or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple TV almost ready for launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple TV almost ready for launch

post #1 of 33
Thread Starter 
I am being told the upcoming Apple TV is now currently working on some telco networks. One specific telco app is out of alpha testing and going into beta testing. The feeds are integretated with the interface and its possible to change the a la carte programming on the fly from the TV. You need to keep a channel for 30 days before you can change it.

A la carte channels will be package this way:
Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$
15 channels for 15$
20 channels for 19$
30 channels for 25$
40 channels for 30$

Most of the channels will be available a la carte but there will be some exceptions.
Movie channels are in separate packages.
Video on demand will be feed from iTunes, telco will take a cut.
TV app store.

The Apple TV will be available starting at 499$ with a 3 years TV + internet plan
post #2 of 33
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

$499?! For a box?!

Alternately,

$499?! For a television?!

I don't think so. You're either being told wrong or Apple has completely lost it.

That's also not a la carte. Maybe I don't want 15 channels. Why should I have to pay for 15? Maybe I want 16 channels. Why should I have to pay for 20?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #3 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

$499?! For a box?!

Alternately,

$499?! For a television?!

I don't think so. You're either being told wrong or Apple has completely lost it.

That's also not a la carte. Maybe I don't want 15 channels. Why should I have to pay for 15? Maybe I want 16 channels. Why should I have to pay for 30?

499$ is for the TV set but there is a box too. I think they will announce the box with the iPad 3, but I am not sure this box will integrate ISP feeds. I don't think the TV set or the ISP box will be available until June.

I think the upcoming box will be an incremental upgrade of the current Apple TV, but with some of the features of the upcoming TV sets and ISP box.
post #4 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

499$ is for the TV set but there is a box too.

Wow, okay, you're being fed pure lies. What happened here was Apple told just one guy somewhere this crap to catch leaks. And now by telling us this, you've gotten him fired.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #5 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow, okay, you're being fed pure lies. What happened here was Apple told just one guy somewhere this crap to catch leaks. And now by telling us this, you've gotten him fired.

I don't think anyone is going to get fired over this. Anyway there is an entire team on this, its not just one guy.
post #6 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow, okay, you're being fed pure lies. What happened here was Apple told just one guy somewhere this crap to catch leaks. And now by telling us this, you've gotten him fired.

There may be multiple TV sizes and 499$ is for the smallest one. I have no information on the hardware.
post #7 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I don't think anyone is going to get fired over this. Anyway there is an entire team on this, its not just one guy.

My mistake, they'll all be fired.

Seriously.

Now in another vein, what would possess Apple to add $400 to the price of the Apple TV?! There are NO features that they could add to make it worth that much.

If Apple brought back internal storage as a terabyte of SSD space. if Apple made it so you could sync with hard drives connected to the network instead of having a computer on and iTunes open if Apple let it somehow control ALL of the other hardware in your setup so that you never have to use any remote but Apple's ever again it STILL wouldn't be worth $499 to its target audience.

And I'm not even going to touch how a TV could be $499 and meet people's requirements for a TV without Apple losing hundreds of dollars on every sale.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #8 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

My mistake, they'll all be fired.

Seriously.

Now in another vein, what would possess Apple to add $400 to the price of the Apple TV?! There are NO features that they could add to make it worth that much.

If Apple brought back internal storage as a terabyte of SSD space…. if Apple made it so you could sync with hard drives connected to the network instead of having a computer on and iTunes open… if Apple let it somehow control ALL of the other hardware in your setup so that you never have to use any remote but Apple's ever again… it STILL wouldn't be worth $499 to its target audience.

And I'm not even going to touch how a TV could be $499 and meet people's requirements for a TV without Apple losing hundreds of dollars on every sale.

499$ is for a TV set. I don't know the specs but its a TV set. I have no info on the box other than there will be one.
post #9 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

499$ is for a TV set. I don't know the specs but its a TV set.

That's what I mean. So it's a 20" set? At 1280x720 because iTunes doesn't sell any better? Because Apple won't be making money on it any other way.

