or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn chief says company is preparing for Apple television - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foxconn chief says company is preparing for Apple television - report - Page 2

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Panasonic just reported a 10.2 billion dollar loss on their TV business and decline in sales by 40%. Samsung spun off their display unit. Sony is floundering. Sharp isn't doing well either...This is a very low margin business with a race to the bottom. Why would Apple want to get involved? A TV is not a bi-annual gadget. 

 

Apple will need to revamp the TV business model indeed. That is exactly what they are trying to do. Technicly Apple could release a smartTV right now, but the revamp of the business model is whats stalling them.

post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
Apple will need to revamp the TV business model indeed. That is exactly what they are trying to do. Technicly Apple could release a smartTV right now, but the revamp of the business model is whats stalling them.

 

I'd think the pointlessness of a television is what's 'stalling' them.

 

I don't see Apple reinventing the market until they can get a fully Internet-based solution signed, sealed, and licensed. And even then it'll be through the Apple TV, not a stupid panel.

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 #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Do you really believe Apple will sell something at a low margin and try to make it up someplace else? They havent done that yet and i highly doubt they'll start now. They can achieve the same thing with the Apple TV, actually even more so.

 

Regarding the Apple TV, Apple is being brillant indeed. They are using A5 rejects , they disable the defect core and use those single core A5 into Apple TV's.

post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'd think the pointlessness of a television is what's 'stalling' them.

 

I don't see Apple reinventing the market until they can get a fully Internet-based solution signed, sealed, and licensed. And even then it'll be through the Apple TV, not a stupid panel.

 

A full TV set brings the issue of upgrades indeed. Why change a 50+ inch TV set after just 2 years just to upgrade to the latest CPU? Those are valid concerns. But this is exactly what the new business model is all about.

 

But I am pretty confident they will never drop the set-top box. The final product may be just a monitor + box (that would suprise me but we never know). I think there is a market for full TV sets because some people trive for neat installations. The main goal is to simplified the user experience. A single piece of hardware that does everything and is easy to install is one way to simplifiy things.

 

I am not going to comment on "fully Internet-based solution" because I know you will get mad :-) They will support IPTV indeed, but how to do it is not as simple as people think it is.

post #45 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
I am not going to comment on "fully Internet-based solution" because I know you will get mad :-)

 

You just don't believe it's possible.


I say, "Just look at the iTunes Music Store". All we need is another one of those.

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 #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

You just don't believe it's possible.


I say, "Just look at the iTunes Music Store". All we need is another one of those.


The problem is "live feeds"  On demand feed are easy indeed.

 

ok no, the problem is "live feeds" to large amount of customers in a reliable way.  Now that a more complete statement.

post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
ok no, the problem is "live feeds" to large amount of customers in a reliable way.  Now that a more complete statement.

 

Giant data center in Oregon.

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 #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Giant data center in Oregon.


The problem with live feeds is not storage, its delivery. Storage is a " video on demand" problem. Delivery of pre-recorded things is easy to solved. Apple will have no problem to handle VOD in large volumes, many are already doing it (netflix, hulu, youtube, ...)

 

The oregon Data center tells us that Apple is moving to a more serious icloud play. It could be massive video on demand or virtual disk drives, or both.

 

Note: Just want to make sure people understand the difference between live and VOD.  A TV channel is a stream that changes all the time, like CNN for example. Video on demand (a movie rental for example) is streaming something that is pre-recorded and store somewhere on the net. Handling a live stream is much more difficult for networks than handling something pre-recorded. If you want to know more about handling live TV channels, look at IPTV on wikipedia.


Edited by herbapou - 5/11/12 at 1:01pm
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedivFerx View Post

There's no question Apple could redefine television. An "iTV" could provide an elegant user experience to replace the daunting mess of cluttered remotes and menus that consumers currently face. While customers won't upgrade TVs nearly as often as they do their mobile phones, a TV product will further extend Apple's ecosystem and cement loyalty.

Apple's real challenge is content. Content owners are joined at the hip with the cable industry and seem intent on blocking any newcomers that might threaten their business model. But with overpriced cable TV service offering increasingly poor content choices and intrusive advertising across their hundreds of channels, many people are ready to cut the cord and pay only for the content they want, when they want it. An Apple TV could be just the catalyst for this shift.
Hmm...I have DirecTV and it's not a cluttered mess of anything. Explain how an Apple TV would provide me a better experience than DirecTV. And I'm only talking about experience, not price.
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Hmm...I have DirecTV and it's not a cluttered mess of anything. Explain how an Apple TV would provide me a better experience than DirecTV. And I'm only talking about experience, not price.

 

I think the goal is to integrated everything in a single, simple interface.  So:  TV channels, movie rentals, over the air TV, PvR, apps, Airplay, games, video calls, internet... all handle by a single device in a single interface with a single remote. Apple will try to make it easy to handle all this and to have complete integration with other devices like computers, phones, tablets so no matter what you want to do, it just works.

 

Regarding cutting the Cable cord, hmm... we will see.  But I think Apple will actually work with cable (or Internet service provider), not against them.


Edited by herbapou - 5/11/12 at 12:54pm
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
So:  TV channels, movie rentals, over the air TV, PvR, apps, Airplay, games, video calls, internet... all handle by a single device in a single interface with a single remote.

 

And paid for through three completely different services, the ability to use two of which at all depending entirely on where you live.

 

Quote:

Regarding cutting the Cable cord, hmm... we will see.  But I think Apple will actually work with cable (or Internet service provider), not against them.

