or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV

post #1 of 80
Thread Starter 
Apple may be taking their self-described Apple TV "hobby" a step further as new reports claim the company is in talks with major cable providers, asking them to let consumers use an Apple-branded set-top box to view live television and other video content.

According to people familiar with the talks, Apple has yet to reach a deal with any of the cable operators, possibly because of a reluctance on the part of the providers to let the tech giant into the live TV space, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The sources go on to say the technology involved in the proposed box could feasibly fit inside a television, though it is unclear what features are covered in Apple's plans. Currently, the Cupertino company sells the $99 Apple TV, a small black device that streams content from the internet, iTunes, Hulu and other sources, as well as from compatible devices like the iPad over AirPlay. Apparently the set-top box in discussion would add to those capabilities by allowing users to view live content.

In addition to the pressure from cable companies, which are hesitant to have their power eroded much like the record and wireless industries, Apple must face the challenge of getting consumers to purchase a box outright instead of renting it. Traditionally, cable subscribers rent their boxes directly from a cable provider for a nominal fee, but Apple would take on a model akin to TiVo's which hasn't made much of a dent in the market.

One of the sources claims Apple has been toying with the idea of building a cable box for over two years, before the company revamped the Apple TV into a small streaming device. Late Apple cofounder and CEO Steve Jobs reportedly cooled to the idea, noting that partnering with regional cable operators could cause issues because of their limited reach. Also at issue is that entertainment companies own a large portion of what is broadcast, not the cable operators, according to two sources.

Interestingly, one of the people familiar with the talks claims Apple has discussed interest in being an exclusive provider of set-top boxes using internet protocol tech, something the company has some expertise in given its previous Apple TV iterations.

Apple TV
Apple's current Apple TV is limited to streaming content. | Source: Apple


During the company's third fiscal quarter conference call in July, it was revealed that some 1.3 million Apple TVs were sold during the three month period, up 170 percent year-to-year. At the time, the total number of Apple TVs sold through the 2012 fiscal year stood at over 4 million units with an installed base of 6.8 million, a result that CEO Tim Cook called "pretty incredible."

Wednesday's news comes after Apple CEO Tim Cook met with Time Warner Cable chief executive Glen Britt at the annual Sun Valley media conference in July. According to the sources, Time Warner is one of the cable companies Apple is currently talking to over the mysterious set-top box.
post #2 of 80
Quote:


I see a patent lawsuit from Microsoft if apple does this
post #3 of 80

But… but I want to waste thousands on a giant television that I'll replace every single year instead of a $99 box!

 

Just gotta keep reminding myself: I do want AI to report on everything, no matter how outlandish… 

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #4 of 80

I'd pay the PAC 12 Networks a whole lot more for a year's subscription than they would get through any user fees the cable/sats pay them each year. Please let this be true.

~Tokolosh
Reply
~Tokolosh
Reply
post #5 of 80
Been saying this for at least a year now...

Ever since Cablevision started rolling out an iOS app... We can see just about everything on iOS cept for the PPV stuff ... Then again that might have changed... They are totally embracing the iOS world it's quite amazing.

Anyway I coud see this given what CV has been up to.
Edited by DaveGee - 8/15/12 at 6:28pm
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #6 of 80
So much for the cord cutters.
post #7 of 80

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.  

 

That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor. 

post #8 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr View Post

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.  

 

That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor. 

 

That may not be true, depending on what their TV does.  If it is an integrated product that works with cable, fiber and satellite, has DVR etc...and delivers an exceptional viewing experience...it may be quite successful.  Breaking the cable and satellite content/hardware model is the issue.  If I had a chance to replace that lousy hardware with Apple?  Yeah, I'm in.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 80
I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.
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 #10 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr View Post

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.  

 

That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor. 

One thing with this rumor is if they make a set top box that the cable companies then sell to you subsidized, they can make far more profits and margins.

 

It'd be like the iPhone all over again, and I would expect exclusive deals with Comcast and Time Warner.

 

I imagine that each box would cost $300-400, but after the cable companies subsidize them it would only cost consumers $99. Who wouldn't switch from their regular cable box to an Apple one especially if they get all the same programing plus an easy to use Apple user interface and iTunes connectivity?

post #11 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That may not be true, depending on what their TV does.  If it is an integrated product that works with cable, fiber and satellite, has DVR etc...and delivers an exceptional viewing experience...it may be quite successful.  Breaking the cable and satellite content/hardware model is the issue.  If I had a chance to replace that lousy hardware with Apple?  Yeah, I'm in.  

DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?
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 #12 of 80

The concept of "live TV" when referring to taped programs needs to die. Period.

 

News channels can continue to exist as they always have. Special broadcasts like the Olympics and sporting events can do the same.

 

But for regular shows? No, no. That's not how we reinvent television. If that's all this deal amounts to (and I don't imagine at all that it is), then Apple has truly failed spectacularly.


Edited by Tallest Skil - 8/15/12 at 9:44pm

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #13 of 80

Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.

