Rogers, BCE rumored to already have Apple 'iTV' prototype in their labs - Page 2

This is all tosh.

Apple do not produce devices for sole use in the USA. They make stuff for world markets. While some people may have fibre to their home, this is only a tiny fraction of possible consumers outside the US.

The worlds telecoms infrastructure simply is no where near ready to deliver TV via ip on any scale.

As for iTV, Apple will have to think of another name for the UK market I suspect, lowercase i or not.

With Apples cash on hand, they could put up a fleet of satellites to deliver content to an iTV, but I am pretty sure they couldn't commission and deploy such in secret, so what the iTV is, is a mystery.

I am sure I would be more interested in a 65" Samsung OLED TV than anything Apple puts out.

What? Most telecom providers offer cable services via IPTV back here in Europe (via a router on DSL or cable or fiber networks). they have over 600 'live' channel feeds, that is with the smallest lag (take less than 1 second) which is just fine.

Thats doable because there network is build for it. I know EU use IPTV a lot, thats why its such a good idea for Apple to use that tech, its an international spec.

I had the lag in the first month but they fix that. I don't know how they did it in Eu, but here we have a compress feed with all channels for the guide PiP. Once you select a channel, its quick but you are watching the compress feed until the stream is setup. Unfortunately, sometimes after 8 secs the stream is still not setup yet and the image freeze. Happen to me yesterday, image froze for about 2 secs. Need to call them about it because I haven't seen this in months.

I thought that that is a given.

Certainly a 42" iOS 5+ "iPad' TV doesn't seem impossible. Thinner than it is now. Powered and connected to your cable box via Thunderbolt. And if I could view and pay for specific content on demand without having to buy a package of channels I will never watch…

Right now, and like many a family, we use (actually are more engrossed in) our iPads for entertainment/news than our TVs. Considering that the iPhone was an extension of the iPad, what is to say that the Apple 'TV' won't be as well. But this time going larger.

And if the rumored 42"'r comes in under $1500, there will be lineups like we have never seen before.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I have DirecTV and am quite happy with it. UI is not complicated at all. Offers just about anything I want. Remote control works just fine. Not sure what Apple could bring to the party that would make me switch. I certainly wouldn't be forking out $1,500 for a new TV set.

Seems to me that the only way this can work is if Apple offers both a TV that is designed from the ground up to work seamlessly with the service it wants to provide and to offer something similar to the current Apple TV box to allow customers who are not in the market for a new TV access to the same functionality.

I have a four-year-old LCD in one room and plan on replacing the other TV in the home in about two or three years. If Apple wants me for a customer in less than those two years and, for that matter, to have access to this new service on both my TVs, there has to be an external box available that makes that possible.

We have two TVs in our household, which is likely typical, but I'm sure some households have even more. It would be unlikely that service providers like Rogers and Bell, here in Canada, would sign on to offer a service that would require one to replace all of one's TVs with Apple units undoubtedly costing more than your average set. On the other hand, if Apple had a system developed that could work with existing TVs coupled with a set-top box, this would be perceived to be a business opportunity by Rogers, Bell and similar service providers. They could make money either renting out or selling outright said boxes, just as they do now with PVRs and the like. Technically, if the existing set is basically a monitor attached to Apple`s controller unit, one should be able to do with it what one could do with an integrated Apple unit.

I can`t imagine that this can be achieved any other way. It is simply not viable for Apple to try and establish a new service while expecting consumers to replace all their TVs in order to buy in. It is especially problematic that there are an awful lot of recent-vintage big-screen sets sitting in people`s homes right now. In this tough economic environment, few if any of us are likely to ditch two-, three-, four-year-old TVs. No, I think what we`re going to get is a much-enhanced Apple TV set-top box combined with an Apple branded set that integrates said box.

