Apple wants to offer television subscribers customized channel lineups - Page 3

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

didn't just affect the channel it was on but also the frequency it was sharing with another channel. This was all last mile stuff.

Originally Posted by mstone

Regardless of where the bottleneck occurs, in the end, user experience suffers and that is something that the average TV watcher is not going to understand. They will just assume Apple's TV sucks because they can't watch their favorite show without interruption or picture quality issues. Even if it is the ISP's problem, it affects Apples reputation. I think Apple will have to measure the roll out as they have done with other services simply to maintain quality and then slowly launch additional channels as the infrastructure allows.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Technically downstream can have bandwidth issues on digital coax. I first saw it with the movie Gladiator during an action scene with a lot of extra data. It didn't just affect the channel it was on but also the frequency it was sharing with another channel. This was all last mile stuff.

Touchè. But my watching a TV show here in Vancouver on my cable provider won't affect a users net speed in Florida, which it could if I was watching something on an Internet based service.

If we're talking about all channels being streamed on-demand, but I can only see this being done in the same way cable/sat is currently done, by offering most content at the same time across all distributors. That means that the content is fairly local. Likely using Akamai, as previously noted. Last mile could suffer if too many people are accessing that local server for a specific channel but I wouldn't expect anything close to what can happen from too many people accessing a website at once.

Originally Posted by mstone

Regardless of where the bottleneck occurs, in the end, user experience suffers and that is something that the average TV watcher is not going to understand. They will just assume Apple's TV sucks because they can't watch their favorite show without interruption or picture quality issues. Even if it is the ISP's problem, it affects Apples reputation. I think Apple will have to measure the roll out as they have done with other services simply to maintain quality and then slowly launch additional channels as the infrastructure allows.

Originally Posted by Maecvs

Basically what I'm saying is that the Internet is getting crowded, and is only going to get more so without some infrastructure improvements. I would hate to see an Apple TV suffer because of it. Wanting to be able to to ten things, but only being able to do four because of bandwidth restrictions

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Only if it's on-demand streaming or only if they don't have content servers in local areas.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

$1 per channel per month? I don't see that happening. Remember, you're going for Ã* la carte pricing which means you pay a premium. Lets say right now your cable company has 100,000 customers all subscribing for a particular base channel station. Now you want to pay $1/month for it but it's an unpopular channel and only 5,000 (5%) want to subscribe to it. That means they are only getting $5/month from the cable company. The station was also getting hefty advertisement payments but now that the subscriber rate has dropped advertisers have dropped out completely. The station has gone under because the environment that made it work is no longer supporting it. You've now lost a channel.

I bet people watch plenty of channels and don't realize how much they watch them or that a particular show is on a channel. Can an Ã* la carte method sustain the future of television networks or will umbrella companies have to consolidate shows differently in order to make a buck?

Originally Posted by mstone

Are you suggesting that IP network traffic would not be affected by 300 million users simultaneously streaming TV content over the Internet? It is not at all like satellite. When a satellite transmits a signal there is no router, there are no hops, there are no switches, there are no firewalls. The Internet is a completely different scenario. Even a busy day on Wall Street can slow down the Internet everywhere in the country.

Originally Posted by mstone

It doesn't really make any difference if it is on-demand or not. When average Americans come home from work, they turn on the TV and many times it stays on until midnight. Regardless of what they are watching, ones and zeros are being pushed down the pipe and the pipe has a limitation, more so as the signal makes its way farther from the server. IP protocol requires more switches, more routers, and has more latency than traditional cable. That is the unfortunate reality of today's Internet. Last mile is the killer. Always has been since the popularization of the Internet. Fiber optics greatly increases the capacity but few homes have that option right now.

Originally Posted by herbapou

Yes I know but a full IPTV implementatin would choke the entire ISP network between the servers and the households. There are no other ways than multicast and distributed servers from inside the ISP network for large amount of clients.

And even with this, it tooks years and billions of dollars to Bell Canada to come up with a system that works.

And on the netflix side, the traffic is already so bad that its now #1 after peer2peer. Bell announced they will no longer nerf peer2peer downloads and are thinking of choking Netflix trafic if the loads on the network affects internet performance of other clients.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Most of the channels have ads. A channel that can't sustain themselves by their actual audience shouldn't be kept alive by subsidy from people that don't watch it. I think that's a simple bit of market economics that's been subverted by the cable bundling system. If the ads can't sustain it, then what is really going on? Besides, the networks you mentioned (I guess I snipped them) already transmit over the air for free.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

I'm not talking about the "internet" I'm talking about dedicated servers in close proximity to the users that are pushing one channel/show out at a time at a given time. I'm not picturing Mission Impossible 4 hitting Netflix and 50 million people streaming the show from their servers at 50 million different times. I have heard no argument that makes this viable for Apple to "crack" the TV market. In fact the idea of a all channels streaming on-demand like Netflix makes the whole thing sound even more ludicrous than it was years ago.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

it makes all the difference in the world. Once channel is one data stream until you have to split it for each customer at the last mile. This is how TV streaming works on cable. If you have an independent data stream for each user accessing the initial content because all content is on-demand then you double the data for each user accessing at a given time for the entire stream.

