or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple television not expected to 'break the bundle' from cable
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple television not expected to 'break the bundle' from cable

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
With opposition from content providers likely, Apple's rumored television set will not be able to cut out existing cable operators, and Apple will instead be forced to work with them, a new analysis predicts.

J.P. Morgan does not believe that Apple's anticipated television will arrive this year, nor do its analysts believe the debut of such a device will cause a major shake-up in how video content is delivered. The investment bank's position on a possible Apple television was expanded on in a second research note issued Thursday from analyst Phil Cusick, who does not think Apple will be able to "break the bundle" and push out cable operators.

An attempt to cut out pay TV operators, by relying on over-the-air television broadcasts in addition to iTunes and services like Netflix and Hulu, would be the most aggressive move Apple could make, Cusick said. But he doesn't think it's likely Apple will go down that road.

"We believe that media content owners have no incentive to allow this scenario to materialize and will block it," Cusick wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider.

The analyst sees two other possible scenarios that Apple could use going forward with its Apple TV set-top box and the possibility of a full-fledged television set. First, he said Apple could attempt to become the set-top box option for cable companies, bringing together the broadcast content that customers already pay for with Web-based content like iTunes and Netflix.

"Apple would differentiate by adding a really nice guide to make the experience better, while the carrier could differentiate as the first (for some time, anyway) to have an Apple device," Cusick wrote.

In the other scenario offered, Cusick thinks it's most likely that Apple will slowly expand its current Apple TV "hobby," rather than attempt to make it a full-featured set-top box like TiVo.

HDTV


J.P. Morgan has advised investors that if Apple does make a television set, such a device is unlikely to arrive before 2014 at the earliest. But analyst Mark Moskowitz added that Apple's preference for double-digit operating margins on hardware could pose a problem in the cutthroat HDTV business, where margins are razor-thin.

Moskowitz said that if Apple did release its own television set, the company would differentiate its product through its attention to design, as well as picture quality that would be first-in-class.

Apple became widely believed to be working on its own full-fledged television set after company co-founder Steve Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson that he felt he had "cracked" the secret to a simple and elegant television set. "It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine," he said. "I finally cracked it."
post #2 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Moskowitz said that if Apple did release its own television set, the company would differentiate its product through its attention to design, as well as picture quality that would be first-in-class.
 

 

 

Apple customers don't care about picture quality.   Picture and sound quality have never been big sellers.

 

Its the UX, Stupid.  The UX.

 

And if anybody has cracked the UX it is Apple.   

 

 

I don't think that reliance on picture quality could possibly make up for the headache induced by most people's current setups. Mom can't figure out the dozen buttons that you need to push to get the sound of a DVD to actually come out of the Home Theater System.  Nobody knows which remote control to use to adjust the volume.

 

Better picture quality don't fix it.  Its the UX, and there's no room for complex input choices.

 

Apple will make it as simple to watch TV as they make it to buy a song on iTunes.

post #3 of 36

Ugh, this tripe.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #4 of 36
Then this product is dead on arrival. As I keep saying, without non-cable provider content, it's just another fancy monitor....
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maecvs View Post
Then this product is dead on arrival. As I keep saying, without non-cable provider content, it's just another fancy monitor....

 

You just said what I was planning to go back and edit into my own post. Absolutely.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #6 of 36
They just don't get it. This will be just a television set like the iPhone is just a phone.

People will pay a premium because it will do so many things beyond television, but is easy to use.
post #7 of 36

No hurry. We all have TV's that will last for a while. Maybe by 2014, they will have changed the law to no longer require an ATSC tuner be built into each television set.
 

post #8 of 36

This all sounds exactly analogous to all the arguments as to why Apple could never succeed in the mobile phone market and we all know how that turned out.  This type of analysis bodes very well for the success of an iPanel IMO.

post #9 of 36

There is an option for Apple is to go out and buy their own content and with their hoards of money buy some of the popular content out from under the networks.

 

Apple has a huge install base of iOS hand helds, AppleTV, and MAC OS devices.