I would further speculate that if this story has validity to it (the Globe and Mail is arguably Canada`s most respected newspaper) what Rogers and Bell have in their labs is not an Apple set but rather the enhanced Apple TV set-top box. If this box is close to being released, testing by the service providers who would offer it makes a lot of sense. And if this story is now leaked, I`m guessing we`re real close to having this box come to market, perhaps as early as next month. If it is a unit costing similar to a PVR and will allow consumers to subscribe to an ala carte service, it has good potential. With an installed base of some weight, it would only increase the market over the long haul for an Apple set with the set-top functionality built in.

Really, how could this go any other way.

ATV's biggest problem is content. The baulkanised content creators.

Basically, a giant iPad. Siri, apps, facetime, decent screen quality, the eco system bonus, game system with PS3 quality graphics thereabouts if you have the A6 included.

But you still need content.

I did the netflix thing and watched a movie on an iPad 2. Pretty decent service. Still not enough content.

http://www.tvcatchup.com/ for live tv...

Still, they managed it with iTunes. Hollywood has been a harder obstacle to manoeuvre.

It's content, managing that content...in the iOS/iTunes ecosystem.

They could the phone subsidise model. But the TV upgrade would have to be compelling along with the software.

Standalone vs all in one. Guess they may do both.

I have a 50 inch Panasonic £699 plasma. ST30. Great at watching movies. It's smart tv aspect is very rubbish though.

ie Software. And that's where Apple has the whole industry beaten.

Have an iPad 3 to airplay via Atv 3? or the complete box and channels controlled by any iDevice?

It's a proposition.

People didn't understand the overpriced iPod/iPhone etc.

I'll be very interested to see the final product. Standalone or all in one.

At the very least an iPad 3 and ATV3 standalone are in my sight.

Try surfing the web via a PS3 or Panasonic. Painful. Apple can't do any worse. At the very least, I'd take an ATV3 and iPad3 to make the Panasonic more useful as a big screen multimedia device care of the iOS devices.

The ATV2 offers some insight. As does iOS , the iPad and whole iOS/iTunes ecosystem.

It's about the bringing it all together...and a content partnership with a cable company (eg like they did with the phone companies like ATT...) or Hollywood. They only have to get one company to crack and when the money starts pouring in...it will be game over.

As for price. All and sundry thought £1000 for an iPad. Apple smashed that preconception with the £399.

They're not to be underestimated.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Oh great ... new ground for Apple = more patent wars?

Why do they need a partnership arrangement? Very interesting.

Apple TV = local free to air chanels + cable broadband or 4G mobile broadband ???

Apple "mega plan" - unlimited data/internet on all Apple devices for one monthly fee.

You and I have been saying if it happens, this is how it will happen. Here's hoping were right- id but one for sure. No AT&T program guide? Sign me up.

...to compete with the upcoming Google/Motorola company and their access to the living room. Apple has a small window of opportunity to partner with cable companies and develop a compelling alternative to the end runaround that Google will pull off shortly. Google TV? Oh yeah - on every Motorola setup box.

I like my content (DirecTV - loads of 1080i). I DO NOT want to have streaming 480 and 720 net based content. Netflix streaming? Yeah...simply fantastic. (No.) Crappy picture, buffering, network hog. (Yes, I use it. LOL)

Dear Apple,

Please put your lovely box and interface in my living room, as part of my tv watching experience. Change the way I watch or think about TV.

Yours,

PowerMach

oh man I have Motorola box, I hope Apple will offer there box with Bell IPTV. On the other hand, android would be a big improvement over Bell custom ecosystem. BTW those box are currently running windows CE. Microsoft is losing again.

they have both imo, a set-top box and an actual Apple TV set.

Aside from being bad grammar and not making any sense. What exactly was that all about?

If you are so smart, explain why the TV cannot be separate from the box controlling it?

Exactly. But, I don't understand why the electronics covered in this patent could not reside in an external Apple box rather than in the TV.

