-one livingroom appliance would do just that.

Steve pretty much spelled out what a company would have to do to redefine the Television industry, basically a whole new product that does it all seemlessly. What better blueprint for this than the original iMac? We all know how iconic and revolutionary it was when Apple launched the iMac. Not because there weren't already a ton of PCs on the market, but because it was the first truly simple all-in-one unit. A power cable, an internet cable, and boom, you're done. "There is no Step 3". They may have some really bold moves coming.

I know it would be expensive to upgrade my current 42 inch plasma, and I might not be able to afford it for awhile. But eventually I would have to snatch one up. I think if Apple announced a 42 inch flatpanel, that had built-in ATV features, cablecard slot, a DVR (as this report is hinting at), maybe even their first entry into Blu-Ray, and most of all, a consistent UI across all functions, they would have a hit on their hands.

I know it is extremely unlikely, but you never know what they have up their sleeve.
post #17 of 42
An apple television doesn't make sense, nor does a DVR or live programming in the form we currently get from cable.

What makes sense is Apple TV getting apps, and possibly USB or a dock connector to connect accesories.

Once you add apps, you provide the opportunity to distribute live programming (as well as more on demand streaming).
Apps with external device support can be used for things like TV tuners and DVRs.

The need for live streaming is basically limited to news and sports, we don't need 100's of channels with live streams available all the time. On demand streaming works better for virtually anything else. You don't need a DVR if you can open up an app and play episodes of your favorite TV show.

What is currently done with 100's of channels could be done with just a couple apps, with greater flexibility. A full out Apple Televison with a progamming guide and DVR makes no sense to me at all. A TV with a built in Apple TV could happen, but I don't think Apple really has much interest in that market.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJinTX View Post

1. Apple loves to control all aspects of their products. Instead of just having a awesome black box that connects to every TV, I could see them wanting to control all hardware and software and not have to rely on anyone else F***ing it up somehow. They would love to be able to get rid of a nest of cables and add-on boxes, and simplify this in a very elegant way. I think they want to unleash the total package. Don't forget, Apple's main drive is creating the devices that Steve and the other Executives at Apple want to own and use themselves. So what better than the ultimate all-in-one Apple HDTV?

Playing devil's advocate... Apple does have a pre-existing relationship with Samsung... so if Samsung agreed to make the tvs, Apple squeezed its iOS appletv interface into it (somehow), labeled it "Apple", and gave it all some quintessentially Apple-ish enclosure... I mean, that is within the realm of possibility. All that extra work does, though, is provide a display panel with built-in iOS interface at a higher cost, as opposed to plugging in the tiny square AppleTV box with an HDMI cable.

...and this is already moot, because receivers (Denon, for example) are building AirPlay into their systems *right now*. It makes far more sense for the receiver to build in AirPlay-support, since this is the nervous system for a home theatre (everything plugs into it, output to speakers, output to video panel). I think Gene Munster just lacks an understanding of home theatre A/V setups, otherwise he'd be calling for an "Apple-branded receiver" instead of an, "apple-branded TV" (which is just a big iMac running iOS instead of OSX, frankly).
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

The need for live streaming is basically limited to news and sports, we don't need 100's of channels with live streams available all the time. On demand streaming works better for virtually anything else. You don't need a DVR if you can open up an app and play episodes of your favorite TV show.

What is currently done with 100's of channels could be done with just a couple apps, with greater flexibility. A full out Apple Televison with a progamming guide and DVR makes no sense to me at all. A TV with a built in Apple TV could happen, but I don't think Apple really has much interest in that market.

That's something very interesting you're saying. Besides news and sports, you'll probably have some live entertainment programs too, something that people talk about the day after at work.
For all those channels that do reruns it would be a hard nut to crack. But in the end this solution is probably just what SJ meant by going to the market in a totally different way.

It would change the way people watch television. You could still have Premieres of new shows only being available at a certain timepoint of for a limited time period.

It would put an end to the over 100 adds-loaded channels that don't produce there own shows. You just pay for what you really want and maybe less or nothing for add-supported shows.

Let's just hope Apple buys up a small country (let's say Andorra) here in Europe to put a server farm and give us Euros a little piece of this future cake.

PS : I don't think Apple will ever make their own TVs, they'll go with small aTVs connected to local storage (NAS/iMac/Time Capsule) or cloud storage.
post #20 of 42
Apple will integrate this software into AppleTV, iPad and iPhone - NO WAY they are going to make a TV.

While most diehard Apple fans would pay a premium for a phone or tablet, they would never pay a premium for an LCD TV from Apple.

Example: the 27" Apple Cinema Display is very nice but not for $1000 when I can get a similar Samsung 27" for $320. Also, it would have to integrate with your Cable or Satellite provider. Consumers are not ready for a switch.
post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

An apple television doesn't make sense, nor does a DVR or live programming in the form we currently get from cable.

What makes sense is Apple TV getting apps, and possibly USB or a dock connector to connect accesories.

Once you add apps, you provide the opportunity to distribute live programming (as well as more on demand streaming).
Apps with external device support can be used for things like TV tuners and DVRs.

