or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple wants to offer television subscribers customized channel lineups
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #121 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimwit View Post

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

Did I say anything about older devices. I said computers, iPads etc. Totally not the same thing.

Quote:
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.

THe TV would do more even if the functions were the same in the STB. Because the TV doesn't have to be connected to anything. It is the display. And depending on the type of display that might be enough.

Also, who says this would have to be $2000. With Apple's game of buying things in huge bulk they might be able to pull it off for half that

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #122 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

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.

Which begs the question, why haven't they made it work on the Apple TV and iPad. There seems to be no logical reason in the tech for such a move. And by now one would think they would be in a position to tell the studios to piss off if they don't like that it is going to work on devices.

SAme for the shite like letting you buy the SD version of a movie on your iPad and RENT the HD. but on the computer you can buy either one. It's not like the HD is 1080p after all.

So with luck they are dealing with those issues (and the current shows that still aren't at least iTunesHD).

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #123 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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

Who says they would even try. They aren't now after all. They could continue the way they are by providing commercial free viewing and the networks or even individual shows get a cut of the funds just like they do now with the Buys.

so rather than networks trying to monetize a show via the questionably accurate Nielsen guesses they are getting a cut from confirmed viewers.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #124 of 144
Apple has the delivery system with the North Carolina facility and the current Apple TV. What they need to do now is begin to compete for the content itself. If a production company has a pilot to sell, Apple can now become a bidder. They can offer the content creators many things like, rights ownership, that they have to give up now. Apple is in a position to make a very attractive alternative to the creators.
post #125 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzmsngr View Post

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.

canada has real theme packs and it not as high as you list.
post #126 of 144
If this offers me an alternative to TWC I will switch faster than a neutrino can travel. Just to get rid of TWC "customer service" would be worth any price. Rant
post #127 of 144
why not apple buy a cable company or lease bandwidth or partner
apple has gazillion iTunes accounts, apple users spend more than others
make apple tv a transition device since most now have a big screen and don't want to replace it
apple has the muscle and backbone services to make this work
cable companies know this as well, i'll bet 2012 is the year of apple+ cable partnerships

just like the iPod was a convergence item as is the iPhone
apple TV can do the same

its fragmented now
cable, netflix, redbox, itunes

we have to juggles these to get the movies we want

and people are spending less at the movie theater, something has to give, people want simplicity iTunes and apple tv, TV by apple, makes much more sense

apple could partner with a large production company, or make their own

parts of the puzzle are coming together

each channel is an app like espn then you make a folder and it looks like my present channel options(suggested by macdailynews http://macdailynews.com/2011/12/28/2...apples-new-tv/

i really only watch perhaps 7 at the most channels but pay for 143, there is a better solution
i'd go with a rental model for "channels" if they have a program i want to see then i'd pay extra to see it
i used to watch national geographic and history channel more. now its all reality tv gators, snakes, getting fat, WTF

if people would be able to pay directly for good content then the competition would pull better programs
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #128 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

So a person whose first computer experience was on a Mac and has been using Macs for almost 20 years and mentions what I want from a Mac makes me a troll. Cool.
But you are the one that thinks that a mini with all its limitations is a mid range computer.
post #129 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac View Post

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.

I have used a Mac Mini connected to my 47" LCD HD flat panel with no problems.
post #130 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post

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.

As network streaming content increases (Apple, Amazon, Netflix for starters) I suspect that the bandwidth of server farms and networks will need to increase dramatically to keep up with consumer demand. Already I find that Netflix chokes at certain times and we are waiting for bandwidth to free up.

As with other services (e.g., electricity consumption) perhaps we could level-load the system so that we make maximum use of the bandwidth we have available. If local storage is cheap and large enough, we could pick our programming options and have the network download content overnight and watch it one day later than the broadcast time). I would happily subscribe to this approach if I could guarantee no disruptions to my programming. Perhaps one months capacity for programming content would be sufficient or maybe options for more than one month's storage. Hard drives will once again come down in price hopefully to make this a viable solution.

