or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple moving forward with streaming TV service even as content providers resist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple moving forward with streaming TV service even as content providers resist

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
A new report describes Apple as "pushing ahead" with plans to release a streaming TV service by the end of the year in spite of resistance from major media conglomerates.

The New York Post spoke to sources familiar with Apple's plans to learn that the company has had trouble convincing content providers to come on board with a streaming TV service. Studios have refused to give in to Apple, which reportedly wants complete control over "all aspects" of the service, including pricing.

"We decide the price, we decide what content," one source described Apple's negotiating stance as being. "They want everything for nothing," another media executive said.

Apple Senior VP Eddy Cue, who has been described in the past as Apple's "dealmaker," is said to be leading the talks. Insiders said Apple has proposed offering "channels as apps for its devices," including the Apple TV set-top box. The report was, however, unclear on whether Apple is hoping to bundle content together into a subscription or offer it on an individual basis.

Though iTunes already offers movies and TV shows for rent or purchase, Apple is reportedly interested in streaming over the web. The company is expected to run up against competitors in the space, including the networks themselves, as many of them have launched their own apps in the App Store for that purpose.

Apple reportedly tried to drum up support for a subscription TV service in 2009, but it was unable to procure commitments from the industry. According to some executives, Apple's interest in splitting advertising revenue was one of the sticking points that derailed negotiations.

More recently, Apple is believed to have turned to cable operators in an effort to convince them to work with it. "They (Apple) want to create the interface, and they wanted to work with the cable guys to manage bandwidth across the TV and broadband pipeline," a source told the Post. According to the report, cable executives "pretty much shut the door" on Apple.

Apple has reportedly also had discussions with telecom companies, such as Verizon and AT&T. Last month, sources at Canadian telecoms Rogers and BCE said they have been approached by Apple about its TV initiatives and have even received prototype versions of its much-rumored connected television set.




Tipsters indicated, however, that Apple is prioritizing bringing a streaming TV service to market first before launching its own TV set. Apple is said to be aiming to launch the service before this Christmas. That would fit with reports that have claimed Apple is not due to release a TV before late 2012.

In the meantime, Apple is expected to unveil an update to its $99 Apple TV set-top box as early as next week. Channel inventory of the device has dried up in recent weeks, adding to mounting evidence that an update is imminent. Apple last refreshed the device in late 2010.


[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 67
Apple might still be trying to set up such a service, but there is zero way they can act in spite of the media companies. Apple doesn't control copyright on the shows and therefore thy can't just do what they want.

The New York Post has had more than a few articles like this. It's like thy are trying to out do Digitimes

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 #3 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

More recently, Apple is believed to have turned to cable operators in an effort to convince them to work with it. "They (Apple) want to create the interface, and they wanted to work with the cable guys to manage bandwidth across the TV and broadband pipeline," a source told the Post. According to the report, cable executives "pretty much shut the door" on Apple.

Since they first demoed the Apple TV in 2006 they have had nothing but difficulty. I'd say there success with iTunes Music Store was too overwhelming and complete that everyone is too afraid.

I suppose one can look the iPhone, too, to see how Apple's success has changed the control focus but aren't the carriers making more money because of the dramatic change in the desire for data on smartphones?

Either way, I'm glad to read that the Apple HDTV looks to be a "last resort" solution and I fully expect Apple to be able to get a foothold in the next year or two.

PS: 1080p AppleTV 3.0 with App Store and SDK next week?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #4 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

PS: 1080p AppleTV 3.0 with App Store and SDK next week?

I'm not gonna hold my breath for all that, but here's hoping.
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.
Reply
post #5 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcalpin View Post

I'm not gonna hold my breath for all that, but here's hoping.

Yeah the last two things can come later and are likely better suited for WWDC when they will likely demo iOS 6 and the new SDK.

I do think that a 1080 Apple TV is certain which means that 1080p iTS content is then fairly likely.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #6 of 67
I haven't subscribed to a cable service in 5 years.