Originally Posted by mstone

I think we have a communication problem. Assuming there is no limit to Apple's server capacity using whatever technology they have such as NC data center Akamai, etc. The local ISP network is going to require much more capacity than it currently has to provide all the data through IP protocol. It is just math. Neighborhood has 'X' homes and has a network capacity of 'Y'. If each home requires 1000 mbs to stream TV content and everyone is requesting that amount of data simultaneously, it will likely exceed 'Y' with today's bandwidth IP network limitations. I don't think you are taking into consideration all the overhead that DNS, IP, switches, routers, etc. affects IP network traffic even if it is only going a thousand meters down the cul-de-sac.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

$1 per channel per month? I don't see that happening. Remember, you're going for Ã* la carte pricing which means you pay a premium. Lets say right now your cable company has 100,000 customers all subscribing for a particular base channel station. Now you want to pay $1/month for it but it's an unpopular channel and only 5,000 (5%) want to subscribe to it. That means they are only getting $5/month from the cable company. The station was also getting hefty advertisement payments but now that the subscriber rate has dropped advertisers have dropped out completely. The station has gone under because the environment that made it work is no longer supporting it. You've now lost a channel.

I bet people watch plenty of channels and don't realize how much they watch them or that a particular show is on a channel. Can an Ã* la carte method sustain the future of television networks or will umbrella companies have to consolidate shows differently in order to make a buck? Will we see CBS split NCIS an NCIS: LA — two shows with high ratings — to different channels to maximize the number of stations you rent per month? Will they even go so far as to move a popular show across multiple channels week to week to maximize their return?

What people are wanting is to destroy something that will make it more expensive for customers unless you watch very little TV. Only those that want some select show or two on some cable network could possibly benefit from getting rid of the cable TV model.

Then you have consider how this will affect your cable interest costs. If your cable company loses 1/2 of it 100,000 TV paying customers they still have to pay all the networks the same amount of money. So do they double the costs of their loyal TV viewing customers? Not without losing more TV viewing customers that way. They have to jack the prices on your internet service, they now throttle users speeds, they now put in upper level caps. You're also using more internet than before because that is where your content is coming from. Can you blame them for trying to protect their business? I can't.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

On the local end that could happen but how much bandwidth are we talking about since we're only talking one channel per TV that would be streaming and the cable companies can handle that already?

Originally Posted by al_bundy

storage and computing power is cheap enough where you can put mini servers closer to the customers. you don't have to store all the content there, but stage the most used content on the local segment

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

On the local end that could happen but how much bandwidth are we talking about since we're only talking one channel per TV that would be streaming and the cable companies can handle that already?

This could be mitigated if Apple got with ISPs to allow last mile broadcasts but they would have to work with them which is something I think they have to do anyway, not work around or against them as has been stated here.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

On the local end that could happen but how much bandwidth are we talking about since we're only talking one channel per TV that would be streaming and the cable companies can handle that already?

This could be mitigated if Apple got with ISPs to allow last mile broadcasts but they would have to work with them which is something I think they have to do anyway, not work around or against them as has been stated here.

Originally Posted by Maecvs

Now, let's go to an all Internet TV model. We still have our computers and PS3 consuming 30 mbs of data. But, now our TVs consume, we will say 7 mbs, because they have now become computers, so that's now a consumption rate of 21 mbs. So now just the Internet TVs alone are now almost consuming the equivalent of the entire household bandwidth! The new household now consumes 51 mbs of bandwidth. This household has almost doubled it's bandwidth by adopting Internet TV. Now, expand that to an entire ISP, and you can see where this is going. Then to an entire country, continent, then, eventually, to the net itself.....

Originally Posted by Wilmnc

If Apple depends on the cable company to deliver shows, the cable co's are gonna go nuts and increase rates on data plans.

Originally Posted by JeffDM

That's still 250 hours of 720p video. If your household really watches that much, then you're probably best off with cable. Apple's solutions so far serve the light watchers better than heavy users.

Originally Posted by herbapou

Its works with low volumes only... its impossible to implement with a large client base that would stream multiple HD feeds all the time. Distribution of feeds in volume requires an distributed architectures and only internet providers can do this...

This is the best explananation I could find on the wiki:

"Depending on the network architecture of the service provider, there are two main types of video server architectures that can be considered for IPTV deployment, centralized, and distributed.