 

People will be driven to watch this content on Apple devices, this will not sit well with Advertisers or the Cable / Sat  provider's.

 

Apple can then use the exclusive, in demand programming, and large install base as leverage to get access to the contracts, programming, and bundles to break up this bundle requirement.

post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

This all sounds exactly analogous to all the arguments as to why Apple could never succeed in the mobile phone market and we all know how that turned out.  This type of analysis bodes very well for the success of an iPanel IMO.

Actually the arguments were correct, Apple made a bad phone, it was highly prone to dropping calls. Being a handheld computer is what got it going and something that SJ himself couldn't even see which is apps that propelled it where it is today. Here's the difference, while I own one phone, I own 4 TV sets, all of which have a cable box attached to. I never use the TVs UI but the cable box's. Unless Apple makes set top boxes or Cable Card TVs I can't see how a Apple can do well. As far as programming goes with Netflix, HULU, and on demand I'm good.
"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 #11 of 36
By the mystic powers of grey skull or astrology or. Yet another prediction on Apples plans. What a waste of space.
post #12 of 36

Ugh. We're moving and leaving the 65" rear-projection Sony HDTV behind with a charity. 

 

Looks like we'll have to buy a sub-$500 cheapo to use with our AppleTV for a while.

 

I'm ignoring these rumors from now on.

post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyMc7 View Post

There is an option for Apple is to go out and buy their own content and with their hoards of money buy some of the popular content out from under the networks.

Buy content?  They could afford to buy a network, eg. ABC, and they should.  And they should use it to leverage the hell out of the cable operators.

post #14 of 36

People are expecting a TV from Apple.   I don't believe that will happen.  The current AppleTV (v3) is about 50% of the way towards my vision of what an AppleTV should be.   Using Airplay it wirelessly streams content from my iPad/iPhone (iDevice) to my TV and I can also get content through iTunes via my WiFi network.   BUT it also allows anything on my iDevice to be mirrored onto the TV.  HBOGo is a perfect example of the future - this app has all of HBO's content online and available on demand (along with some special features that are not available on a cable service).  It wirelessly streams from the iDevice onto the TV in full HD with surround sound.  That kind of content combined with the content in iTunes makes the current AppleTV a very compelling internet TV experience now.   But what is it missing?

 

1)  More content, particularly local TV stations, sports, specials, network TV and more movie channels.   Solution:   Apple provides a service to have all of this content converted and available on Apple's iCloud servers to anyone authorized by the content provider to see it worldwide..   For those content providers that want complete control (like HBO does now), then they can develop and distribute apps like HBOGo, which would provide the content over the internet.  But in this case the costs of hosting and providing all of that content falls on the content provider.  My bet is that Apple will figure out the economics and make such a iCloud service very cost effective.

 

2)  User experience with multiple devices is fragmented.   Having a home stereo, TV, DVD, etc. all hooked up to the TV is cumbersome and difficult - most people don't ever use even 2% of the options that their "entertainment equipment" provides.   Solution:  Apple consolidates the various devices (remotes) and integrates them into a voice controlled master interface.  Think Siri for your entertainment center.  Talk to your iDevice and your entertainment system will obey.

 

3)  Anywhere, anytime.   The current AppleTV works fine (as described above) if you have a WiFi setup.  But if you want to use Airplay and its mirroring functionality outside of a WiFi environment you are stuck (you can do it with an Airport Express to set up a WiFi hotspot but its cumbersome, as you have to download and run the Airport Utility on your iDevice - I know because I am in the process of doing this for a board of directors I work with who want to display their presentations from their iPad to a plasma TV in the boardroom).   Solution:   Build the router into the AppleTV and allow all devices (laptops, iDevices, cameras, etc.) to mirror to any TV/Display with an AppleTV attached.  A nice addition would be to allow the Apple TV router to be cellular compatible so that it could perform in remote locations.  This keeps the costs down (only an inexpensive AppleTV is needed to make any entertainment system or TV/display anywhere an instant portal to all digital content), but folks will flock to the Apple ecosystem and purchase all of the connecting devices.