My movie watching in theater has dwindled to not even once a month. What exactly are these idiots doing? They're losing their customers and watching the ship sink right before their eyes.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #7 of 67
the only way Apple is going to break these guys' stranglehold over content is ... buy an independent distribution net. like buy DISH, and even better, Echo Star's global satellites too. the key choke point is bandwidth. plus the $'s to back up the threat. get them by the balls.

once Apple can threaten global cheap distribution of competing content, the medicos will finally cave in. pick them off one by one.

Apple has the cash. for chrissake, pull the trigger.
post #8 of 67
The description of Apple's attitude in dealings with cable companies rings false.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #9 of 67
Let's face it...
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #10 of 67
Resistance...
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #11 of 67
Is...
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #12 of 67
Futile!
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
If you value privacy you can now set DuckDuckGo as your default search engine in iOS and OS X.
Reply
post #13 of 67
Now this sounds like Apple! Funny enough, this is the first report that actually gives me any hope that Apple may release a TV this year and not next. This is a typical Apple strategy ("we're moving forward, so you can come along or be left behind) and makes me think it very possible of coming true.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #14 of 67
If AppleTV is IPTV ready, is cable television set-top box ready, is wifi ready, and occupies a lot less space than most if not all existing cable boxes (etc., etc.) without any need to own MMI's related patents, then how can Google's additional rationale to purchase MMI for cable television set-top box patents and GoogleTV rollout be portrayed as a winning strategy?

Just asking.
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the only way Apple is going to break these guys' stranglehold over content is ... buy an independent distribution net. like buy DISH, and even better, Echo Star's global satellites too. the key choke point is bandwidth. plus the $'s to back up the threat. get them by the balls.

once Apple can threaten global cheap distribution of competing content, the medicos will finally cave in. pick them off one by one.

Apple has the cash. for chrissake, pull the trigger.

It's really hard to see how Apple moves forward.

Even if they bought an independent distributor, they may well need reapproval for licensing of any content distributed through that entity. This is much like the Netflix deal which makes Netflix less attractive because the content licensing does not automatically follow to the new ownership.

I had thought Apple might create a small production company to fund indie filmmakers but this would just antagonize the major studios and probably wouldn't buy them much clout.

My other thought was Apple convincing cable companies that they could build a better set-top box (and I am sure they could). But the cable companies are loath to give Apple control of the interface because they lose the ability to promote what they wish (are paid for) in their programming guides and such.

I personally would like to see them tie up with PBS in the US - PBS needs the funding and they produce and distribute good content.

The killer is live sports. That's the pitch the satellite carriers always make in claiming their superiority over cable. Since ESPN is owned by Disney, there is maybe a chance of a deal here.

Apple has been working on this for quite some time with little to show. If they cannot get Disney on board, the rest will be even more difficult. Getting Disney would provide them with feature film, TV and sports programming. Maybe we see some movement here soon (Iger on Apple's board).
post #16 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since they first demoed the Apple TV in 2006 they have had nothing but difficulty. I'd say there success with iTunes Music Store was too overwhelming and complete that everyone is too afraid.

I suppose one can look the iPhone, too, to see how Apple's success has changed the control focus but aren't the carriers making more money because of the dramatic change in the desire for data on smartphones?

Either way, I'm glad to read that the Apple HDTV looks to be a "last resort" solution and I fully expect Apple to be able to get a foothold in the next year or two.

PS: 1080p AppleTV 3.0 with App Store and SDK next week?

I really hope Apple can get at least just one movie provider even if it's the smaller indie type or production studios, because as they did with music, it'll put a kink in the armor of the big studios. They are afraid because they want to gorge profit and not break the monopoly, but Apple empowers the masses and if Apple could get one, market competition will dictate.
post #17 of 67
I honestly don't see how Apple can do this if the content providers are against it. This is the reason why all other attempts failed. Apple is wealthy, but is it wealthy enough to bend all of the TV and movie industry. Apple will have to at least get one or two onboard and maybe the rest will follow, but that just seems like a longshot. It worked for Apple with the music industry, but it will be outstanding if Apple can do it again. I sincerely hope Apple can pull it off.
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

It's really hard to see how Apple moves forward.