The need for live streaming is basically limited to news and sports, we don't need 100's of channels with live streams available all the time. On demand streaming works better for virtually anything else. You don't need a DVR if you can open up an app and play episodes of your favorite TV show.

What is currently done with 100's of channels could be done with just a couple apps, with greater flexibility. A full out Apple Televison with a progamming guide and DVR makes no sense to me at all. A TV with a built in Apple TV could happen, but I don't think Apple really has much interest in that market.

something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.

after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im all in for Apple finding new ways interact with the home entertainment center and the TV, but I dont see them actually creating an HDTV.

Why? Can you elaborate?
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by msb0014 View Post

Apple will integrate this software into AppleTV, iPad and iPhone - NO WAY they are going to make a TV.

While most diehard Apple fans would pay a premium for a phone or tablet, they would never pay a premium for an LCD TV from Apple.

Example: the 27" Apple Cinema Display is very nice but not for $1000 when I can get a similar Samsung 27" for $320. Also, it would have to integrate with your Cable or Satellite provider. Consumers are not ready for a switch.

You can't get a similar Samsung for $320.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #24 of 42
Remember that billion $ data center is nearing completion and I suspect all these small deals and acquisitions will play a major part in its function. I also believe that sometime before Thanksgiving (ie: iOS 4.2 release time) Apple will announce the mission of the data center, along with some apps that will forever tie a big bow around the iPad, iPhone and the data center. Perhaps integrating facetime and airplay technology into the equation.
jgb
Reply
jgb
Reply
post #25 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.

after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters

It would be a better service. No sitting down 5 minutes late for your favorite show, it starts when you say so. If you want to quickly check back episodes, you can (and you aren't limited by the hard drive size of your DVR). No need to remember to set the DVR for a show you are going to miss. You can stream it whenever you are free.

Not only that, you can get stuff you can't get on cable, or stuff that has very limited availability: anime, foreign news/shows/movies, podcasts, internet only shows, etc.

Internet streaming hasn't taken off for two reasons:
1. Cable providers are deathly afraid of it (for good reason)
2. No one has presented it in a package that rivals the convenience of cable (an app enabled Apple TV would do that easily).

ISP bandwidth is an issue for some as well, but there are many areas that can support it now. It will be interesting to see what cable providers do to their internet prices once they start losing significant cable revenue. I'm hoping the independent ISPs will keep them in check.

It's not a question of if this transition will take place, it's a question of when.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Why? Can you elaborate?

There are many aspects that would make it a poor choice for Apple.

1) Apple likes to operate as if its boutique shop. What I mean by that is they like to offer a very limited product line that are designed to profit from the top end of the market. This is how Apple can be the industry leader in profits in both PC and phone (all phone sales) worldwide despite having such a low marketshare. There are just too many different types and sizes of TVs theyd have to contend with, in a market that is already making razor thin margins. Does Apple go with 2D or 3D TVs? Do they make any smaller TVs for bedrooms and dens so those can be connected as well? Do they make a 50 TV or a 52 TV (Note: TV and PC buying are vastly different. People looking for a large HDTV will often buy the largest that will fit in a space, which isnt how PC sales tend to go).

2) Like optical drives, its less than ideal for most uses to have your DVD/Blu-ray player built into your TV. Granted, there are genuine uses why these are great options for people, but I dont see any of these reasons falling into Apples scope.

3) This regulates Apples UI to their TVs, which wont be cheap. In my next post in this thread I stated what I think is the best way for Apple to get inside TVs.
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 #27 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquia33 View Post

Remember that billion $ data center is nearing completion and I suspect all these small deals and acquisitions will play a major part in its function. I also believe that sometime before Thanksgiving (ie: iOS 4.2 release time) Apple will announce the mission of the data center, along with some apps that will forever tie a big bow around the iPad, iPhone and the data center. Perhaps integrating facetime and airplay technology into the equation.

I can see Ireland coming up with an image showing Steve Jobs as the Emperor stating “The Data Center is fully operational”.
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 #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

Internet streaming hasn't taken off for two reasons

Internet streaming is much more popular than people realize.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10866...-cable-tv.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39237941..._businessweek/ There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I cant locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.

Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that arent watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether its a network show or not and that is all streaming.
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 #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Internet streaming is much more popular than people realize.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10866...-cable-tv.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39237941..._businessweek/ There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I can’t locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.

Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that aren’t watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether it’s a network show or not and that is all streaming.

I won't contest those points. I was referring to a mass exodus from cable to internet based sources. It looks like a lot of people that use Netflix find it to be an adequate cable replacement, I'll find out when it arrives here in Canada.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Be careful what you ask for. Chances are you’ll still be getting your internet through Comcast with this alternative method to Comcast’s TV coming over your Comcast internet. If Comcast loses too many TV subscribers they won’t be jacking up prices of their “loyal” TV subscribers as it will make them lose even more to these internet-based methods, they’ll be jacking up your internet costs. Either way, Comcast will be make their money.