 

4)  Apps, apps, apps.   Going forward your entertainment system with an AppleTV will be both your office and your entertainment area.  With a laptop/iDevice and the WiFi enabled ad hoc network everything else can be wirelessly connected - printers (3d printers by that time), communications (think telephone, video conferencing, texting,, social media and all other forms of communications short of face to face meetings), all home or surrounding systems (think security systems, heating and air conditioning, lighting, "follow me" controls )whereby the user's iDevice will remember what is displaying in one room and automatically turn it on when traveling to another room), the TV/monitor will provide not only mirroring but a second screen when working on connected devices (think video editing and multi-program tasking).  Apps to answer questions (think Wolfram Alpha through Siri but with video and audio playback), stream content (both to and from your attached devices) 

 

 

When Steve was quoted as saying he "cracked it" he was referring to both Siri and Airplay - together they provide the core technology going forward.  Those are both available now.   Once the above is completed then Apple's TV experience will be complete.  But as you see, none of that requires Apple to manufacture a TV!

post #15 of 36

Replace 'TV' with 'cell phone' in this article and I will swear that I have already read it.

 

I wouldn't believe an analyst even if he pointed at a circle and told me it was round. 

post #16 of 36

Here's hoping they use liquid metal to create this behemoth so we don't end up having to buy industrial strength cranes to mount tvs to the wall. 

Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla View Post

Ugh. We're moving and leaving the 65" rear-projection Sony HDTV behind with a charity. 

 

Looks like we'll have to buy a sub-$500 cheapo to use with our AppleTV for a while.

 

I'm ignoring these rumors from now on.

 

 

I don't see how any one of these three sentences makes any sense at all.

 

Why a rear projection?  They are dim and don't work well off-axis.

 

Why get a crappy TV when for just a little more you can get a great TV?

 

Why ignore rumors of an Apple TV when you need a TV?

post #18 of 36

So the point of this article (and the analyst's report) is that if the hypothetical Apple Television Set, which won't be out this year, was to come out, Apple would, hypothetically, have to strike a deal with the TV distributors.

 

So, in other words "Nothing to see here, move along."

 

So everyone talks about the new Apple product that they haven't even suggested they might announce, based on wild speculation. Usually vapourware requires unsubstantiated claims made by the manufacturer, but Apple doesn't have to bother with that.

 

Next will be the release of a study by analysts that if Apple don't announce the mythical Apple Television soon, their stock price will collapse under its own gravity, heralding a new dark age.

post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyMc7 View Post

There is an option for Apple is to go out and buy their own content and with their hoards of money buy some of the popular content out from under the networks.

 

Apple has a huge install base of iOS hand helds, AppleTV, and MAC OS devices.

 

People will be driven to watch this content on Apple devices, this will not sit well with Advertisers or the Cable / Sat  provider's.

 

Apple can then use the exclusive, in demand programming, and large install base as leverage to get access to the contracts, programming, and bundles to break up this bundle requirement.

 

 

Beside the content war, Apple absolutely must secure either cable providers or ISP'S to deliver the feeds. The problem is every major ISP's also offer TV bundles.   Apple is trying to get partners to deliver IPTV but you can't do it without the ISP's.  So the negotiations are raging over VOD. Apple has given up live TV and is trying to share video on demand revenue with the ISP's. The last info I have on this is comcast turn them down, either AT&T and Verizon are onboard because it will give them an edge to steal subscribers from cable to IPTV. The negotiations are far from over, but its looking like Apple is going to side with the land lines telephone companies and they will try to steal the cable co. subscribers with a better offer both on TV bundle and on hardware, resulting in a better user experience.

 

Apple is also trying to use the subsidies business model for TV's, just like in the iPhone maker.

post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


Beside the content war, Apple absolutely must secure either cable providers or ISP'S to deliver the feeds. The problem is every major ISP's also offer TV bundles.   Apple is trying to get partners to deliver IPTV but you can't do it without the ISP's.  So the negotiations are raging over VOD. Apple has given up live TV and is trying to share video on demand revenue with the ISP's. The last info I have on this is comcast turn them down, either AT&T and Verizon are onboard because it will give them an edge to steal subscribers from cable to IPTV. The negotiations are far from over, but its looking like Apple is going to side with the land lines telephone companies and they will try to steal the cable co. subscribers with a better offer both on TV bundle and on hardware, resulting in a better user experience.