True. Apple does not telegraph their next move, nor do they do what people might expect. Apple has it's own game plan and are moving their pieces into place better then any other company I've ever watched.

Quote:
Even if they bought an independent distributor, they may well need reapproval for licensing of any content distributed through that entity. This is much like the Netflix deal which makes Netflix less attractive because the content licensing does not automatically follow to the new ownership.

I had thought Apple might create a small production company to fund indie filmmakers but this would just antagonize the major studios and probably wouldn't buy them much clout.

My other thought was Apple convincing cable companies that they could build a better set-top box (and I am sure they could). But the cable companies are loath to give Apple control of the interface because they lose the ability to promote what they wish (are paid for) in their programming guides and such.

All good ideas. It's amazing to me how difficult it is to read Apple's plans.

Quote:
I personally would like to see them tie up with PBS in the US - PBS needs the funding and they produce and distribute good content.

Gosh, That would be a fantastic thing to do! PBS programming is so far ahead of most of the other stations, I'm always amazed that no one else tried to copy them.

Quote:
The killer is live sports. That's the pitch the satellite carriers always make in claiming their superiority over cable. Since ESPN is owned by Disney, there is maybe a chance of a deal here.

Apple has been working on this for quite some time with little to show. If they cannot get Disney on board, the rest will be even more difficult. Getting Disney would provide them with feature film, TV and sports programming. Maybe we see some movement here soon (Iger on Apple's board).

Maybe. While there may be little to show for their efforts, that doesn't mean they haven't accomplished a lot away from public view. Let's hope!
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #19 of 67
I was thinking sports too, was the key to the front door, as @penchanted suggest. If Apple could get MLB, NFL, ESPN, and world soccer, they wouldn't even need Hollywood. When Hollywood sees the massive sports profits, they'll come begging for a piece of the action. Apple has plenty of cash and IMO they should sponsor World Sports Events.
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I honestly don't see how Apple can do this if the content providers are against it. This is the reason why all other attempts failed. Apple is wealthy, but is it wealthy enough to bend all of the TV and movie industry. Apple will have to at least get one or two onboard and maybe the rest will follow, but that just seems like a longshot. It worked for Apple with the music industry, but it will be outstanding if Apple can do it again. I sincerely hope Apple can pull it off.

It's Apple's success in the music industry that has the studios so leery. They are convinced that as long as they can keep Apple and Google out of this arena, they will not lose so much control of the business as the music industry. To me, they are in even worse shape,: I always bought more music than I consumed TV or feature films. They have the added competition from gaming and they are over-valuing their content but they don't see it that way.

Maybe Steve worked his magic on Disney's board before his death. That would be a big boost: feature films, TV and sports.
post #21 of 67
As always, Hollywood is holding back future technology and innovations due to their own greed and selfishness and short-term vision. Hollywood has never done anything to help consumers.
post #22 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

I was thinking sports too, was the key to the front door, as @penchanted suggest. If Apple could get MLB, NFL, ESPN, and world soccer, they wouldn't even need Hollywood. When Hollywood sees the massive sports profits, they'll come begging for a piece of the action. Apple has plenty of cash and IMO they should sponsor World Sports Events.

Sports programming might well be the key. If they could get content from those you listed plus NASCAR, that would be a viable offering in the US. Add in soccer and they have a world offering.
post #23 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

As always, Hollywood is holding back future technology and innovations due to their own greed and selfishness and short-term vision. Hollywood has never done anything to help consumers.

Pretty much. Apple's number one priority when it makes decisions is the final consumer experience. And, clearly this has payed off in spades. It's something that doesn't seem to be a priority for anyone else. It's why these dinosaur studios will remain short-sighted, greedy, and at the end of the day won't give a fuck as long as they're swimming in cash. TV is so broken, but without providers playing nice I don't see how anything will change anytime soon. I literally haven't watched a Tv show/movie on my TV for months. I get it all online, because of the flexibility, quality, and the fact that its ad free.
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotty321 View Post

As always, Hollywood is holding back future technology and innovations due to their own greed and selfishness and short-term vision. Hollywood has never done anything to help consumers.