And they won't be making any money on it anyway, because no one is going to buy it.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #10 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That's what I mean. So it's a 20" set? At 1280x720 because iTunes doesn't sell any better? Because Apple won't be making money on it any other way.

And they won't be making any money on it anyway, because no one is going to buy it.

Well the minimum package for the TV is 35$ per month and the minimum internet package is 100 gigs at 10 mbps. So around 70$ per month for both. You can assume the ISP is going to pay Apple something or whats the point of locking you up with an ISP for 3 years.

imo apple is going to receive 499$ + some other cash from the ISP. Maybe this is enough for a 40" TV. The thing is since the ISP are setting there network for it, the content is going to be 1080p. The iTunes video on demand is not going to use internet bandwidth.

I am pretty sure there will be an unlock TV set, but the price is going to be a lot higher.
post #11 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Well the minimum package for the TV is 35$ per month and the minimum internet package is 100 gigs at 10 mbps. So around 70$ per month for both. You can assume the ISP is going to pay Apple something or whats the point of locking you up with an ISP for 3 years.

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.

I'm forced to sign a contract to even OWN this TV?!

NO ONE will buy that. That is NOT Apple. That is NOT a revolution. That is GOING BACKWARD.

The only revolution that can be done with television is to KILL OFF CABLE AND SATELLITE.

Who the FRICK wants to have the exact same thing they can get elsewhere?!

This is insanity. Why would you believe that?

Quote:
The iTunes video on demand is not going to use internet bandwidth.

I'm sure it wouldn't.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #12 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.

I'm forced to sign a contract to even OWN this TV?!

NO ONE will buy that. That is NOT Apple. That is NOT a revolution. That is GOING BACKWARD.

The only revolution that can be done with television is to KILL OFF CABLE AND SATELLITE.

Who the FRICK wants to have the exact same thing they can get elsewhere?!

This is insanity. Why would you believe that?

I'm sure it wouldn't.

I understand you hate Cable and telco but Apple still needs to have a good business model. I don't think selling 1500$ TV sets that required an internet connection for the feeds is a good idea. This is where Google is going anyway, will see how this works.

And why would people not buy it, they do it with cell phones. Apple is used to this business model so to me this makes sense.

I don't see how you can't understand iTunes VOD is not going to use internet bandwidth, do you use you're internet bandwidth when you rent a movie on cable where you live? Nobody expects VOD to use you're download cap when its done from the cable offering.
post #13 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I understand you hate Cable and telco but Apple still needs to have a good business model.

They made up their own model for iTunes music. They made up their own model for iPhone distribution. Why can't they do the same for TV?

Quote:
I don't think selling 1500$ TV sets that required an internet connection for the feeds is a good idea.

Exactly. Making a TV is an idiotic idea. Sell an updated Apple TV box for $99.

Quote:
This is where Google is going anyway, will see how this works.

They've already failed because they're google.

Quote:
And why would people not buy it, they do it with cell phones.

Completely and utterly different markets.

Quote:
I don't see how you can't understand iTunes VOD is not going to use internet bandwidth, do you use you're internet bandwidth when you rent a movie on cable where you live?

If it's through a cable/satellite provider, it's not iTunes. If it's through a data connection, it's not a cable/satellite thing.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #14 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If it's through a cable/satellite provider, it's not iTunes. If it's through a data connection, it's not a cable/satellite thing.

itunes will be the ISP video on demand source. This is why it won't use bandwidth. It will be cache on the ISP network.

Has for using the net to deliver 1080p feed in volume, there maybe a way do it in the future. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2PTV

This could allow to cut cable has TV providers.
post #15 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

itunes will be the ISP video on demand source. This is why it won't use bandwidth. It will be cache on the ISP network.

No ISP is going to cache videos from Apple, much less all of them, which would be required for this future.

Quote:
Has for using the net to deliver 1080p feed in volume, there maybe a way do it in the future. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2PTV

No cable/satellite provider is going to embrace peer-to-peer anything. I don't care that it's a better solution; they're just not going to do it.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #16 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No ISP is going to cache videos from Apple, much less all of them, which would be required for this future.

o cable/satellite provider is going to embrace peer-to-peer anything. I don't care that it's a better solution; they're just not going to do it.

