or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple seen taking 5% of HDTV market, earning $17B in revenue
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seen taking 5% of HDTV market, earning $17B in revenue - Page 3

post #81 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.

Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #82 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

Apple wouldn't want to be tied to Comcast or anyone.

Apple wants to replace Comcast.

Apple will make an IPTV (The tech U-Verse and FIOS uses), and deliver the videos to it just like they do now with iTunes.

This thing will be a true "convergence" device.

Thru what internet connection? Why would VZ allow someone else to offer TV through their lines. Offering TV isn't just getting agreements with the networks. A carrier must also get approval from the local government.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.

Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?
post #84 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Apple is going run cable to every home so they can be the ISP? No way.

Apple is going to get the networks to dump all their guaranteed payments to the cable providers and supply all the advertising but somehow run it like iTunes without ads in a costly Ã* la carte fashion? No way.

You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.

They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #85 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You assume too much about my comment. I never said anything about Apple piggybacking on their infrastructure (at least any more than their devices already do), nor did I mention anything about advertising streams.

The only revenue difference I mentioned would be a large upfront savings for cable cos in the form of cable boxes that Apple would be paid for each month through the cable co from the consumer using Apple's boxes. Boxes that are still pushing the cable co's channels with all there national, regional and local ads, and with all their deals with the networks still in place.

I'm talking about Apple replacing your Motorola, Scientific Atlanta, et al. set top boxes with an Apple set top box that does what those other boxes can do but a whole lot more and at less cost direct cost to the cable companies.

Sorry..I mis understood...thanks for clarifying.


So why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #86 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

This pretty much summarizes it for me. If, if, if.

Apple could put out the coolest TV hardware on the planet (and we know they could) but if doesn't break both the cable box and remote control chains of pain, then they're just another pretty face in the TV business. Apple is missing one huge connective piece here and I have yet to hear a plausible scenario for how they can create an entirely new bridge between the content providers and the living room.

I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.
post #87 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.

They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.

One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).
post #88 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

Cable companies have to be making a serious racket at renting cable boxes. They likely start turning a profit on cable boxes after renting them for a year. I pay per month per box, plus I have to pay $60 to "self-install" every time I move. How does it cost $60 for me to call the cable company to activate service at their computer within a few minutes?

Exactly, it's just another entrenched revenue stream. I am so curious to learn how Apple proposes to disrupt this industry. At this point I'd settle for just one plausible theory.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #89 of 125
They need to partner to avoid the data caps. Currently Comcast throttles at 250. Netflix uses the following for their streaming:

Netflix Movies (HD): These guys are around 3.8Mbit, which means it's about 3600MB for a 2 hour HD movie.
Netflix Movies (SD): Each of these movies are around 500-700MB each, depending on the length of the movie.
Netflix TV Shows (HD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 1500MB.
Netflix TV Shows (SD): A 30-minute TV show will be about 400MB.

Add in your other internet usage and there's not much left.
post #90 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Exactly. Nobody has yet described a scenario where giving Apple more control over the supplier's content stream and a bite of the revenue would be even slightly attractive to the cable and satellite companies. Failing that, they will have to either think huge with plans to replicate this infrastructure entirely on their own, or smaller, by replacing the cable box with iOS software that duplicates its function in a way that doesn't suck. The latter scenario is far more realistic.

I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #91 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Negafox View Post

One thing to keep in mind is the that ISPs tend to throttle if excessive bandwidth is used. I would love streaming TV to replace my cable and Netflix, but I suspect my ISP throttles my bandwidth if I watch too much Netflix (I notice the video quality dropping to low quality for days on end).

If people drop normal cable or satellite they will have to pay more for bandwidth. I still haven't hit the ceiling my provider gives me but now that I have an Apple TV as well as Netflix it is only a matter of time, I'm sure.
post #92 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like.

Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.

The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.

As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Cost to the cable companies? Do you think they lose money renting these boxes? In fact while you posit this as an advantage, it is more probably the biggest point of resistance from the cable companies.

They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.

That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

You assume to much in my comment. I never said they'd be the ISP. You get get your own ISP.