 

Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step.  ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes.  And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.

 

The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...

post #14 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99 View Post

Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.

 

Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step.  ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes.  And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.

 

The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...

 

Tivio's business model is completely broken, since the cable companies subsidize their own PVR boxes. Apple requires healthy profit margins on all their hardware, so how is this going to fly? Besides, I'm sure Apple has no desire to be a middle man, since their M.O. has been to deal directly with content providers. Apple going through the cable companies to provide content, as well as requiring their customers to have cable subscriptions, make absolutely no sense. Where's the value proposition for Apple?
post #15 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99 View Post

Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.

Or they own the content outright.  Comcast owns NBC for example.

 

Quote:
Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step.  ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes.  And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.

 

 

Except you still have to deal with people who cannot get cable or do not want it (satellite users, FiOS) and people in other countries. There just isn't any standards

 

Quote:
The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...

There is going to be a cost no matter what.  Even Tivo costs money month to month.

 
ETA:  As pointed out above Cable DVR's are heavally subsidized.  You might not mind the upfront costs but tons of people do care which is why there really isn't a third party dvr service.
 
post #16 of 80

Trojan Horse

I still do not believe that the Apple TV as we know it is Apple's answer to mainstream television. Given their recent focus on display technology in their iDevices, I expect that they will still want to transfer this experience to TV viewers.

 

The "Apple TV" hobby is nothing more a Trojan Horse to pave the way for a full blown iTV with Apps, Siri, etc. Apple's plan is to quell the fears of the cable companies by showing them that their Apple TV is not a threat. Then they will organize and make deals for the Apple TV (as seen here) and then later introduce a wow iTV product and port the programming to the new device. 

post #17 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

Tivio's business model is completely broken, since the cable companies subsidize their own PVR boxes. Apple requires healthy profit margins on all their hardware, so how is this going to fly? Besides, I'm sure Apple has no desire to be a middle man, since their M.O. has been to deal directly with content providers. Apple going through the cable companies to provide content, as well as requiring their customers to have cable subscriptions, make absolutely no sense. Where's the value proposition for Apple?
We can't go a month (or less) without Apple TV rumors. I think most of it is BS fueled by Wall Streets expectation that Apple bring to market another revolutionary device. And in their minds that device will have something to do with TV. Sorry but I just can't see cable companies getting into bed with Apple.
post #18 of 80
Since when is $10 to $15 for each cable box a nominal fee? I have 4 cable boxes that over $40 a month in box fees! Should have used the word EXCESSIVE instead of NOMINAL!
post #19 of 80
Apple is known to set industry standards, for example iTunes. I think what Apple has plans to do is change the entire cable industry by doing something similar to what is done with the iPhone and iPad, by creating the hardware with features installed in them and having each individual company sell them with a plan. Cable companies would be like wireless carriers, a monthly fee would be charged just as they do now but, instead of a cable box, the customer would purchase an entire tv, in this case an Apple retina television. It is done in the wireless industry, why not the cable industry? A customer could as well buy an Apple tv at major retailers just as they would if they were in the market for a television today. Major retailers offer the ability to purchase Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint phones and plans, like an iPhone or iPad. It would benefit cable providers greatly, expanding their market from being solely sold by them, to selling their services in a larger commercial market, the retail store. Cable boxes are unasthetically pleasing to the eye as well, wires hang down from a tv or are hidden. If the cable box is included in the television, only one remote, an Apple device could be used as well to replace the one provided by the cable provider. Apple TV is considered only a hobby, a full fledged retina quality television with cable incorporated into it would be EXACTLY what Apple is known to do, think different.
post #20 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.

the content providers are the enemy. the cable companies are just low margin middlemen.

 

the content companies like disney make the cable companies buy whole groups of channels and tell them which service tier to carry them on

post #21 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.

Well said....I don't mind watching ads if the TV is free...I do mind having to pay $60/mo (cable) and also watching ads. I mind it a lot.

 

I cut the cord 4 years ago....but I do miss F1, Tennis, etc.

 

I wish Apple would just buy a SatTV company and Sprint and be done once and for all with cable and cell companies.

 

Who wouldn't pay Apple $99/mo to have an iPhone with unlimited everything and TV? The sooner the better.

post #22 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?

Brilliant! Are you from the future? :)

post #23 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFHJr View Post

This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market.  Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.  

That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade.  Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle.  Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor. 

I think the point is to spread the ecosystem. From what I ear one large iptv provider was able to support both the apple box and the motorola box on the same network. So its only a matter of striking a deal, technically, it works.

Cable Qam is a different tech, i didnt ear anything about anyone playing with apple qam cable box prototypes. Maybe the iptv apple box prototypes means at least one provider agreed to some kind of deal already.

I am glad to see those rumors coming out again, been a long time since the lasg ones.
Edited by herbapou - 8/15/12 at 8:15pm
post #24 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99 View Post

Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.

 

 

I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.

 

NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.

 

Golf? Forget about it.

 

PBS News Hour? A day late.

 

Video Podcasts? Suck

 

YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.