Thats the point, this is a way to bypass the ISP's and offer TV channels from the net. aint that what you want? This will work on ISP's network without the need to revamp the network.

Additional info on this tech:
http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4...m-of-interest/

You either go with streaming which requires the ISP to integrate it on there network using IPTV protocol or you do this. I don't know any other way that works.
post #17 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No ISP is going to cache videos from Apple, much less all of them, which would be required for this future.

huh? I am telling you they made a deal, iTunes is going to be the ISP official VOD source. The IPS is going to get a cut from it.
post #18 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

huh? I am telling you they made a deal, iTunes is going to be the ISP official VOD source. The IPS is going to get a cut from it.

And I'm telling you I don't buy any of this. It's not Apple at all.

It's Google, sure. Sounds exactly like something Google would do.

Apple would kill cable/satellite.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #19 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

And I'm telling you I don't buy any of this. It's not Apple at all.

It's Google, sure. Sounds exactly like something Google would do.

Apple would kill cable/satellite.

its the other way around, Google already tried to bypass both ISP's and even the studios. Apple always negotiate and do it the legal way.

Even if Apple gets a deal with the studio's, it still have no way to deliver the feeds.

You want full HD multi channels per household live feed on a large client base, we are 5 to 10 years away from this assuming the studios agrees. I think Tim pretty much kill this when he said at the shareholder meeting Apple will not offer a la carte programming in the near future.
post #20 of 33
I have only passing interest in this. However the economics still seems to suck! What I'd rather see from Apple is an alternative to cable as I really don't want to do business with the cable company. So by definition if I have to deal with the local Cable company the Offering is a failure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I am being told the upcoming Apple TV is now currently working on some telco networks. One specific telco app is out of alpha testing and going into beta testing. The feeds are integretated with the interface and its possible to change the a la carte programming on the fly from the TV. You need to keep a channel for 30 days before you can change it.

A la carte channels will be package this way:
Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$
15 channels for 15$
20 channels for 19$
30 channels for 25$
40 channels for 30$

Most of the channels will be available a la carte but there will be some exceptions.
Movie channels are in separate packages.
Video on demand will be feed from iTunes, telco will take a cut.
TV app store.

The Apple TV will be available starting at 499$ with a 3 years TV + internet plan

I'm not too concerned about the TVs price as it is pretty obvious the hardware is doable at that price. You are basically looking at a monitor and Apple TV combination. Given that Apple should be able to eliminate a bunch of hardware from the set keeping costs under control. The problem is if you eliminate other uses for the set it's appeal goes out the window.
post #21 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I have only passing interest in this. However the economics still seems to suck! What I'd rather see from Apple is an alternative to cable as I really don't want to do business with the cable company. So by definition if I have to deal with the local Cable company the Offering is a failure.

Well Cable is getting competition from DSL on the TV side. But both DSL and cable offer pretty much the same packages at the same prices. If they start to offer "a la carte" packages its already a small revolution in itself.

imo Apple "a la carte" offering would had cost about the same thing. Don't forget no matter what the source is, the studios are always behind pricing.
post #22 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

imo Apple "a la carte" offering would had cost about the same thing. Don't forget no matter what the source is, the studios are always behind pricing.

Which is why I believe Apple should go directly to the shows themselves.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #23 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I understand you hate Cable and telco but Apple still needs to have a good business model. I don't think selling 1500$ TV sets that required an internet connection for the feeds is a good idea. This is where Google is going anyway, will see how this works.

If you do a little reading you'll recognize that's not where Google is "going". Rather than depend on the cable co's they're working on their own delivery from their own satellite feeds over their own fiber-optics using their own IP to create it. Ya gotta pay attention, things move fast now.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If you do a little reading you'll recognize that's not where Google is "going". Rather than depend on the cable co's they're working on their own delivery from their own satellite feeds over their own fiber-optics using their own IP to create it. Ya gotta pay attention, things move fast now.