They'd use "Internet Protocol" over the internet, encrypted (scrambled) then decrypted in the TV.

Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.

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 #93 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.

We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #94 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

We know Apple has barrels of cash, but recreating the entire distribution infrastructure is still mind-boggingly costly, and risky. The content providers have to be completely on board at the start, and then kept on board. The existing providers have frequent problems herding that gang of cats. Local broadcasting is another migraine. Does Apple really want to inherit these headaches?

I completely agree! Not only very very costly but a very lengthy process. Contracts would have be negotiated between federal governmental agencies all the way down to municipalities.....not to mention all the content providers...it would take years to get it done. Not to mention cable and satellite companies fighting them every step of the way. Some content providers have exclusive contracts with cities so they could only get it done after the current contract runs out. Too big a hurdle even for Apple and their cash reserves.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #95 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Sure, it's certainly cleaner, but it also raises a lot of issues like cost, profit, market saturation, longevity of the computer parts to the TV parts. It was never a good fit with VHS, DVD or Blu-ray.

The only way that it works is when you plug something into the TV set that can be removed, like with CableCards, but those are completely flawed for other reasons. Outside of partnering with cable companies Apple could partner with TV makers to create a standard for which AppleTV HW can plug into a TV and then become the TV's one and only interface. That too has failed but it's not like HP had a good business model.

As for the clunkiness it's really just one data/video cable and a power cable, both of which plug into cable boxes so you can go your entire life of the TV without ever having to use the TV remote. It's just a dumb monitor. Of course, you have to use it DVD and whatnot if you have other HEC appliances connected but both the cable companies, networks and Apple aren't so concerned with that. The harder it is to go to those the more likely you won't go to those. They know they will be the primary content device in use. If it really came down to it I think Apple could also have a box that had an HDMI passthrough for a Blu-ray player in the back so you could switch to that appliance from the set top box, but I don't' see that happening.



They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.

That's part of the nut to crack; getting the cable companies to beg for Apple despite Apple's history of dominating the market they're in and turning their partners into feeble subordinates. Remember the first AppleTV? They announced that in the Fall of 2006 as iTV. It didn't even have a price, release date, or even a proper name. That was highly unusual for Apple. I think it's because they were trying to show the movie industry how they could protect their content whilst distributing it. I don't think they played ball because they were afraid Apple would do to them what they did to the music industry. Sure, Apple saved it but Apple also controlled it as a result. The AppleTV was finally released with only Disney on board and it was much less important to Apple than it could have been.


Where you have cable TV you have the cable co supplying internet. Sure, there are other fast options in certain areas but you are most likely to going to be using your cable company for internet and TV access.

Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #96 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

They don't need to make a profit. Theoretically, they can break even, as as long as it has an app store, they're already profiting. Obviously a more realistic scenario is that they WILL make a profit on them, but clearly apple know they can't have crazy margins like on their other devices, and I can easily sacrifice those margins simply to be a player in that space. Unlike most other people, I DO think Apple can do very well selling TVs- simply because there is so little differentiation now. People aren't loyal to anything, and if APple can incorporate enough differentiating features (which they will) I can see them grabbing a good percentage of HDTV shoppers. Why not go with the Apple model, if it isn't significantly more expensive?

Also, please don't bring up the AppleTV box. Its tough to advertise these TV boxes, and making the entire TV has a ton more possibilites from a technological (ie. facetime cam, microphone, new interaction paradigms, etc) and marketing point of view. I just wish SJ was still around to see it into fruition. I'd be much more confident that the execution will be nailed.

Apple sell HW at B/E prices? You must be dreaming, that will never even come close to happening.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #97 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

Why would the cable companies allow Apple in the front so to speak? Apple has a history of dominating every market they enter....so why would they do this if it could lead to their eventual doom...or being turned into feeble subordinates! :-)

1) Note the words "nut" and "crack". Also note that cable companies don't use their own boxes for this, they buy them from various HW vendors. If Apple could offer them something the others can't, like being cheaper or having the expense come from the customer, not from them, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Apple has a way with sourcing components and creating a system that works across every field thus reducing their costs which they could use to leverage their customers.