Never was there truer words spoken!
post #25 of 67
I remember Richard Branson saying some kind words about Steve after his death. It occurred to me at the time that Steve and Apple might be getting input from him. He's another of those individuals who has figured out how to bypass the barriers to entering a market.
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

All good ideas. It's amazing to me how difficult it is to read Apple's plans.

In this case, I don't think their plans are all that opaque. They'd like to get all the majors in the US on-board but lacking that, they will pursue a deal with either Disney or Fox, both of which can offer film, TV and sports programming.

Failing that, they will pursue sports programming and, possibly, tying up with public TV in the states. Interestingly, "public television" in most countries is state-run television and they are often as intractable as the major studios in the US (I'm looking squarely at the BBC). Of course, with budgets in shambles around the world, these stations could be low-hanging fruit.
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

the only way Apple is going to break these guys' stranglehold over content is ... buy an independent distribution net. like buy DISH, and even better, Echo Star's global satellites too. the key choke point is bandwidth. plus the $'s to back up the threat. get them by the balls.

once Apple can threaten global cheap distribution of competing content, the medicos will finally cave in. pick them off one by one.

Apple has the cash. for chrissake, pull the trigger.

Guys, remember the Comcast deal to buy NBC Universal? As part of that deal, Comcast had to agree to several conditions to be allowed to buy NBC Universal. Because of this deal, NBC Universal and Comcast have to provide access to NBC Universal content to others who want to distribute it. They cannot put a spoke in Apple's wheel even if they don't like what Apple is doing.

It is precisely this deal that helped Apple get a foot in the door of the production companies. Apple obviously has a good relationship with Disney. NBC Universal's hands are tied so they have no choice. Once these 2 major networks are on board, the other networks will soon be forced to join. Because if they stay out, they risk being sidelined by the significant number of people who would likely sign up for an Apple Subscription plan.

The one aspect that might be an issue for Apple, might be the price at which the content is delivered to Apple by the Networks. And this is where I think Apple should have the balls to use up some of the $100B in the bank in a power play - to pay the networks what they ask, while still offering customers a very attractive deal on subscriptions. The networks know that Apple has the staying power to continue this for a very long time. So they will eventually agree to this model.

While I don't generally like the idea of Apple buying a cable operator or EchoStar, in EchoStar's case I will make a difference. I think EchoStar is attractive for Apple for multiple reasons. It offers a way to minimize bandwidth consumption using Satellite.

Secondly, delivery of high definition live sports and news over Internet to millions of customers is just not feasible today. Apple can offer a $30 per month option where people get EchoStar for most of their needs, plus a free addon from the iTunes Store for any content you missed out on.

But there is yet another reason for Apple to buy EchoStar. EchoStar owns SlingBox. And I think SlingBox could possibly be the best alternative to an all cloud service from Apple. While Apple would likely want everyone to get everything online, it is highly unlikely to be feasible practically today. For today, Apple needs alternatives other than cloud based ones.

One possible road map I see for Apple, is that the current TimeCapsule solution will become Apple's Home Gateway initiative. If they own EchoStar, they can easily add SlingBox capability to the TimeCapsule - either directly, or via USB/network. It is a no brainer to add SIP phone capability to this device. Apple can easily integrate a DECT chipset into the device to take care of cordless phone service. It is easy for Apple to make the TimeCapsule as an iTunes Media Server. I foresee TimeCapsule becoming a major part of Apple's push to take control of your home. Down the road, it can even integrate Home Automation functionality. Whether you take SlingBox, DECT, Home Automation -- all these are great product ideas that have not had the level of market success they deserve - simply because no one has done them right. Apple's magic touch could easily make the TimeCapsule as the center of their Home strategy.

