Apple wants to offer television subscribers customized channel lineups - Page 4

Originally Posted by Dimwit

Yeah, because Apple is so well known for bringing new services to older devices...

If Apple does create an actual television, appleTV will NOT be "capable" of all the best functions. If for no other reason than that Apple will want the screen sales. The $2000 tv will need to do more than the $99 stb.

Originally Posted by Orlando

There is nothing good about browsing a web page designed for keyboard and mouse on a TV; however, you can easily craft HTML that works with a TV remote. iTunes Extras is just HTML.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Now, what if Apple could do a better job of delivering monetizing those commercials

Originally Posted by jazzmsngr

While I would like to agree with you, and the idea of ditching my provider for cable is enticing....the issue is cost. They will NEVER EVER EVER EVER move to a $1 per channel model. Think about it, at MOST customers would pay is 150 a month! That is less then what some people pay now and without premium channels! I am actually a little concerned that Apple is moving in this direction. A La Cart cable will only lead to more expensive cable, because they will never truly allow it to be TRUE A La Cart, it will be bundles. Local TV bundle = $15 a month, Extended Cable Bundle (which only includes TBS/SpiktTV/USA/A&E = $20 month (your already paying more than if you have basic standard cable) then you want sports? Sports Bundle = $20 a month includes 10 diffenet Epsn channels/Golf TV/Big Ten....NOT NFL/MLB/NHL/NBA....that is the EXTENEDED sports Package for an extra $15 a month....then there is the cultural living bundle with History Channels/Disc/TLC that is gonna be $15 then there is the food and healthy living bundle with Food network/Bravo....ETC. ETC. ETC. and the problem for users (and the "solution" for providers) will be that you only want one channel from this bundle, and one from that, well, you need to buy both! Case in point, try buying a brand new car with leather seats, and NO SUN ROOF option! They are a package deal!

So IF Apple finds a way around this, then there is the pesky problem that 98% of us have broadband internet at an affordable rate, because we also have CABLE TV! Take away the Cable and my internet jumps to $60 a month! If Apple is planning on bringing this service via internet, then we are still bowing to our ISP's/Cable co.'s! And they will DEFINITELY figure out a way to re-coop costs if Apple does offer an awesome service that gives you basic cable for close to nothing.......look at what AT&T did when Apple introduced iMessage....they killed off tiered text messaging services, and now ONLY offer unlimited for $20 a month, because they knew 99% of us would drop to the $10 - 250 text plan, for our out of iOS device texting friends. The Plain fact is, no matter what happens, Apple may give us a better interface to use it, but we will still pay out the wazoo for a bunch of crap we really don't want.

Originally Posted by jragosta

It's called a Mac Mini. Plenty fast for you - given that there's no evidence that you do anything with your computer other than troll Apple forums.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by MacTac

Too bad Apple isn't willing to think this way regarding a mid range desktop computer. Instead of being able to use the monitor we already have we have to buy an iMac with a built in screen.

Originally Posted by Carniphage

I have been thinking about the Apple TV. This is what I reckon we are going to see: The user sees ALL their paid content in a screen with live previews of all channels. Every channel is being recorded. To access all this content you only need one interface and one remote. You can access it on an iPad too.
C.

Originally Posted by NOFEER

cable companies know this as well, i'll bet 2012 is the year of apple+ cable partnerships

Originally Posted by herbapou

Exactly. Apple need to come up on stage with at least one big Cable distributor for QAM and AT&T for IPTV. They need partnerships the same way they had AT&T for the iphone launch.

Originally Posted by mstone

One major difference with TV verses cellphone is there is no choice on cable TV providers. Most neighborhoods in the US have only one cable provider so you can't switch. Sure you can bail on cable and get your TV from a satellite but you still need Internet broadband and DSL isn't fast enough.