Remember, I made no mention of Apple superseding their their control of the content. No where did I mention that Apple would be the distributor they would basically be offering a more desirable UI for the cable company to offer customers. Apple might be able to swing a deal that cost them nothing up front and still paid them a monthly fee for the profit sharing. Or Apple could simply strong arm them by saying that if you don't we'll just sell the boxes ourselves with other method of superseding your content until you are nothing but a dumb pipe for us.

You're asking why to a question I've been asking for years regarding Apple breaking into this game. You either have to work them or you have to go completely around them. At least if Apple works with them the cable companies won't be jacking up your internet rates because you've doubled your usage while stop paying for TV access they are still paying billions a year to access from the networks.

3) Perhaps this isn't your secondary point, but putting the box inside the TV change anything for the better for Apple. It makes thing more difficult. Not necessarily impossible, just more difficult.

PS: If you are going to edit a comment it's better form to crop the relevant part instead of increasing the size while also including the entire post.

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 #98 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It's hard to imagine how apps on an Apple HDTV will make up the loss of profit in the long term when the HW for the apps will be quickly outdated. I don't expect AppleTV HW to be updated yearly once they move to apps, but every 2 or 3 years seems reasonable. Certainly not the 5 or 10 years that TVs tend to be used.

Like I said before, my belief is that native AirPlay+802.11N support in HDTVs would solve a lot of these problems.

1) The spec should be fairly stable and the hw requirements stay largely the same...as much as it matters for that specific model of TV anyway. Any display enhancements probably aren't renderable on the TV anyway (4K rez, 3-D holograms, etc).

2) The device with the CPU/GPU is a iOS device that folks replace every 2-3 years anyway.

3) The native device provides a rich UI interface not dependent on the HDTV manufacturer.

4) Comcast, Verizon, Rogers, etc can brand and tailor their product offerings via iOS apps

5) Automatic updates since the iOS device is being updated automatically anyway.
post #99 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)

The only problem with building an integrated HDTV is trying to convince people to upgrade a possible US$1500 TV each year every time Apple brings out a new processor/GPU, US$100 is an easier on to try.

And Apple owning the HEC? That would be an individual thing, I have no Apple equipment in my HEC, if Apple ever decides to drop iTunes from the ATV equation then that may change. And PHEC, that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
post #100 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

It flopped. AT&T seemed to love it and it was good for consumers but Apple had a hard time selling it to the cellular industry and abandoned it by the time the iPhone 3G arrived. It's rumoured that Apple had to agree to another year of exclusivity in order to get AT&T to dump the model.

I would love to see some references on you claims. And please no blogs.
post #101 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I agree...but why would the cable companies let Apple in? Why would they let Apple replace the cable boxes? Surely they can see that Apple could replace them eventually. If Apple had content and delivery then why would there be a need for the cable companies? I don't think they will let Apple in the front door so to speak by allowing them to replace their equipment with Apple equipment........once they started down that path i don't see them ever returning from that point forward. Apple would have a foot in the door so to speak and could sometime down the raod replace the cable company.....

Apple would have to show how it benefits them financially. How they do that, I have no idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

They lose money when they pay for these boxes up front just like carriers lose money when they pay for iPhones up front. They only make it back after many months of fees.

This is a lot like arguing that Apple loses money on every iPad they manufacture, until they actually sell them. Renting cable boxes to customers is a profit center, no matter how you slice it. If Apple can't show the cable companies how this revenue is replaced at a minimum, then it's going to be a no sale situation.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #102 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I have mentioned that several times; with their own fleet of satellites.

DiSH's market cap is only $12.75B.

Doesn't keep content providers from pulling the plug though.

DirectTV is $33B.
post #103 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Note the words "nut" and "crack". Also note that cable companies don't use their own boxes for this, they buy them from various HW vendors. If Apple could offer them something the others can't, like being cheaper or having the expense come from the customer, not from them, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. Apple has a way with sourcing components and creating a system that works across every field thus reducing their costs which they could use to leverage their customers.