The centralized architecture model is a relatively simple and easy to manage solution. For example, as all contents are stored in centralized servers, it does not require a comprehensive content distribution system. Centralized architecture is generally good for a network that provides relatively small VOD service deployment, has adequate core and edge bandwidth and has an efficient content delivery network (CDN).

Distributed architecture is just as scalable as the centralized model, however it has bandwidth usage advantages and inherent system management features that are essential for managing a larger server network. Operators who plan to deploy a relatively large system should therefore consider implementing a Distributed Architecture model right from the start. Distributed architecture requires intelligent and sophisticated content distribution technologies to augment effective delivery of multimedia contents over service provider's network.[3"

Originally Posted by iVlad

This might be Apple's hardest industry to crack. But back in 2001 people said same about digital music distribution. Slowly Apple got them all working out. I just really can't see a COAX cable running straight to the TV and not a cable box. That was like in the 90's. I am still shocked to see that option in modern TVs. A COAX in in the back. Weird.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Web code isn't the limitation, it's the way web pages are setup. iTunes Extras are much like DVD/BR menus. They are made to be accessed from a remote.

I just can't see myself typing in URLS or doing a Google search using the on-screen keyboard found in the AppleTV YouTube app. Siri could mitigate much of the effort but i don't think it will be enough and only solves half the problem. You still have the way pages are rendered for the web. Will Wikipedia make an AppleTV version of their site the way they made an iPhone version? Can they even do that seeing as how there are hundreds of links per average page?

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Do we not recall how difficult it was for Apple to get any movie and television studios on board after the AppleTV was demoed? Do we not remember NBC pulling out of iTunes Store for a year or so? Are we not seeing how they are still not wanting to give Apple any play by only allowing content to be bought (and sometimes rented) at high prices? So what exactly does Apple have to offer that will not negatively affect the networks solid, guaranteed deals with their local affiliates and distributors?

...

Originally Posted by airnerd

Please please please let this be true. I have wanted this since the first time I signed up for cable/satellite. If I could pay a price, even a freaking $1 per channel I would. I cut the chord just over a year ago and I love it, but I miss some of my old shows that Netflix hasn't picked up on yet. If I could have antenna plus a few channels like History, FX, Comedy Central, HGTV (for the wife), DIY, and some kid channels...I'd be in heaven.

Originally Posted by pt123

ESPN will be paying almost $2 billion a year for Monday night football (NFL) with their new contract. I would doubt they would be willing to offer it for $1. They are getting almost $5 per subscriber. If a la carte programming was available, they would have to charge an amount that recoup the cost of programming and make a profit.

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 Dick Applebaum

And how does ESPN monetize its investment?

Originally Posted by pt123

They monetize it by subscriptions (per subscriber whether it is watched or not) and commercials.

Originally Posted by [Greg]

Eesh... Netflix told me I'd like Burn Notice as well... I watched a handful of episodes, and couldn't watch anymore. I thought it was a terrible show. Way too formulaic for me -- same story every episode with a few variations.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

It's even worse than that... You commandeer the big screen so others can sit back and watch you type [badly] while searching for things that are of no interest to them... that the cannot read when you find them...

The way Apple will do it is this:

You will interact with the TV/ATV with you iPad -- the TV display will not show the interaction (unless you direct it to).

So while others are watching the programming, you are surfing, watching retrieved ads, shopping, ordering, buying, with Siri's help as needed.

...And others with iPads can do the same or watch another program/channel/movie to their iPad, as desired.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Apple has Siri.

And Siri has * the ability to ask the CableCo to pull up any ad that you watched previously.

And Siri has * the ability to find resellers for the products in the ad.

And Siri has * the ability to buy things that you request.


...And that should be of interest of everyone who participates in the content-delivery supply chain.


* Soon will have


Long story short:

The TV Tells you about things to buy...

Siri (along with the ATV) buys things at your behest.

Originally Posted by palomine

Somebody tell me how South Korea manages to have online gaming as the MAIN leisure time activity for the majority of households? Wish Apple would buy up Level3's glass pipes. It's a cryin shame this country is so throttled backwards by greed and ineptitude. If it went for Apple we would have little electronics innovation, that us USABLE.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Web code isn't the limitation, it's the way web pages are setup. iTunes Extras are much like DVD/BR menus. They are made to be accessed from a remote.

I just can't see myself typing in URLS or doing a Google search using the on-screen keyboard found in the AppleTV YouTube app. Siri could mitigate much of the effort but i don't think it will be enough and only solves half the problem.

You still have the way pages are rendered for the web. Will Wikipedia make an AppleTV version of their site the way they made an iPhone version? Can they even do that seeing as how there are hundreds of links per average page?