 

Then what's the point? Seriously, why would I spend $2,000 on a TV of lesser physical quality if I still have to deal with the same crap spewed for the last four decades? I don't want a hundred channels that I didn't pick. I don't want twenty channels that I didn't pick. I don't want CHANNELS, even, but that's me.

 

Cable and satellite providers won't be changing their minds any time soon. Apple has to go around them, subvert them, to 1. make any actual change and 2. to create an experience worth paying more than the cost of a good panel and a $99 box for.

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 #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And paid for through three completely different services, the ability to use two of which at all depending entirely on where you live.

 

Then what's the point? Seriously, why would I spend $2,000 on a TV of lesser physical quality if I still have to deal with the same crap spewed for the last four decades? I don't want a hundred channels that I didn't pick. I don't want twenty channels that I didn't pick. I don't want CHANNELS, even, but that's me.

 

Cable and satellite providers won't be changing their minds any time soon. Apple has to go around them, subvert them, to 1. make any actual change and 2. to create an experience worth paying more than the cost of a good panel and a $99 box for.

 

 

It would be nice if Apple could go around Cable, but since Cable are offen also internet providers they cant. IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level so it is impossible for Apple to deliver TV channels stream without involving the internet provider. Apple could still offer pre-recorded content and bypass ISP/cable, but that means no TV channels.

 

The good news is that most traditional cable are still stuck in QAM architectures. Verizon and AT&T have more modern networks and there TV offering already use the IPTV protocol.  So Apple could easily side with DSL companies that wants nothing more than steal cable clients.  IF cable want to play hardball, reject Apple and keep offering costly TV packages, they will get own by DSL and die.

post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
IPTV must be implemented at the ISP level so it is impossible for Apple to deliver TV channels stream without involving the internet provider.

 

NBC (ah, bad example)… So Netflix has to go to every ISP and ask for permission? So The Discovery Channel has to talk to every ISP before they can offer their shows online?

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 #54 of 59
Do these special preparations involve the installation of more suicide safety nets?
post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

NBC (ah, bad example)… So Netflix has to go to every ISP and ask for permission? So The Discovery Channel has to talk to every ISP before they can offer their shows online?

 

Netflix doesn't do live IPTV, its streaming pre-recorded content.  You are still mixing up live IPTV with video on demand, its not the same. I strongly suggest you try to understand the difference between streaming pre-recorded content and broadcasting a live TV channel over the net. Has long has you don't understand the difference, you will never get it. I suggest you read the IPTV section on wikipedia

 

You can't send large amounts of live TV feeds into an ISP network, it will collapse over the load. Its going to work for a very limited number of users only and this is why you will see live TV over the net, but for very limited volume. The IPTV architecture requires multicast of the TV feeds inside the ISP network to avoid overloading. Its costly and this is why coverage for FIOS and U-verse is still limited. If someone is not deserved by some kind of IPTV capable ISP, he can't have IPTV, its that simple. There is nothing Apple can do about it, its a pipe problem.


Edited by herbapou - 5/11/12 at 2:37pm
post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post
You can't send large amounts of live TV feeds into an ISP network, it will collapse over the load. There is nothing Apple can do about it, its a pipe problem.

 

So why shouldn't Apple just go ahead with their plans in places that can handle it? All this does is thrust into the spotlight the laughable inadequacy of US Internet.

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 #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So why shouldn't Apple just go ahead with their plans in places that can handle it? All this does is thrust into the spotlight the laughable inadequacy of US Internet.

 

This is what Apple is trying to do.  But the other thing you need to understand is Apple can't send its own live IPTV feeds, it needs to use the ones already being multicast by the ISP.  For example, Apple cannot send its own CNN feed to Verizon FiOS network, it needs to used the CNN being broadcast by Verizon on its IPTV network.  But why would Verizon send there TV feeds into an Apple TV and have Apple collect the fee? Then won't unless they strike a deal with Apple.

 

Apple is currently trying to strike deals with ISP'S, if they can't they won't be able to offer IPTV integrated into the iOS interface. But Apple could allow Verizon to build an app for iOS so Verizon can offer IPTV packages straight into the iOS interface.

post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Sorry, but this is an idiotic post. Just replace 'TV' with 'Tablet' a few years ago, and you could have written the same thing.

 

Not the same thing at all. Media Tablets pretty much didn't exist. No one owned one, lots of market potential.

 

HDTVs have saturated the market, Nearly everyone owns one, and sales are in decline, and everyone is losing billions. There really isn't much market potential.

 

Partnering with Sharp? Worse TV panels on the market from my observation.

 

I am not buying this story as a confirmation, likely a bad translation, out of context, to garner page hits.

post #59 of 59

As I suspected, the "confirmation" was total BS. Likely someone mining for page hits:

 

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/05/11/foxconn-chairman-confirms-company-is-to-build-apples-new-televisions/


 

Quote:

In remarks at a media briefing during the groundbreaking of Foxconn’s new China headquarters in Shanghai on May 10, Terry Gou, Foxconn’s Chief Executive Officer, made it very clear that he would neither confirm nor speculate about Foxconn’s involvement in the production of any product for any customer because Foxconn’s policy is not to comment on any customers or their products.

At no time did he confirm that Foxconn was in development or manufacturing stages for any product for any of its customers.  He did say that  Foxconn is always prepared to meet the manufacturing needs of customers should they determine that they wish to work with Foxconn in the production of any of their products.   Any reports that Foxconn confirmed that it is preparing to produce a specific product for any customer are not accurate.

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn chief says company is preparing for Apple television - report