I just do not see the billion dollar cable companies agreeing to have Apple replace the hardware not matter what the minor cost savings. It would letting a giant threat in the front door. As pointed out Apple dominates every market they enter. The cable companies know this..... so why let them in the front door?

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #104 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I completely agree! Not only very very costly but a very lengthy process. Contracts would have be negotiated between federal governmental agencies all the way down to municipalities.....not to mention all the content providers...it would take years to get it done. Not to mention cable and satellite companies fighting them every step of the way. Some content providers have exclusive contracts with cities so they could only get it done after the current contract runs out. Too big a hurdle even for Apple and their cash reserves.

If they go satellite, I believe they get out of local franchise issues. But just the same, they'd face some really high hurdles, some from regulators and even more from the networks. I'm remembering what a massive arm wrestle it was to get local programming carried on satellite.

I am hoping, no begging, that Apple figures out how to rationalize the TV industry. The way it is now is a total mess. I just don't see how they do it. But then if it was easy to conceptualize, somebody would have done it by now.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #105 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...]"If Apple were to sell a TV, we continue to believe its margins and pricing could be industry leading given its vertical integration with content."[...]

I laugh when I hear haters say "The Apple TV set will cost $3,000." No it won't.

The heart of the unit will be a slightly improved version of today's Apple TV circuit board. Apple TV sells for $100 now.

The TV itself could be a super-sized Thunderbolt Display. 50" or so. Dead simple. Apple is working with Sharp on next-gen LCD and OLED processes. And IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) technology can be used in LCD as well as OLED screens. IGZO provides brighter images and/or lower energy consumption. And it provides higher manufacturing yields than current technology. Apple and Sharp have also apparently developed a high-yield OLED screen "printing" process.

And what do high yields mean? Lower production cost. And what does lower production cost mean? Higher margins and lower retail pricing.

Less than $100 for the Apple TV circuit board. Plus a low-cost, high-quality, energy-efficient HDTV screen.
Minus an excessively complex remote, minus cable inputs, minus over-the-air broadcast tuner.
Could be pretty cheap. We'll know sooner or later.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #106 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I just do not see the billion dollar cable companies agreeing to have Apple replace the hardware not matter what the minor cost savings. It would letting a giant threat in the front door. As pointed out Apple dominates every market they enter. The cable companies know this..... so why let them in the front door?

Wasn't it Cablecard 2.x that was supposed to replace the external cable box and allow for the cable company to reprogram what features and content your set was allowed to view. And could move the card between sets and the features follow the card. I recall there were so many problems with remote reprogramming or getting dynamic content like ppv working killed it's adoption; possibly concerns about hacking the cards.

If Apple could do something like that - connect to an AT&T style home media gateway over N or an Ethernet interface - I could see cable companies signing on. Less gear on perm, less cabling supported by their field techs.
post #107 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

If Apple could do something like that - connect to an AT&T style home media gateway over N or an Ethernet interface - I could see cable companies signing on. Less gear on perm, less cabling supported by their field techs.

I just don't see the cable companies allowing Apple into their systems. So lets say they allow Apple to have the cable box integrated into a Apple TV. The hardware cost aside.... now Apple's hardware has to be provisioned onto the cable companies systems. Ok...not easy but it can be done....they do it with the iphones and wireless providers so..it could happen. Now all of your content from the cable company comes through Apple hardware. Awesome for Apple...but hey Apple also provides content...too...they sell/rent movies....music ...apps. Do you think Apple would be satisfied with just hardware? So there would be a real chance for Apple to eventually provide that content....selling you movies...TV episodes...and music to the awesome Apple TV! This would be a HUGE revenue loss for the cable companies! So why would they do it??? I just don't see it! It seems like a lose lose for the cable companies...short term and long term.....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #108 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I just don't see the cable companies allowing Apple into their systems. So lets say they allow Apple to have the cable box integrated into a Apple TV.

It seems like a lose lose for the cable companies...short term and long term.....

Some of these same companies are in bed with Apple for iPhone. All those companies are having to deal with several hardware providers for home gateways and tuners - motorola, cisco (Scientific Atlanta), etc.