Apple is also trying to use the subsidies business model for TV's, just like in the iPhone maker.

With FiOS, Verizon is doing a perfectly good job of stealing customers from cable companies.
"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 #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


With FiOS, Verizon is doing a perfectly good job of stealing customers from cable companies.

 

FiOS and U-verse are great compare to cable indeed.  But using iOS which is a broader OS would enhance the experience, especially regarding apps and things like airplay.  I don't know about VZ, but I can tell you that other DSL companies are trying to make both iOS and there current OS run with the IPTV architecture on the same network. Its doable and that will allow to offer multiple OS ecosystems so that ISP'S are not committed to a single ecosystem. That will also allow to deploy Apple Tv's without impacting existing customers. Apple wants to close down the network to be exclusive, but the ISP's don't want that. Maybe some will do it for a limited time, negotiating with Apple is no picnic. 

 

The cellular and TV distribution business models are about to merge into something more like the wireless world, with subsidies and everything.  In that world the companies that already have both wireless and landlines will have an hedge. Apple is going to invade that market and turn it upside down, but not like most people expects it. I know everyone wants Apple to become a live TV provider over the net and bypass the ISP's, but it will never happen.


Edited by herbapou - 5/3/12 at 5:23pm
post #22 of 36

1. Take a television.

 

2. Build in an Apple TV.

 

3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.

 

4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.

 

5. Profit!

post #23 of 36

I have a better solution:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

1. Take a television.

 

2. Buy an Apple TV.

 

3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.

 

4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.

 

5. Profit!

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #24 of 36

Now that TVs are smart they change to fast.  The idea of a tv as one integrated device is stupid.  It will be outdated in 2 - 3 years.  No one is going to pay for a new TV every few years.  Apple needs to change the way smart TVs work.  They should deploy awesome monitors.  They already have some of the best computer monitors.  Make them pretty and bigger and you're done.  Then come out with a smaller AppleTV brain the size of an iPhone that plugs into the monitor.  Let it run apps and it becomes a game console.  The "brain" can cost $100 - $200 and people will buy a new one every 2 - 3 years to have the latest and greatest.  The content will come in time.  Apple doesn't need to push or do anything.  TV is moving toward the internet.  They just need to position themselves as the delivery system.  Some people will want to bundle their tv through cable.  If you watch a lot of tv its a great deal. Others will want to purchase subscriptions to apps.  Look at what MLB has done with their app.  If the NFL and B1G Ten Network did that, I'd be done with cable. In time they'll all move that way.  MLB is the brilliant for doing it first in sports.  

 

Apple isn't going to release an AppleTV that's just improving on the model that's already out there.  They will do something different.  That's what makes Apple special.  When they do it, they'll make a crazy profit and leave people wondering how they make 72% of the profit on 8% of the devices sold.  

post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfoltz View Post

Now that TVs are smart they change to fast.  The idea of a tv as one integrated device is stupid.  It will be outdated in 2 - 3 years.  No one is going to pay for a new TV every few years.  Apple needs to change the way smart TVs work.  They should deploy awesome monitors.  They already have some of the best computer monitors.  Make them pretty and bigger and you're done.  Then come out with a smaller AppleTV brain the size of an iPhone that plugs into the monitor.  Let it run apps and it becomes a game console.  The "brain" can cost $100 - $200 and people will buy a new one every 2 - 3 years to have the latest and greatest.  The content will come in time.  Apple doesn't need to push or do anything.  TV is moving toward the internet.  They just need to position themselves as the delivery system.  Some people will want to bundle their tv through cable.  If you watch a lot of tv its a great deal. Others will want to purchase subscriptions to apps.  Look at what MLB has done with their app.  If the NFL and B1G Ten Network did that, I'd be done with cable. In time they'll all move that way.  MLB is the brilliant for doing it first in sports.  