Most importantly, as Apple moves more and more people into iOS style devices, TimeCapsule will have to graduate into a more powerful solution. People would not want to have their iMacs or Mac Minis running the whole day just because they want to access media from their iPad!

Of all the major growth areas for Apple, I think Enterprise, Connected Home, and Cars are the low lying fruit. In all these areas, there is very little competition, and the markets are huge. Apple's success in its current areas can easily be leveraged to enter into these 3 domains. Already Apple is seeing success in Enterprise - they can easily see similar levels of success in Connected Home and Cars as well.

There is another hidden growth area for Apple - one that most people will just not agree with or recognize today. Today, the Phone functionality is just another App in the iPhone. On the iPad, there is absolutely no phone functionality built in by Apple - but you can easily use Skype, or Viber, or Google Voice or dozens of similar solutions. What if Apple removed the Voice functionality in the iPhone, and made it into a App that just rides on top of the data subscription you already have? That way, all your voice minutes are just data - you don't pay separately for Voice and separately for Data. Apple has already done this with iMessages - so you don't have to pay separately for Text messages. In 5 years time, all these carriers will be dump pipes, just providing data connectivity. Apple and the AppStore will be controlling everything else on your phone. Voice, Messages, Emails, etc. The SIP functionality mentioned above, will just tie in to the same idea - so that you have a land line phone with cheaper and unlimited data while at home, and a mobile SIP phone while outside. With calls automatically routed, similar to what Google Voice does.

In all likelihood, this will happen well within 5 years!
post #28 of 67
An earlier poster made the point that bandwidth is the choking point for streamed Internet TV...

I believe it is!

What if bandwidth is also the choking point for cable TV? satellite TV?

I believe it is!

What if Apple has a solution to the bandwidth choking point Issue that Apple can sell/license to content owners, providers, deliverers -- so they can sell more of their payloads to more customers for more profit!

I think Apple has such a solution!


It takes the form of an efficient codec and the hardware/software to:

-- encode and compress the content
-- transmit/stream the encoded and compressed content by whatever means available
-- uncompress, decode and regenerate the content at the destination devices: TVs, STBs, Displays, iPads... Whatever.


What if this solution can take existing content and move it around, over the airwaves and wires, using a small percentage of the existing bandwidth... Say 50%... Or 20%... or 10%?


What if Apple delivers the solution on March 7 in the iPad 3 and AppleTV 3?



Here's a post I made to another thread:


Here's some "what ifs"...

What if :
  • Apple has cut deals with the content owners and providers to stream recorded and live video.
  • Apple has a codec/hardware implementation that allows HD content to be compressed/streamed at less bandwidth than current SD and Cable TV content -- over the air and through the cable/WiFi (over the river and through the woods?).
  • Apple has a corresponding codec/hardware that allows reconstitution of the compressed HD content on a Cable STB, ATV, or iPad³ over WiFi

Now, that would make the iPad³ a pretty compelling device -- if only as a personal TV.

...think of all the other possibilities of this technology and the ability to send and receive HD content quickly, efficiently -- anywhere!

Apologies in advance for the big picture -- but this is the big picture!


Here's a comparison of display sizes:

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


An earlier poster made the point that bandwidth is the choking point for streamed Internet TV...

I believe it is!

What if bandwidth is also the choking point for cable TV? satellite TV?

I believe it is!

What if Apple has a solution to the bandwidth choking point Issue that Apple can sell/license to content owners, providers, deliverers -- so they can sell more of their payloads to more customers for more profit!

I think Apple has such a solution!


It takes the form of an efficient codec and the hardware/software to:

-- encode and compress the content
-- transmit/stream the encoded and compressed content by whatever means available
-- uncompress, decode and regenerate the content at the destination devices: TVs, STBs, Displays, iPads... Whatever.


What if this solution can take existing content and move it around, over the airwaves and wires, using a small percentage of the existing bandwidth... Say 50%... Or 20%... or 10%?


Here's a post I made to another thread:


Here's some "what ifs"...