Edit: I think content servicing to TVs will go this way and cable companies standing in the way instead of evolving and collaborating will turn them into RIM. I think the fight will be to keep customers on their backbones and attract content providers to host on the same backbone. My example would be AT&T doing content delivery for MLB.TV which is already on AppleTV2.

Edit 2: I can see AT&T and Verizon jumping in first because they understand that they could be reduced to just a pipe.
post #109 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

I would love to see some references on you claims. And please no blogs.

How about a press release from AT&T about the end of the profit sharing and the beginning of the subsidization model.
Quote:
New Agreement With Apple Reflects Significant Growth Opportunity
The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple. Under the revised agreement, which is consistent with traditional equipment manufacturer-carrier arrangements, there is no revenue sharing and both
iPhone 3G models will be offered at attractive prices to broaden the market potential and accelerate subscriber volumes. The phones will be offered with a two-year contract and attractive data plans that are similar to those offered for other smartphones and PDAs. AT&T anticipates that these offers will drive increased sales volumes and revenues among high-quality, data-centric customers. Currently, less than 20 percent of AT&T's postpaid subscribers have integrated devices capable of voice, Web and data applications. Based on the company's experience, average monthly revenues per iPhone subscriber are nearly double the average of the company's overall subscriber base.

With a two-year contract, the price of an 8GB iPhone 3G will be $199; the 16GB model will be priced at $299.
Unlimited iPhone 3G data plans for consumers will be available for $30 a month, in addition to voice plans starting at $39.99 a month.
Unlimited 3G data plans for business users will be available for $45 a month, in addition to a voice plan.

In the near term, AT&T anticipates that the new agreement will likely result in some pressure on margins and earnings, reflecting the costs of subsidized device pricing, which, in turn, is expected to drive increased subscriber volumes. The company anticipates potential dilution to earnings per share (EPS) from this initiative in the $0.10 to $0.12 range this year and next, with a 2008 adjusted consolidated operating income margin of approximately 24 percent and a full-year 2008 wireless OIBDA margin in the 39-40 percent range. As recurring revenue streams build without any further revenue sharing required, AT&T expects the initiative to turn accretive in 2010.

You can say the original iPhone was a success — no one is questioning that — but you can't say the profit sharing model was a success if it lasted for model for one year before being trashed in favour of the old subiszation standard.

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 #110 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Different stuff for different people.
I want to look at blu rays.

Had to buy an MacMini with graphic card to be able to see bluray. Worked great.
Then Bluray 3D was released and I had to swap to a HDMI 1.4 MacMini.

Why have 50 inch TVs and watch 720P? Only blu ray have the full 1080P resolution.

Its also fun to have a couple of thousends of TV shows/movies connected to the mini using thunderbolt/USB.

Ok, I can see that logic. I also stream from my Mac to the ATV from a hard drive full movies so I kind of have a hybrid set up too.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #111 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Yup, I tend to agree, but the concept of a set-top box is clunky. A flat screen with only a power cable is so much more Apple like. People will attach all sorts of devices but it would be Apple's goal to rid the living room of those. Come to think of it, doesn't Apple own the HEC? I mean each and every iDevice is you own PHEC, innit? (P as in personal)

An Airport Extreme device to send content to the TV and everywhere else in the house
iDevices for games and ... err... that's it.

I think you are right in that it makes more sense just to make a set top box type thing like aTV2, but ditto for desktop computers. Logically Apple ought only to make the mini. As Apple is very design driven / focussed I am sure the aTV will never quite appeal as much as an all in one unit.

If Apple we to drop ATVs in favor of such an iTV it would be a great marketing push to offer all ATV owners a $99 discount on proof of owning an ATV as a reward for being guinea pigs.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #112 of 125
If Dish is looking for a buyer, how about Apple? I personally like DirecTV better but I'm sure Apple could vastly improve Dish and make it competitive with DirecTV and cable.
post #113 of 125
89% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....
post #114 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

89% of all statistics are made up on the spot.....

50% of people reading this won't believe it.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #115 of 125
Quote:
Ben A. Reitzes with Barclays Capital calculates that the LCD market will reach about 230 million units in calendar year 2012. He suggested that Apple could, over time, capture 5 percent of that market and earn $17 billion in revenue, which would be almost 10 percent of his fiscal 2013 estimate of $183.1 billion for the company.