Apple TV is a device that moves the increasing intelligence and connectedness that people want in a viewing experience into an external box that works with any TV. iTV appears, from the rumours only though, to place these capabilities into the TV itself, limiting it's availability to TV's produced by Apple. The value proposition provided by an iTV will have to be pretty awesome for Apple to choose to sell a high-ticket item like an iTV with much lower margins than an Apple TV with very high margins. Likely Apple with go both ways and will enhance Apple TV at an increased price to provide iTV features to non-Apple TV's and provide iTV as a total solution to those who want to pay a higher price.

Right now, Apple TV is so easy to use with my 65" Panasonic Plasma that I can't see ditching this $3,000 TV and Apple TV just so I can have voice and gesture recognition. Nor do I see all my favourite cable TV channels all being available a la carte all of a sudden.

Hey, quick question that is sort of relevant. Is the term 'Canuck' offensive? I suppose it depends on the context, but I'm asking about the inherent meaning of the word.


No, that's what he's saying. He doesn't believe there'll be a TV, simply another Apple TV box. And I'm all for that.

Apple TV will be digital. Not available without a box and not free. It will via connect broadband.

Cable companies buy content and disperse it. Under a number of plans, e.g., Basic, Premium, boxed sets/packages, etc.

Right now my wife is watching Smash which is being streamed, free, to our Apple TV via the iPad 2/Air Play.

And in the future, like Rogers offering a la carte cable TV to Canadian customers we will have choices that we only want and pay for.

Rogers offers cable TV, cable internet, cable phone and mobile devices (and was the first to offer the iPhone here in Canada), but not telco type land lines. They are likely testing iTV, if that is even true, in order to provide some of their cable feeds to iTV over the internet on an a la carte basis as a test. I doubt very much they'd open the kimono on the encryption in their PVR/DVR & cable boxes thus allowing their cable to be plugged directly into iTV and render their high priced (whether rented or bought) cable boxes to be rendered unnecessary. The same in the US with their encrypted PVR & DVR cable boxes. These companies cannot ignore Apple but they are going to tread into this area softly as there is a lot of bulk revenue derived from cable packages (where you have to subscribe to a bunch of stations at one time) at stake that is likely to decline if a la carte single channel, individual TV show or TV series offerings are available.

I agree with you. The economics of an integrated display do not make sense and even with the added value proposition of the features that Apple may include there is no way they can increase the price of the TV enough over existing displays to achieve the margins they require.

It will be outside of the box at an increased price, as you predict.

Apple is able to command a premium with a much better product that we carry in our pocket and use all day long. TV's are not the same and also they are not a replacement device these days like the iPod/iTouch/iPad/iPhone. People keep them for a long time and thus will not turf out their existing HDTV just to get an Apple TV. Also, the sheer different in raw cost that the iTV will have to be for Apple to achieve it's margins is astronomical and people won't pay it, especially when they can just buy Apple TV and hook it up to their existing TV.

Do your research before you make idiotic comments. Bell & Rogers are not phone companies. They are integrated companies offering mobile/internet/satellite/cable and other products. And, yes, we up here in Canada are way ahead of the curve on a lot of things which is why Apple does a lot of recruiting here and actually tests a lot of their products here first rather than in the gossipy US of A.

I'm a Canuck and never find the word offensive at all and neither does any other Canuck I know! You'l have to google the word.

I have Rogers. What they are going to be offering is not really a la carte. It's 15, 30, etc channels as a package 'a la carte'. So if 8 channels are in one package and 1 is in another you have to buy two packages, ie 30 channels, just to get the 9 (8+1) you want. A la carte is like on a menu in a restaurant. You order the individual channels you want for $1-$2 each.

Why not do both, namely bring out a set-top device that allows customers to access the service using an-already-owned set and bring out an integrated product as a compliment. In addition, expand the iMac line to include larger screens and allow Apple's computers, iPads, etc. to also access the service in question.

I think it would appeal to many to pay for a content service that is accessible from different devices, like computers, a TV and portable devices like the iPad. Pay one fee for that access and access it by whatever device you like.