I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.

The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.

At this point, I don't see the cable networks agreeing to a business model that isn't centered around the local cable subscription. I could see Apple doing for cable what it did for mobile phones -- taking what comes down the pipe, junking the handset/cable box, and rebuilding and rebranding the interface as Apple TV.

Similarly to how you don't get the full experience of an iPhone without a connection to AT&T's network (otherwise it's just an iPod touch), you wouldn't get the full experience of an Apple-branded cable experience without a connection to the cable network (otherwise it's just an Apple TV).

A TV package that does NOT require you to subscribe to Comcast, TWC, Charter, etc., would be better for consumers -- since you would be able in some markets to choose between competing broadband providers -- but it's probably the only way the cable networks are going to agree to provide their shows to a subscription package.
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.

The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.

ThatÂs how I see it, too. WeÂre talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they canÂt have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and theyÂll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies wonÂt have the users to warrant the price they are paying.

I donÂt even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue IÂve come across and I donÂt think itÂs going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.
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 #32 of 42
I think Apple would be better off and safer for them to just license AppleTV software to the TV manufacturers.. That way they can expand iOS and iAd to more devices.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster View Post

Let's hope Apple makes 3D TV's that don't require glasses. THAT would be amazing.

3D is a gimmick.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyopiaRocks View Post

Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.

Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.

Wake up, people. It's just a question of time.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #35 of 42
Damn, lost everything...

I think Apple has to look at producing TVs, simply because TV manufacturers are looking at integrating web entertainment (AppleTV-like devices) into their big screens... so Apple needs to decide how it will respond to that. Besides the big screens, small TVs are integrating with computers already.

Apple might decide they want TVs to support AirPlay. But I do think TVs will either be partners or competitors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

We’re talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they can’t have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and they’ll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies won’t have the users to warrant the price they are paying.

I don’t even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue I’ve come across and I don’t think it’s going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.

It's a good summary of the problem. Also, ultimately (theoretically) we shouldn't be paying more in the new system, but companies want to double dip and see this as a chance of making more money.

I do think this problem has been what's stopped Apple so far. And I can only see 2 responses (both not too interesting, but which can then expand into a decent system).

1) use the existing systems but make them look better.
Basically build a REALLY GOOD PVR. Record what's already transmitted FTA or on cable and then sort it into something far more usable. That's TiVo's model.

2) simulate the existing systems (but in reality be downloading shows and ads over the internet)
Example 1 - pay for a comcast plan but don't get a cable box. Instead you can watch anything that was on cable in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip/skim the ads.
Example 2 - FTA - watch anything that was on FTA in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip ads.

The idea of the above is to give people a taste of what "on-demand" can bring, while not scaring the content providers. Then add new options - for example if you discover a new show on Fox you might rent earlier episodes, or if you watch a movie on Showtime you might get a PPV option to rent the sequel.
... And start offering advertisers the option to remove their ads if you're not their target - we could conceivably remove 2 ads (a tampon & baby powder ad) and replace with a single ad (pizza) and everyone will be better off.
post #36 of 42
Would be Epic of true, but somehow I don't think it is. I think this will just be integrated into TV somehow, and we may never see an actual TV with TV inside of it. But as I said it would be very cool.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.

Wake up, people. It's just a question of time.

Tee hee. A thread about an Apple TV is pretty much the Bat Signal for Ireland.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #38 of 42
I can't see Apple getting into the TV screen business, the margins on TVs are already extremely thin. Apple has never been involved in markets that have little to no real potential of being high profit margin markets. I can see Apple really developing and greatly expanding the just announced Apple TV. I see Apple TV as being from the seed that Apple planted years ago with original 'hobby' version. Apple has leaned a lot from that hobby and also from the iPod and the iPhone as well. By cross pollinating all three the Apple TV hybrid was created.

I believe you will see a rapid evolution of software and applications for Apple TV that will change the way we watch TV. When a company like Apple has a 'hobby' that 'hobby' either dies or is given a priority to become profitable and possibly the next big success story. I believe Apple has big plans for Apple TV and that you see frequent SW (quarterly or quicker) updates that will continually add capabilities to the existing box.

I may be all wrong on this but I can't see Apple releasing a $99 product without having a well thought out plan to start making big money with it within a year. It will never get the typical Apple media backing like the 'i' products do as this will take more time. Apple won't want Wall Street or the industry to track this one too closely until it is ready for prime time exposure with typical Apple marketing.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

 

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete...

Reply
post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

3D is a gimmick.

Agreed. Hopefully it will disappear in 18 months or so.
post #40 of 42
As for an Apple HDTV or not...

Well, we know it would be a thing of beauty...an elegant solution to a cluttered world of media. But will it happen? I have no freakin clue. Just when I think I know what Cupertino is up to they have a way of proving me wrong.

In a perfect world it would be nice to have an Apple conceived TV, but as long as they provide a better solution in the living room in some form or another, then I can live without it being an all-in-one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Licensing deal with Rovi seen as more evidence of Apple HDTV