With assumed gross margins of around 40 percent on a full-fledged Apple television set, he sees the company gaining about $5.40 earnings per share, or about 11 percent of his fiscal 2013 EPS estimate of $48.46.

A 40% margin means it is going to be a fairly expensive TV, yet he is predicting it will sell around 11.5 million (5% of 230 million) in its first year which is about four times as many units as the AppleTV2 sold in 12 months.

I am still not seeing why these people expect an Apple HDTV to do so much better than the existing AppleTV.
post #116 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by stationwagon268 View Post

I haven't read a TON comments about the HDTV thing, but had a thought. This may have been covered before. But, with the idea of partnering, what if they subsidize the iTV purchase as cell phone carriers do with the iPhone? For example, sign a 2 year contract with Comcast and get a 50" iTV for $599....

Thoughts?

Wouldn't work so great in the US. Here cable companies can basically own the rights to a whole market. Say like here where I live in Holllywood. Time Warner bought the rights about 5 years ago and I had no choice but to switch from Comcast to TWC. Because legally Comcast couldn't offer service in my area anymore. The only plus for me was that TWC had to honor our contracts and I was on a broadcast only plan with Comcast that gave me just the Big 5 for like $8 a month. TWC didn't have that kind of plan but they had to continue what I was on as part of the switch over.

But if Apple goes with Comcast I'm out as is a big chuck of LA. Or if they go with Time Warner, other areas are out.

Frankly I can't really see them doing it because it might cut into iTunes sales. If anything I think they would go to the networks and studios directly and try to replace the cable companies via some kind of subscription rental plan, lower buy prices etc.

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 #117 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why would Comcast want to sell a TV when they could just sell a set top box? Comcast and Apple will want you stay on that same Video 1 input on the TV so making it easier to switch to your Blu-ray player or whatever isn't in their best interest.

What you do with your tv only matters if you are a Nielsen viewer. Otherwise who cares cause you aren't in the counts. Apple would actually want to make it easier to access whatever via the box so you never have to change inputs. The little black box could act as a kind of receiver. Hook up an "Apple TV compatible" blu-ray player to it and the same remote could be used to fire up your blu-ray, control it etc. It's just another column on the screen.

The cable companies already have your money and will even if you don't watch a single show, just as long as you are willing to keep paying for service. Even if Apple does fire up some monthly fee program you still need bandwidth and that often comes from the same company. so if you kill your cable, they will find ways to get it from you as an ISP

(that said, I agree with the notion that the cable companies won't see any reason to actually assist in this game because when have they ever done the consumer smart move)

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 #118 of 125
Just start building big iPad screens and plug in the current Apple TV, and you're good to go.

Why would Apple get involved in anything if it can't make mark-up?

J
post #119 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

A 40% margin means it is going to be a fairly expensive TV, yet he is predicting it will sell around 11.5 million (5% of 230 million) in its first year which is about four times as many units as the AppleTV2 sold in 12 months.

I am still not seeing why these people expect an Apple HDTV to do so much better than the existing AppleTV.

Your point is taken, but at the same time I understand what this analyst is trying to accomplish. With all of the talk about Apple entering the TV market, he is taking a stab at estimating how much they might make if they could capture a modest proportion of the existing market at Apple's current margins. I think everyone recognizes that it's a wild guess. Nothing else is possible now.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #120 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

If they go satellite, I believe they get out of local franchise issues. But just the same, they'd face some really high hurdles, some from regulators and even more from the networks. I'm remembering what a massive arm wrestle it was to get local programming carried on satellite.

I am hoping, no begging, that Apple figures out how to rationalize the TV industry. The way it is now is a total mess. I just don't see how they do it. But then if it was easy to conceptualize, somebody would have done it by now.

Doing so (rationalizing the TV industry) would be worth billions in revenues.

Doing so may cost billions in CAPEX.

That $97B can drop in a hurry.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple seen taking 5% of HDTV market, earning $17B in revenue