In fact, if a TV service was offered, if Apple continues to offer the TV set-top device, why would that device be excluded from this process, or, for that matter, Apple's other devices that are capable of delivering video content. The Apple-branded TV would just add another option as opposed to being an all-or-nothing sort of deal. If Apple's TV strategy is to bring out an expensive product that will takes years to gain a foothold, it's clear that the company is not going to maintain the momentum gained under the direction of Steve Jobs. Yet I can't imagine that Jobs surrounded himself with a bunch of fools. I doubt Jobs was the sort to suffer fools lightly.

'set-top box'. Nothing can sit on top of a razor thin TV now days. We need a new term.

I have Rogers, too. Right now Rogers has no a la carte scheme and has none announced, not as far as I know. I doubt that Apple would agree to letting Rogers dictate the terms of this deal. If Rogers wants in, it will have to be on Apple's terms, whatever they might be.

There is, by the way, an additional option. Offer, for example, a 10-channel package for X dollars, a 20-channel package for Y and if what you want is a 10-channel package plus one, charge so much to add just one. Set the rates to encourage taking a package over signing on for an odd number of channels.

Let's not forget, though, that the CRTC will have it's say and I doubt that say would allow a true a la carte set-up as in you can pick precisely the channels you want. Some channels that many of us have no use for will be mandated and there isn't anything Rogers, Bell or Apple can do about it. Not sure how this will play in the US but here in Canada, that's how it will be.

first, Bell has Fibe tv, a completely on-demand tv system... (I have it)
the terminal bell uses, uses Win CE, ( and its a motorola terminal).
Rogers has standard cable, (all digital within a month) with on-demand. and Rogerss on-demand is slow to navigate to the movie/ series I want. (on-demand, not cable)

Bell uses VDSL2 to deliver the TV program along with the internet. the modem bell uses is either a CELLPIPE OR SAGEMCOM (I have the SAGEMCOM) The SAGEMCOM supposedly has the capability for FTTH.

A rumour that the bell/iptv technical told ME was that bell has a 7 year plan to roll-out Fiber-to-the-home.

while the terminal that i have from Bell is "FREE" , i would upgrade to terminal to the iTV Bell box... (why not it would be "shiny and new", just like the Fibe TV is/was.)

True. However, in order for me to get 4 channels above the basics now, I have to purchase 3 bundles of programs that I don't want. Right now I am paying for over 350 channels and I rarely view a couple of dozen of them.

Here is the menu and after printing it out, I would cut my current cable be a third to one half of what I am paying now.

I hope not. I'm not interested in cable tv. I would be quite happy with the free to air channels and the ability to stream my iTunes library to an Apple TV. I would not pay yet another monthly subscription.

We do have full "a la carte" choices in Quebec, with both Videotron and Bell FIBE. It does looks like its only available in Quebec but imo I wish that was normal practice across north america.

I dont like channel packaging at all and thank god I dont have to deal with it anymore.

It has been projected that the component/manufacturing cost of the iPad 2 is less than $325.

That includes the cost of battery and touch display, which without 3G would bring the internal cost to less than $250. Now insert that behind a 42" screen, larger case, add Thunderbolt, upgrade the iOS to include whatever Apple TV includes in addition if anything and I doubt that you are still talking less than $500. Heck throw in a cable decryption software and an Apple TV Remote for an extra $100 and manufacturing a few bucks more and I doubt you could drive the cost anywhere near $750 even if they upped the storage drive.

So doubling the cost to cover R&D, Packaging/Distribution, Service/Support and still achieve your margins, I think that $1500 would be gladly be shelled out to see and hear what and when you want for less than you are paying now.

I answered earlier here:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=95

If you're really in the industry you should know more than me since I left a decade ago and more on the long haul side of things.

Working with the MSO's has significant advantages for Apple if the MSO's buy into the concept. Would I dump FiOS for Comcast if Comcast went with an Apple set top box and Verizon didn't?

I dunno but I'd sure think long and hard about it.

And it's not without precedent given Comcast added TiVO service to their DVRs.