What if :
  • Apple has cut deals with the content owners and providers to stream recorded and live video.
  • Apple has a codec/hardware implementation that allows HD content to be compressed/streamed at less bandwidth than current SD and Cable TV content -- over the air and through the cable/WiFi (over the river and through the woods?).
  • Apple has a corresponding codec/hardware that allows reconstitution of the compressed HD content on a Cable STB, ATV, or iPad³ over WiFi

Now, that would make the iPad³ a pretty compelling device -- if only as a personal TV.

...think of all the other possibilities of this technology and the ability to send and receive HD content quickly, efficiently -- anywhere!

Apologies in advance for the big picture -- but this is the big picture!


Here's a comparison of display sizes:

image: http://web.me.com/dicklacara/ForWeb/...Comparison.png

I think you have a good point. All the cable cos I know of still push MPEG-2. An Apple box that could decode H.264/AAC would be easy for Apple to make and would reduce their bandwidth costs tremendously.

The one caveat might be to encode the content at the source. How does it get sent to the cable cos? What kind of cost is involved for changing out equipment for using a better codec? How long would you need to support both systems at the same time until your entire system is converted? Is this even feasible?



PS: That image is huge. A smaller version for the forum would still clearly show the ratio differences.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since they first demoed the Apple TV in 2006 they have had nothing but difficulty. I'd say there success with iTunes Music Store was too overwhelming and complete that everyone is too afraid.

I suppose one can look the iPhone, too, to see how Apple's success has changed the control focus but aren't the carriers making more money because of the dramatic change in the desire for data on smartphones?

Either way, I'm glad to read that the Apple HDTV looks to be a "last resort" solution and I fully expect Apple to be able to get a foothold in the next year or two.

PS: 1080p AppleTV 3.0 with App Store and SDK next week?

I think my parents in law would be in for a AppleTV if the v3.0 is 1080p capable. Could be a nice gift for them, They just bought a huge OLED TV.

As for me, I hate TV broadcasting for the most part. All the commercials make me sick. So my iMac is my TV Nr.1. There i can choose what movies I like to see, and they won't be interrupted by some silly tooth paste commercial.
post #31 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


....... // deleted for space reasons // .....

Your reasoning is very convincing.

As much as I hate most TV- broadcasting, to see Apple getting a foothold in this buissnes the way you suggest, would be most pleasant. And if they could put a little pressure on the TV producers to improve the quality of their content, everybody will gain a lot.
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think you have a good point. All the cable cos I know of still push MPEG-2. An Apple box that could decode H.264/AAC would be easy for Apple to make and would reduce their bandwidth costs tremendously.

The one caveat might be to encode the content at the source. How does it get sent to the cable cos? What kind of cost is involved for changing out equipment for using a better codec? How long would you need to support both systems at the same time until your entire system is converted? Is this even feasible?



PS: That image is huge. A smaller version for the forum would still clearly show the ratio differences.

I had already reduced the image 50%... but just did another 50%

If it is what I think it is, encoding is trivial and should be doable on everything from an iPad to a PowerMac... It's just another codec with a hardware assist -- like the iPhone's h264 capability,

AFAICT, when content is edited, then finalized -- it is delivered in one or more formats: tape, DVD, digital (ProRes, h264, etc.). This would just be another delivery option...

Or, you could take existing content, recode it and then store the encoded content in a fraction of the space.

I believe that FCP X $299, Motion 5 $50 and Compressor $50 already have this capability (as do OS X and iOS) -- it's just not exposed.

I suspect Apple will add this encode/decode capability to the iOS camera app, iCloud and whatever...

I believe that cablecos have the ability to transmit multiple codecs.

As to the hardware -- How about something as small and inexpensive as an ATV3.

That's the beauty/simplicity of the solution the encoding/decoding is done at the source and the destination devices -- you only need to decode the content when you want to see it... as it is playing!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #33 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

Your reasoning is very convincing.

As much as I hate most TV- broadcasting, to see Apple getting a foothold in this buissnes the way you suggest, would be most pleasant. And if they could put a little pressure on the TV producers to improve the quality of their content, everybody will gain a lot.