 

Formula One? Forget it.

 

Tennis...same.

 

Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!

 

Online viewing really sucks!


Edited by christopher126 - 8/15/12 at 7:55pm
post #25 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy View Post

 

Tivio's business model is completely broken, since the cable companies subsidize their own PVR boxes. Apple requires healthy profit margins on all their hardware, so how is this going to fly? Besides, I'm sure Apple has no desire to be a middle man, since their M.O. has been to deal directly with content providers. Apple going through the cable companies to provide content, as well as requiring their customers to have cable subscriptions, make absolutely no sense. Where's the value proposition for Apple?

Perhaps Apple feels they need to try a Trojan Horse tactic to crack this nut. The cable companies are fully aware of their intentions. Should be interesting.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #26 of 80
That's what I want!
post #27 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.

 

NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.

 

Golf? Forget about it.

 

PBS News Hour? A day late.

 

Video Podcasts? Suck

 

YouTube? Google so it automatically blows, enough said.

 

Formula One? Forget it.

 

Tennis...same.

 

Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!

 

Online viewing really sucks!

I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience.  Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle.  I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good.  I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively.  All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges.  There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling.  Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others.  Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that.  I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense.  Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.

post #28 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience.  Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle.  I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good.  I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively.  All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges.  There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling.  Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others.  Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that.  I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense.  Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.

Personnaly, i dont think Apple will try to support conventional qam cable unless they strike a deal with a major us cable provider. Its much easier to just support iptv, which is much more advance. And i think iptv coverage has improved a lot. FibeTV now as good coverage in canada and u-verse and Fios have decent coverage now in the US. Imo if apple can secure BCE, AT&T and Verizon it would be enough for a launch.
post #29 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?

Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.

The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.

Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.

That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #30 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience.  Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle.  I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good.  I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively.  All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges.  There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling.  Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others.  Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that.  I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense.  Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.

Good to  know...I've often thought that if money were no object, get TIVO, all the premium channels and just put it down as part of my entertainment budget! :) Some people blow the same amount of money in a bar on one night or a mediocre meal! :)

post #31 of 80

Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$  i don't have to give away-

 

I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...

 

My 2 cents... bitzandbitez

post #32 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!

A lot of words...but you are entirely correct! Sports to TV is like porn to the internet...both dominate.

post #33 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez View Post

Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$  i don't have to give away-

 

I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...

 

My 2 cents... bitzandbitez

I used that, too. but the picture quality was always subpar. I assume the HD is better. I used to Egalto Eyetv (DVR) everything I wanted on my iMac and then stream it to my AppleTV. Once it was set up it was pretty cool....again, except for the picture quality.

post #34 of 80

The hype os the Apple Television is dead.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #35 of 80

Well, Time Warner Cable's CEO has been quoted as saying that he'd love to get out of the set-top box business. Here's his big chance! 

post #36 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

But… but I want to waste thousands on a giant television that I'll replace every single year instead of a $99 box!

 

Just gotta keep reminding myself: I do want AI to report on everything, no matter how outlandish… 

 

Because you will have a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade it every year. If you haven't noticed, every TV manufacturer releases several new models a year. Somehow, it works out. If there is indeed an Apple TV, the hardware will be less important than the content and the ecosystem that goes along with it. And like it or not, a self contained TV is easier for most people to understand, and more tangible, than  black box you need to plug in to your TV, change the inputs to access, etc. Also, mobile CPUs/GPUs have reached a point where almost anything is possible. I don't see what they won't be able to do with an A15 chip in a TV, that will require yearly updates. This isn't 2007. The processing tech has matured greatly. The A5X handles the ultra-high resolution, beyond HDTV resolution iPad like butter. An A6 would be able to run a TV interface in its sleep. 

post #37 of 80
Bollocks
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #38 of 80
Apple has missed the opportunity to monetize pay TV now that all the pay TV operators expose their content via the 'TV Everywhere' paywall. Apple won't get a revenue split because all the pay TV operators are app developers, the apps themselves are free and the user pays the pay TV company for the programming directly.

Look at the AT&T, Verizon, Xfinity, etc apps, and NBCU's Olympics LiveExtra and you'll see. Yes it's pay TV - not everything on the Internet wants to be free. Online TV and Pay TV will grow more and more alike over time.

Same thing happened with Google TV. Only one pay TV provider integrated with the platform: Dish (and they did a pretty good job) . Google has since realized that its opportunity lies in embedding the GoogleTV platform with CE devices, not in trying to go up against a business model that the TV industry has been honing for 60+ years. That industry will continue in its own self interest, not that of Apple, Boxee, Google, or even TiVo ( which now pursues service providers, not consumer end users).
Edited by tvstrategies - 8/16/12 at 12:42am
post #39 of 80

As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well

post #40 of 80
They'd have to do it via UK industry and technical standards -YouView, iPlayer, etc -or partner with Sky or BT. Virgin is taken (TiVo)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in talks with cable providers over set-top box that handles live TV