 

Apple isn't going to release an AppleTV that's just improving on the model that's already out there.  They will do something different.  That's what makes Apple special.  When they do it, they'll make a crazy profit and leave people wondering how they make 72% of the profit on 8% of the devices sold.  

 

What you are describing is a violation of US Federal Law as described by pt123 in Post No. 7. To be specific, TV monitors are not allowed on the consumer market. Each TV set sold in the US is required to have an ATSC tuner. I might remind you that cable and satellite delivery are losing customers. IPTV is growing rapidly albeit on a small base. Over-the-air broadcasts account for most of the attrition of the pay TV subscriber base.

 

I agree with I am a Zither Zather Zuzz in Post No. 2. The problem with TV is not content delivery. Many localities have cable systems with 1000s of channels. In and around large cities, OTA viewers may have more than 50 program streams to choose from. Consider the addition of video game consoles, Blu-ray players, and IP-based steaming devices. Availability of content is simply not the issue for the vast majority of potential customers. Don't forget that Apple is already a content provider with its iTunes Music Store. Apple can add features to the iTMS and to its TV STB. If Apple introduces a HDTV with integrated TV, then meh. Such a TV would be an advance, but it would not be a revolution--not even close.

 

The problem with TV is that we are still navigating and managing content pretty much the way we did the job 30-40 years ago. We need a new paradigm for a 1000-channel multi-device world. I can imagine Siri's being an important option for controlling the TV. However, it makes no sense as the primary method of navigation. Neither does a simple remote control. How on Earth can a couch potato navigate 1000 channels with a one-button remote? I propose that the revolution will lay not in the HDTV per se, but the remote control. As of this writing, you may download any number of iOS remote control emulators for a plethora of devices including the Google TV. An iOS-based remote control offers the possibility of essentially perfect emulation of the stock remote controls for each device in your entertainment center. Many of those stock remotes have terrible button layouts. This is, in fact, by design. Because an iOS-based remote has virtual buttons, it is not restricted to the terrible layout of the stock remotes. To the contrary, iOS offers the possibility of a plug-in universal remote architecture that seamlessly integrates all components of your entertainment system. During a spate of rumors earlier this year, I recall that it was rumored that the Apple HDTV universal remote control would offer auto-discovery. 

 

Auto-discovery is not possible with one-way communication between the remote and the components being controlled. An Apple HDTV, however, creates the possibility of two-way communication between the Apple HDTV set and its iOS-based remote control. The TV could be paired with one or more specific iOS devices which prevents authorized control of the TV. Consider thumbnail preview icons on the remote of each available program irrespective of source. Switch to a new program by touching its thumbnail on the remote.

post #26 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Actually the arguments were correct, Apple made a bad phone, it was highly prone to dropping calls...

Simply - garbage! (Well, in my opinion.)

Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

 

 

Apple customers don't care about picture quality.   Picture and sound quality have never been big sellers.

 

Its the UX, Stupid.  The UX.

 

And if anybody has cracked the UX it is Apple.   

 

 

I don't think that reliance on picture quality could possibly make up for the headache induced by most people's current setups. Mom can't figure out the dozen buttons that you need to push to get the sound of a DVD to actually come out of the Home Theater System.  Nobody knows which remote control to use to adjust the volume.

 

Better picture quality don't fix it.  Its the UX, and there's no room for complex input choices.

 

Apple will make it as simple to watch TV as they make it to buy a song on iTunes.

 

 

You really have a low opinion of the general public. Admittedly most are not exactly shining lights as far as IQ goes, believing in all sorts of rubbish, from UFOs to gods, psychics, and "alternative" medicine, but I think even those people know how to turn the volume up or down.

post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv View Post

1. Take a television.

 

2. Build in an Apple TV.

 

3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.

 

4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.

 

5. Profit!

 

How would that be any different from a TV from Samsung, Panasonic, or anyone else? All TVs have apps now, in fact they have a lot more apps than an Apple TV does. The ATV interface isn't anything special, I'd say it was a rather ugly bare bones affair, so what would make it stand out?