Originally Posted by palomine

Have you ever tried to use the net on a big TV? We have a mini hooked up, hoping that would be nice to read the net on a 55" monitor. Alas, no can do. Your eyes will go CRAZY. You can make the type larger simplify the page, it still doesn't matter. NTSC 's 29.95 fps is hard on your eyes when it comes to any amount of text. You will get a headache. Also, a big tv will have you turning your head like you are watching a ping pong match. I tried and tried, lousy idea, beyond just searching for a video item to watch. Now THAT is optimized for NTSC standards. I wonder if PAL would be any better but doesn't that also have rectangular pixels? There's definitely a big difference between a TV monitor and a computer monitor. I like my iPad first generation. Using it many hours a day for 2 years, still works great.

Originally Posted by PhilBoogie

--- snap ---
Replying to this whole thread: what do you guys think about a global solution Apple might come up with? So far I've only read local, American issues. I understand this is a USA site, but what about all the ramifications with local governance, Internet speeds, advertisement etcetera? I think since Apple has so immensely grown over the years they have become a true global company, yet some things they simply don't do, like the lack of week numbers in iCal and such. Not wanting to go off topic, but will they release a true worldwide TV set, or will it be US only for the initial rollout?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Here's a mild surprise.

With all the recent talk of a Siri-control feature for a rumored Apple TV, it's Google that's filed a patent for a similarly-featured TV control.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...PGNR.&OS=dn/20

Filed back in May and published this past week, Google;s patent application is titled "Television Remote Control Data Transfer"..

It describes "A computer-implemented method for information sharing between a portable computing device and a television system includes receiving a spoken input from a user of the portable computing device, by the portable computing device, submitting a digital recording of the spoken query from the portable computing device to a remote server system, receiving from the remote server system a textual representation of the spoken query, and automatically transmitting the textual representation from the portable computing device to the television system. The television system is programmed to submit the textual representation as a search query and to present to the user media-related results that are determined to be responsive to the spoken query."

A blog on the patent award has a plain-English description of how Google's innovation might be used:

"Imagine picking up your smartphone, and calling your TV to ask it to search for all movies with Steve McQueen, or when Dr. Who might be showing next.

The patent application describes how a smartphone app might enable voice searches to show results on internet enabled televisions or televisions that use an internet enabled set-top box or DVD player or similar device connected to a television, so that your phone and TV can interact in a meaningful way.

The remote control request might be made real time while watching television, or from a distance and ahead of time. For example, you could ask for Bowling for Dollars to be turned on while you are driving home, and the request might be sent to your TV while youre about a 1/4 mile away, so that your television turns on and tunes in to the proper channel as youre walking through your front door. You could also ask your phone, what time is Wild Kingdom on and see scheduled times on your phone, and choose one to be later shown on your TV, or set it to record on a personal video recorder.

Its also possible that you could use a speech to text application on your phone to perform searches on the internet and browse different sites, viewing the searches and the sites on your TV."
http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/12/f...-tv/#more-7091

Obviously Google wasn't simply standing by watching the Apple's grow around the living room the past year or two.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Why is that surprising? These aren't old patents.

Television Remote Control Data Transfer
Invented by Pierre-Yves Laligand, John H. Grossman, IV, Alok Chandel, Michael J. LeBeau
Assigned to Google
US Patent Application 20110313775
Published December 22, 2011
Filed: May 19, 2011

Apple bought Siri in 2010. I would be shocked if they didn't create a plethora of patents that cover accessing a TV with voice interactions with a backend server.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Here's a mild surprise.
<snip>

Originally Posted by piot

What? That you should try and divert yet another thread. I'm not surprised.

You know its quite refreshing to read a thread that's not filled with all this patent crap. Why do you have to spoil it?

Originally Posted by hvance

The reason we are stuck with the offerings today are a result of government interference, they call it mandates, to allow networks that would be on the fringe to operate. This allows a small percentage of viewers to see what they want to see while the majority have to pay for that channel as part of the package. There is a basic problem here, the government forcing us to buy something that we do not want. Does that sound strangely familiar to another government mandate that is being shoved down our throats now? This rule needs to be abolished and let the channels stand on their own. Ditto obamacare.