I did some really rough brute force approximation... as a proof of concept -- obviously I don't have the codec or the hardware.

Taking an HD clip, encoding it, then converting to h264 (a compression codec), transmitting it, uncompressing it, decoding it....

I was able to reduce the file size (bandwidth) to 1/10 of the original.

The regenerated video at the other end was better than what I get on u-verse optical (whatever they use).

To be honest there were some anomalies in the regenerated video -- but hey, I was using off-the-shelf software and no hinting. Someone like Apple, who know what they are doing, should be able to obtain fantastic results at, say, 20% of the current bandwidth.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #34 of 67
Disney
post #35 of 67
The US is such a mess that it could well be that Apple will launch their initiative in a country like Canada first. There are a lot fewer players in Canada at every level and far more potential for deals to be struck.

Success in Canada would open the door.
post #36 of 67
I don't buy this story. Apple have known since forever that content holders would oppose any attempt to push them out. I think Apple's plan is to bring them in. The Apple TV should be as attractive to content providers and the iPhone is to developers.

Here's my guess;
Apple will let content holders sell channels, through the Channel Store at any price they want. Apple will take 30%. Apple will deliver all content through the internet from a data center. Recording, previewing is done at the data centre. A building sized TiVO can record everything.

Currently, most content providers have to work hard for each new subscription. They need billing centres, they need cable and dish installers, technical support and they often subsidise PVR equipment. Even with high subscription fees, it might be 18 months before they see any return on a new customer.

Customers are then unwilling to subscribe because of the long contracts.

With the channel store model, the end-user presses "subscribe" and they are connected to that content instantly. The new channel package slots right in alongside the others.

For the user, they get a flat interface, searching, no boxes, infinite recording- and the best thing: Live multi-screen browsing. See all your channels at once.

For the content vendor, they get immediate revenue, can slash installation costs and hand-over technical support to someone else. Apple will let them charge whatever they like.

If there are arguments happening, I bet they are over ownership of customer viewing data, ease of cancellation that sort of thing.

C.
post #37 of 67
Market cap of Time Warner is $37bn; Apple could buy them and have lots of content to start the ball rolling!
post #38 of 67
a) this will be successful and these huge studios will face the same fate as record companies;

b) we may actually start getting decent television programmingthe movie execs will have to work to justify their relevance;

c) i'm in. can't wait.
post #39 of 67
It occurs to me as we discuss the merrit of paying for streamed, advertising free content, that I grew up with the BBC and ITV in the UK and we paid a fee every year for the BBC which delivered programming with zero advertising. To watch something on the independent station (in the early days there was only one station on BBC or ITV) you had to endure adverts every few minutes. Both models obviously succeeded as there seems room for both.

Now I use Nerflix so much I can say I vastly prefer the 'pay up front and no ad' model in the digital age too and can't wait for it to include live and current content. In the meantime I will stick with iTunes and Neflix as the closest to that model I can get. I believe Apple can eventually turn this industry around, hopefully sooner than later.

One side bar on the above is that the BBC being free from advertisers were able to produce what is recognized as some of the finest programming in the world, one example being David Attenborough's 'Life on Earth' award winning series in the 1970s. No political or religious interference by powerful advertisers or sponsors possible.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #40 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbow View Post

Market cap of Time Warner is $37bn; Apple could buy them and have lots of content to start the ball rolling!

That's only one county though, Apple are very global now and buying major networks and or cable companies in every country would be a mind boggling and complex mess. Steve always preached that keeping it simple and sticking with what you do works best and so far that seems to be working. They didn't have to buy any music labels to shift the earth under the music industry. However, I agree with others here that the film industry is terrified of losing control and probably see the music industry as a model they don't want for them. I don't really understand that as it is universally accepted the music industry was saved by Apple. Somehow the film industry need to realize they might actually be beter off moving in to a new, 21st century distribution model and Apple are the best company to deliver that.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple moving forward with streaming TV service even as content providers resist