 

In terms of case design, some of the new wafer thin Samsungs are striking, and I can't see much room for improvement there either.

 

I'd say Apple's best bet would be to make the ATV into a fully fledged iOS device and give it an app store. Further down the road, next year perhaps when the Power VR Rogue and Cortex A15 are ready, it could be re-positioned as a competitor to the Wii U.

post #29 of 36

IMHO all comparisons between the introduction of the iPhone and the possible introduction of an Apple-branded TV are meaningless. Think about it. The iPhone was not revolutionary per se. There were some cell phones before iPhone that did play music, did have games, and did (in a way) access the internet. But the iPhone was a quantum leap in all these areas. For those few old cell phones, music/games/internet were minor add-ons, poorly implemented. In introducing the iPhone, Jobs made it clear that the iPhone was three co-equal devices: a widescreen iPod; a cell phone (which he called revolutionary); and an internet device. In that order--media, communication, information. Also keep in mind that the app and app-store universe we have today wasn't really part of the mix yet. The cell phone world was caught completely flat-footed. (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U)

 

This is not the case, again IMHO, with the world of television. What possible quantum leap could ANY manufacturer make either in hardware or content in the next, say, five years? Holographic displays? There's room for many great improvements, yes; quantum leaps, no. And the TV industry (both hardware and content) is now forewarned. For example, more TVs now have internet access. Still lousy but fixable without any new radical technology. 

 

I agree with some of the other posters in this thread. Too many issues, too few solutions, too little innovation. Apple may "crack" the secret to a "simple and elegant" television interface, but does that mean actually building a TV? I don't think so.

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #30 of 36

I will pay Discovery Networks $15 a month for their channels (far more than they get from me now through Comcast), and I'll pay Comcast $40 bucks for the pipe (including broadband).

 

I don't care about any other channels, or Comcast.

 

I consider Comcast the plumber in all this, not the content provider.

 

And indeed, I am willing to cancel my Cable TV at this point because I am sick of paying $95 a month for a scant few channels I actually watch.

 

Something has to change ... if a channel can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.

 

Ala carte channel pricing is where we need to get to ... Apple has the best chance to make that (force that) to happen.  Bundled channels are for the birds and a patently unfair practice.

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by axual View Post

I will pay Discovery Networks $15 a month for their channels (far more than they get from me now through Comcast), and I'll pay Comcast $40 bucks for the pipe (including broadband).

 

I don't care about any other channels, or Comcast.

 

I consider Comcast the plumber in all this, not the content provider.

 

And indeed, I am willing to cancel my Cable TV at this point because I am sick of paying $95 a month for a scant few channels I actually watch.

 

Something has to change ... if a channel can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.

 

Ala carte channel pricing is where we need to get to ... Apple has the best chance to make that (force that) to happen.  Bundled channels are for the birds and a patently unfair practice.

I have to agree with your sentiments. I'm tired of paying for crap channels because they are part of a package. Comcast does not want to offer channels separately. I will drop their content delivery and use them for internet only.

post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

The problem with TV is not content delivery. Many localities have cable systems with 1000s of channels...The problem with TV is that we are still navigating and managing content pretty much the way we did the job 30-40 years ago. We need a new paradigm for a 1000-channel multi-device world.

 

The problem is content delivery - the specific problem being the increasingly untenable cost of the content bundle.  Paying Comcast $85/month  (yep, that's what the long-term post-teaser rate is in my locale) just to watch Comedy Central and Discovery Channel is a complete ripoff, especially when I know $20 of it's going to ESPN, who I could give a FF about.   An Apple TV that managed to package its programming with an a la carte subscription model would indeed be a category-killing product.

As for content management in a 1000-channel world?  First of all nobody, watches 1000 channels; they only need to search through them, a process that any number of UI paradigms might support.  As for keeping track of them, subscribing to them, etc., we've got a host of paradigms that already support that as well.