There may be exceptions such as sports where real-time is desireable. Of course if this model becomes global there may not be an advantage to level loading.
post #131 of 144
It might be attractive to the advertisers to have users sign up for specific types of products and make it configurable. Also, you could have "rewards" (programming) for signing up for certain ad segments or products. That might help to get content providers motivated - targeted advertising (Such as Kindle is experimenting with right now).
post #132 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

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

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. If Apple tries to compete on live feed and close the TV into Apple ecosystem they will fail. It should be easy to convince cable/sat, lots of people will probably switch to the ones supporting AppleBox and iTV.

I am predicting new TVs and a set-top box, all running iOS. The Apple ecosystem will be there, but both devices will also support Cable, IPTV (AT&T in the US) and Satellite. Expect ATSC tuner and PvR functions. All of this within iOS, so Siri, Airplay, and Apps. I expect Apple to handle the apps side of the system and on demand content while ISP will handle installation and live feeds.

I would glady replace my motorolla set-top box that is running Windows CE for an Apple Set-top box running iOS. Apple need to move quickly on this because Android Tv's that will do exactly this are coming late 2012.
post #133 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

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.

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.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #134 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

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.

Dont you guys have at least a choice between AT&T (DSL/IPTV) or Cable or Satellite? Where I live in Montreal I can have complete packages (TV/Internet/Cell/Tel) from either Videotron (cable) or Bell (IPTV). Since Bell also own satellite TV "ExpressVu", it can offer DSL + SAT on the country side. Bell would be the perfect partner for Apple in Canada.

The US IPTV implementation is call U-verse and its operated by AT&T.
http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/f...background.pdf
Coverage:
http://www.att.com/u-verse/availabil...id=EcsBJ9-A-cT

Apple need to strike deals ASAP before Google does. I could see Apple striking deals for IPTV only but coverage is still limited at the moment.
post #135 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by palomine View Post

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.

PAL isn't any better in this respect; it's just 25 fps but with more lines (576 vs 480). They are also rectangular and therefore a web page is still fugly on a TV. Although it is watchable on a smaller screen (<40") without the ping pong effect you are still better off with an iPad on the couch. In my opinion, that is.

--- 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?
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #136 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

--- 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?

IF they make a TV set with build in IPTV here is the world wide coverage: (limited inside each country, depending on providers)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...-Countries.svg

But they will still need to secure a deal per country with the ISP'S. On the plus side they won't have to negotiate with the TV networks for live stream since its handle by the ISP'S. Apple already have app stores and on demand TV/movies in most countries.
post #137 of 144
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 you’re about a 1/4 mile away, so that your television turns on and tunes in to the proper channel as you’re 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.

It’s 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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #138 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

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.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #139 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.

It may not be even mildly surprising to you since you already know so much. For others here it will be a surprise.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #140 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a mild surprise.
<snip>

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?
post #141 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

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?

Actually I agree with you. I should have put this in a new thread rather than this one. Way too many threads get pushed in an unintended direction already.

My apologies.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #142 of 144
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.
post #143 of 144
post #144 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hvance View Post

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.

(Re-posted comment from another related thread)

The content providers will probably fight ala-carte programming pretty hard, and with good reason. There's a lot of excellent content from the Science Channel, History channel (some bad there too), NatGeo and others, but they're not the popular mind-numbing viewing choice for most people most of the time. Should those fall by the wayside for lack of revenue in favor of TBS reruns of "Everybody Loves Raymond" ?

There's a lot of programming I never would have seen (example: the Elegant Universe on PBS and America: The Story of Us on the History Channel ) if my family only paid for what they thought they wanted to see, simply because we didn't know what was out there.

It would be a shame if educational channels were forced into including sitcoms just to survive.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple wants to offer television subscribers customized channel lineups