Still, my opinion is that AirPlay can crack the TV problem. If the iPad is getting content and we can push that content to an airplay enabled HDTV then that's a solution that promotes the iOS ecosystem while breaking into the living room in a big way.

The next option is to partner with the MSOs and ISPs since they have the last mile to connect to the user AND are the ones spending billions on content. Still, it's a huge can of worms for Apple engineering wise to make seamless.

The other plus side is it would neuter part of the reason why Google wants Moto...their STB business.

I'm skeptical of Rogers going for this. Currently...

Rogers Ultimate Internet package offers 250GB for $99/mth.
The next package, Extreme Plus, offers 150 GB for $69/mth.

Rogers offers on demand viewing of shows that you subscribe to but they count the bandwidth used watching those shows towards your monthly cap.

if one has two children who like to watch Netflix, Vimeo and YouTube, it's very easy to go above those limits.

It would be very interesting to see what Rogers would charge considering they charge $24.95 to rent a PVR.

If it was just up to me, I'd buy all my shows through iTunes. Currently, my cable bill is $85/mth. If it were up to me, I'd ditch cable and get shows through iTunes. It wouldn't save much money, but I'd have a copy of the TV show so others can watch at different times.

The one thing that gives me hope that they may offer a good value is that they don't charge for Tethering to your iPhone.

I think it could be legit. Imagine if the strategy apple has taken is to partner with Cable TV companies, so the set-top box completely disappears, and a single remote has complete access through a single seemless menu system, to TV, Netflix, Movies on demand, iTunes.

Today your cable providers set-top box has one menu system, the TV itself another, and other devices such as Roku, apple Tv another menu system. sure, a decent remote will let you switch modes, so you can be controlling the TV (volume) or the setop box (cable channels), DVR, except the UI is modal - you switch from one mode to another. Sure to techies this is no big deal - technies grok what is happening, but to non techies its a mystery - think what its like to explain the different modes you jump between to non technical users.... now suppose apple does a deal, (with some revenue sharing scheme) with the cable companies, so the cable companies give up control of the setup box - and instead your apple TV through a single menu system has iTunes, live TV, DVR, Movies on demand, Netflix.... one remote, but a single seemless UI....

It would take one heck of a deal between apple and the cable companies to pull it off - but if they have, it then means utter novices who typically are baffled by all the different modes of the TV, cable box, DVR, roku, netflix etc. will suddenly be able to actually make use of the functionality that today only techies really master......

sure, no techie would ever by it, because no doubt it will be much more expensive and may not actually have new features per se, but will have a unified user interface.

if that is indeed what they have done, it would make sense their partners would be cable companies.

Bell Canada (and Rogers) own a ton of content and major sports properties in Canada. TV networks like CTV , TSN, RDS and sports teams like the Blue Jays (MLB), Montreal Canadiens, Toronto Maple leafs TBD (NHL).

With this much owned content, it fits in the model Apple is trying to achieve with the TV initiative. Thru this, Bell and Rogers can offer specialized content to their subscribers, something that is asked all the time.


Also Bell is putting in FTTH in their premier markets and already offer an IPTV solution. I would say Bell is in a great position in eastern Canada, which is the majority of their revenue. Don't forget they own a satellite TV business as well.


I am surprised Shaw isn't involved as well being they have the lionshare of the TV business in the west (yes Telus is gaining, but Shaw is still the big dog).

While the term Canuck is not offensive to me, the Vancouver Canucks ARE offensive...as in I hate that hockey team.

Requiring one to order a base package of a bunch of channels and then paying a la carte for each one added is reasonable. So is saying you can order what channels you want but you have to order a minimum number. What is crazy is that right now I have to order groups of channels and sometimes I have to order an entire additional group just to get the one single channel I want.

This is precisely the problem and Steve Jobs talked about it in an interview about 4 years ago. The cable co's control the set-top box and have strong economic reasons not to have it disappear. Now, maybe this will change over time but it's one huge hurdle.