An Apple TV that allows the aggregation - not simply discovery - of the small, interesting subset of those 1000 channels at a reasonable cost will be a successful product.

post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioinside View Post

 

The problem is content delivery - the specific problem being the increasingly untenable cost of the content bundle.  Paying Comcast $85/month  (yep, that's what the long-term post-teaser rate is in my locale) just to watch Comedy Central and Discovery Channel is a complete ripoff, especially when I know $20 of it's going to ESPN, who I could give a FF about.   An Apple TV that managed to package its programming with an a la carte subscription model would indeed be a category-killing product.

As for content management in a 1000-channel world?  First of all nobody, watches 1000 channels; they only need to search through them, a process that any number of UI paradigms might support.  As for keeping track of them, subscribing to them, etc., we've got a host of paradigms that already support that as well.

An Apple TV that allows the aggregation - not simply discovery - of the small, interesting subset of those 1000 channels at a reasonable cost will be a successful product.

I just don't see the economic benefits for most consumers. Look at what Apple charges through iTunes for a season pass for a popular show. One show I enjoy is $65/season. Some other shows are less so I'm going to round it off and say that a show worth watching is $60/season. I only watch 5 series regularly. That's $300/year.

 

My wife also watches TV. She watches 7 series that I don't watch. So now we're at an estimated cost of 12 x $60 = $720/year.

 

I buy a bundle of services from my cable company: internet, telephone and TV. Including channel packages I pay extra for the television portion of my bill is $58/mo or $696/year.

 

So cable TV is cheaper on an annual basis than buying the same content from iTunes.

 

But wait, there's more. I watch some live sports too and local news from time to time and Jeopardy! and my wife watches stuff I don't even know about outside of prime time series. Then there's all the stuff our two kids sit in front of. Admittedly we wouldn't pay for some of that stuff if there was a separate bill for it, but it's essentially free.

 

You see the marginal cost of adding one more show to my viewing schedule via iTunes is $60. The marginal cost of adding another show via cable is zero. We could have television sets running 24/7 in every room in the house and it wouldn't cost us another penny for content. (the electricity bill would be scary though!)

 

 

Bottom line: unless Apple can find a way to significantly lower prices then there's zero chance that I'll be cutting the cable in the next 20 years.

post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post
One show I enjoy is $65/season.

 

What kind of season costs SIXTY-FIVE BUCKS?!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post
The marginal cost of adding another show via cable is zero.

 

Unless it's on a channel you don't get.

 

Quote:
 We could have television sets running 24/7 in every room in the house and it wouldn't cost us another penny for content. (the electricity bill would be scary though!)

 

And you'd need to, which brings me to my next point.

 

 

Quote:

Bottom line: unless Apple can find a way to significantly lower prices then there's zero chance that I'll be cutting the cable in the next 20 years

 

 

iTunes is the ability to watch what you want any time you want. Not so with cable/satellite. Season Pass is the equivalent of a digital DVD box set, months before it's actually released.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Oh I totally agree- I think the apple tv will be as simple as an AppleTV merged in to a TV and Apple will introduce a new App model specifically to include video when it is introduced.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

How would that be any different from a TV from Samsung, Panasonic, or anyone else? All TVs have apps now, in fact they have a lot more apps than an Apple TV does. The ATV interface isn't anything special, I'd say it was a rather ugly bare bones affair, so what would make it stand out?

In terms of case design, some of the new wafer thin Samsungs are striking, and I can't see much room for improvement there either.

I'd say Apple's best bet would be to make the ATV into a fully fledged iOS device and give it an app store. Further down the road, next year perhaps when the Power VR Rogue and Cortex A15 are ready, it could be re-positioned as a competitor to the Wii U.

An apple app system that focused on broadcast video would be different because all these tv manufacturers have incompatible apps that no one really cares about. Apple has the market penetration and name recognition to bring the broadcast industry's attention. I'm talking about an NBC App that shows their broadcast in realtime, or a Modern Family app that collets all episodes but also allows for realtime watching when new episodes are broadcast.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple television not expected to 'break the bundle' from cable