"In the Kansas application, Google said it would use “national and regional video headend facilities” — essentially programming collection points — “to send IPTV” — a television-over-Internet technology like that used in AT&T’s Uverse — “across a private (Internet protocol) network to subscribers.”

If Google has to build a completely new DSL network they are not out of the woods yet. This will cost a huge amount of cash and this takes time. It will take them years and billions just to cover the US.

If Google tries to build a WiFi or 4g network, same thing. They will need to put less fiber optics, but they will still need to put up a large amount of towers. I getting tire of all this wireless mess, if this keeps up people are going to be cook alive when going outside... :-)

imo Google is now actually HELPING Apple striking deals with ISP's. Great. Google thinks it can do better than AT&T by using the same tech? They think they can do better with better pricing in a field they have no experience with. WTF are those guys smoking for crying out loud?

Tallest: its looks like the one trying to kill cable is Google, not Apple.
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Tallest: its looks like the one trying to kill cable is Google, not Apple.

IMO they're both trying, just going about it in somewhat different ways
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO they're both trying, just going about it in somewhat different ways

Well google is not really killing the ISP's, its just trying become one. I think they will end up with about the same offering has cable at about the same prices.
post #27 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

I am being told the upcoming Apple TV is now currently working on some telco networks. One specific telco app is out of alpha testing and going into beta testing. The feeds are integretated with the interface and its possible to change the a la carte programming on the fly from the TV. You need to keep a channel for 30 days before you can change it.

A la carte channels will be package this way:
Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$
15 channels for 15$
20 channels for 19$
30 channels for 25$
40 channels for 30$

Most of the channels will be available a la carte but there will be some exceptions.
Movie channels are in separate packages.
Video on demand will be feed from iTunes, telco will take a cut.
TV app store.

The Apple TV will be available starting at 499$ with a 3 years TV + internet plan

ripped from Canadian cable systems?

$500 for a box is on the high side but take what the prices are for the DVR's there and a $100-$200 apple markup it is in line.

and yes then do offer a some la carte channels packs (aka pick x channels) + theme packs on top of that.

Now in the USA there are some very limited big base pack + themes.

But on the business side at lest on dish / directv they have a limited la carte channel plans.
post #28 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

...

A la carte channels will be package this way:
Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$
15 channels for 15$
20 channels for 19$
30 channels for 25$
40 channels for 30$

...

If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.

According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.

Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).

Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.

To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?
post #29 of 33
Guys... why are you feeding another troll thread? That's all this is.
post #30 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.

According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.

Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).

Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.

To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?


Theme packages will always be cheaper per channels then "a la carte", no matter where you get you're feeds. Also sometimes you get more than 1 channel for one pick in "a la carte". BTW i gave one 1 ISP pricing model, others are going to come up with different packages.

Canadian "a la carte" line up with Bell:

http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf
post #31 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.

According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.

Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).

Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.

To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?

the number of channels is off when you take away the PPV channels, EAST / WEST mirrors (U-verse has a lot of them that are non premium) , PPV promo channel, HD ver's of SD channels. Old channels in the old analog range that are mirrored in the higher XXX range on cable. In market RSN's + there over flows. Other of market RSN's (with lots of black outs), help channels, the channels that are just links to different VOD folders, premium multiplex channels, the out of market packs like NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI, MLS DK, NFL ST. Also in lot's of cable systems WGN and TBS is part of the limited basic line up.

Also apple will have to get blackout's right.
post #32 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.

According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.

Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).

Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.

To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Theme packages will always be cheaper per channels then "a la carte", no matter where you get you're feeds. Also sometimes you get more than 1 channel for one pick in "a la carte". BTW i gave one 1 ISP pricing model, others are going to come up with different packages.

Canadian "a la carte" line up with Bell:

http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf

Canadian systems also get the better WGN
post #33 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon View Post

the number of channels is off when you take away the PPV channels, EAST / WEST mirrors (U-verse has a lot of them that are non premium) , PPV promo channel, HD ver's of SD channels. ....

You can slice it, dice it, or purée it. However, you cannot sell programming at $0.75/channel while the competition sells the same programming for about $0.15-$0.20/channel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple TV almost ready for launch