Apple seen partnering with existing cable operators for 'iTV' content - Page 2

They will use it.

The only way I can see Apple getting around the TV station name is to call it the "Apple iTV" - explicitly adding the Apple name to all advertising and the product itself.

That is all assuming that the licensing deals the cable companies have with the content providers even allows such redistribution.

For example...


What many people don't realize that at least some of the bundling isn't the choice of the cable compnay. Ever wonder why you have 4 different weather channels? It's not because of the intense competition in the weather channel market. It's because a major network such as CBS says, "You want to carry CBS on your cable network? Fine, but you also have to carry our weather channel, too." It can work both ways. Some networks tell the cable companies you must include our other channel properties if you want our main channel. Others say you can only carry our channel if you agree to not bundle it in certain ways. An example of this is the Big 10 Network telling Comcast that they coudn't bundle BTN in an exclusive sports bundle requiring customers to pay extra for it.

These types of entanglements are what make me doubtful that Apple could just form a partnership with a cable company to get access to all of their content in a manner that would be acceptable to Apple.

And I still can't think of anything that would entice a cable operator to play ball with Apple.

Lowercase "i" in the ITV television logo, in operation since 1955 and a household name, Apple will have to change something about the name. Adding "Apple" infront of iTV, again, seems the best course of action. That seems like a better idea to me: Apple TV and Apple iTV are part of the same family like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro - slight change of name to deviate the class of product.

I'm not a copyright barrister but I'd think Apple iTV would still cross the line.

Exactly. I used to be happy with my Blackberry.

True. CBS and FOX are now putting a good amount of content online. Its gotta be going this way. But I feel like I'm trying to solve a Rubick's Cube...

I don't know. I don't think any of us know.

I think you hit it right on the head! Who wouldn't want to control what comes over their tv! I personally would keep about a dozen channels, and dump the rest!

The only way itv would agree would be making sure the Apple item wasn't a device capable of viewing video images. Can you image them trying to call it the Apple BBC or Apple ABC?

I think you'll find ITV has the naming rights worldwide given that they are not just a TV station in our tiny little country as you put it, but also a production company that sells content worldwide. They even have a production company in the US called ITV Studios America producing shows for the US networks.

I don't think content will be a major problem. Apple will build the hardware, add the basic free to air channels in each country and let content providers sell their content directly via apps on iTunes just like they do now.

Want to watch baseball - get the MLB app and stream live games.
Want to watch movies - get the Netflix, Lovefilm, Hulu, etc app and subscribe to their service.
Want to watch repeat TV - get the iPlayer, etc app
Want to play games - get the Steam app for online games

You can already get great content - movies, sports, tv shows, etc over the net now. It's simply a case of watching them on your Apple TV instead of your iPad.

If Apple are going to build a TV they will want it to be a mass market device albeit at the top end just like the iPhone/iPad. If the cable companies lose revenue from subscriptions I'm sure they will more than make up for it by selling faster broadband with unlimited data.

Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box or having to build an the ecosystem. Apple could provide the ecosystem and manage VOD and Cable gets less set-top box to manage and VOD profit is share.

Cable will not lose live TV, but they do face competition from internet VOD.

and then there'is the killer app : a plan.

Free 32" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 40$/month
299$ 42" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 50$/month
399$ 52" Apple TV with 3 years subscription.

Subscription:
20$ mandatory base package.
+20$ for 20 channels of you're choosing. or
+30$ for 35 channels. or
+40$ for 50 channels.

I wouldn't have known that. It's not as if I have iTV in my house or anything \

Besides, if you knew anything about word marks you'd be aware the case doesn't matter. I just filed my own trademark for something so I'm well versed in this.

If you thought your cable bill was expensive before...

Exactly! If you could pick your channels a la carte that would be awesome.

Don't forget Apple is global, the crappy companies to which you refer are just in one country, albeit Apple's home one.

Dang, you mean my application for "cOCA CoLA: The reaLThinG" will fail?

I think it all depends on the definition of 'i'.

Maybe ITV would love to mistaken as an Apple product.

ITV aside (the name won't happen, it will never happen)...

No one has yet explained to me how this thing will handle all the different TV standards around the world? It would at least need to handle DVB and PAL in the UK, baring in mind PAL and NTSC are not actually the same on many levels (number of lines, refresh rates). Apple TV gets around this by supporting both formats but ignoring broadcast... a TV would surely need to address this.

Not really. ITV is the name of the channel. No one calls them "Independent Television" anymore.. like, ever. ITV will be a really tough one for Apple to win, given they are an international corporation now.

Yeah.

Because Apple is a public company that is chartered to make profits, not to throw away cash and tie up with a money losing venture. Thank god some of the people here only make decisions with their own money...

I don't know about that. Comcast is getting $18/month from me for a box they bought nearly 10 years ago for probably around $50. I'd say it's pretty lucrative for them. If it wasn't, they would have put more of an effort into making the CableCard standard work and letting 3d parties handle the boxes.

You still are talking about the content and then smooshing of the set top box into the TV as if they have to be done in tandem to work. You have still made a valid argument as to why that is the case.

To restate, I disagree that Apple pushing content through providers requires this to be done in, and only in, a box with a monitor attached. A monitor that is limited to just a few lame sizes. Better to push this through a box that you can get a god profit on instead of one that you can't and will won't even get the benefit of economics of scale because 1) it's considerably more expensive thus lowering the number of people that will buy, 2) not be enough of a pull because TVs work for many years longer than computers we connect to them, and 3) the few sizes are not enough to satisfy the needs of users. 52" maximum? Really?

PS: You talk of IPTV but it's nothing special. It's just content being sent to a TV via an IP network. What's more likely is Apple Hybrid IPTV set-top box and working with cable providers to get their box as the number one option that is connected to TVs. You plug your TV into the box. You control everything from the box (or the A/V receiver). You only ever touch the TV or its remote when you want to switch inputs for a different connected box, but Apple wouldn't care about that hassle because they don't want you switching to a different box. They'll want you to stay on their box connected to the big ass monitor of your choice.

It will be called iBoard.

+1

If Apple wants wide-spread acceptance, it needs to have a low cost box. Something inexpensive enough that people will buy it even if the technology/content services are untested and unproven. It has to be a low enough price that people are willing to take a chance on it. Which do you think Apple can built critical mass with more quickly, a $!000+ TV or a $100-$150 box?

This. I've said it before but imagine if Apple were to partner with (or buy) Dish Network (which is already far better than Direct TV) and create a DVR type device. Only thing is all the content would be maintained on Apple's cloud so you wouldn't need to worry about your hard drive going out and losing all your recorded shows. The UI could be so greatly improved.

Think about it, whatever provider that Apple partners with or buys up, automatically takes a huge chunk out of their competition because of Apple diehards wanting to jump ship.

What cable content will Kansas City residents be able to watch on their GoogleTV's?

Would cable companies really toss Motorola set top boxes in the trash for AppleTV's?

Is it true that Apple has enough cash to purchase Samsung outright?

Just asking.

they can tell apple you have your tv on our system and we will put the POS Iguide on it.

likely the same stuff as fios or U-Verse

When did Google acquire licensing from the major media companies permiting GoogleTV to offer the content that FIOS and U-Verse offer?