or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple could be key for big media to monetize the small screen
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple could be key for big media to monetize the small screen - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Taking a big bite out of piracy and creating a multibillion dollar revenue stream for the record labels?
Creating what appears to be the largest surge in revenues ever for the phone companies?
That sounds about right.

 

What Apple did was good for the consumer, it was not good for the record companies and phone companies.

 

Apple took away their control. Record company revenues are down because Apple ushered in a new model where you can pick and choose individual songs for low prices.

Phone companies are becoming dumb pipes. If you want music or apps you buy from iTunes. The phone company gets nothing from the deal. Apple has even taken away the ability for phone companies to differentiate based on the phones they sell. The iPhone is identical no matter which network you are on.

 

If Apple is successful then cable and media companies will lose much of their current control of the market and get cut out of much of the revenue.

post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

Apple will start to enjoy the benefits of its huge installed base.

What have they been doing for the last 7 years?

post #43 of 55
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post
What have they been doing for the last 7 years?

 

Is 23, 95, 70, and 5 percents for iPhone, iPad, iPod, and desktop 'huge'?

 

I think that's subjective.

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 #44 of 55

I meant that they have been enjoying the benefits ($$) of their installed base, regardless of the size of that base.

post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

MLB, nfl etc.
Yeah you pay $100-150 a year per service but you generally get all games not just the 'in market' stuff that cable gives you.

There is no nfl package- direct tv had that contract and you obviously have to have direct tv to purchase it.

And MLB would be great except you don't get local team. So if youre not local it's great- but if you root root root for the home team... You can't.

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 #46 of 55

I gave up cable TV in 1993. In 2003 I connected to the internet. Vongo came out and I watched shows via the internet with them until Netflix and Starz partnered. These days even without Netflix most TV shows can be viewed somewhere online.

 

The Apple TV is a good concept but doesn't work for me. An Apple computer connected to a TV does just about the same thing. It just takes a little more work to navigate to the sites to get to the content. The EyeTV boxes come with tuners for broadcast TV to be played on a computer. That is one thing the Apple TV is missing. That is the only feature that would get me to purchase an Apple TV device. Their television sets won't interest me unless they have some super awesome resolution with a fast refresh rate.
 

post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

As someone I said industry, add tv to that and he's on the money.
I have a friend looking to create a show that is basically in between a webseries and a tv show and he's looking to skip the machine and sell it direct to viewers via iTunes and perhaps amazon. He's looking for backers but they think he's insane.

He's not insane. So encourage him to stick with it. We need more of this to change the way the traditional industry works.

I recently read of one tv series that was independently produced and released this way -- direct to iTunes. Just one so far, I think. It was in Australia, I believe.

Horace Dediu of @asymco.com goes into the 100 year-old business model of cinema and tv. It may only be disrupted asymmetrically when someone finally finds a way to reliably break the traditional avenues of funding for new productions -- new avenues for distribution are already here in the form of iTunes.

Tell your friend to consider Kickstarter -- that could be a really good way to go. Essentially have people pay in advance for purchasing the season much as they would on iTunes. Promote the series on Kickstarter, get people to pay 25 or 50 bucks or whatever. Start production when all the funding is in. When ready, give those who "prepaid" their copy/access to stream/download, and get new customers on iTunes according to plan.

Essentially, you are trying to find your special audience interested in this topic/project/storyline in advance, worldwide, and developing a relationship with that audience, worldwide. No more pitching to a network which takes into account your idea's appeal to advertisers; no more negotiating "windows" or syndication. Go direct to viewers. Alternatively, you are looking for that one big sponsor, like tv shows in the 50's, but then you have to worry about product placement and integrity, etc.

Sent from my iPad.
Edited by krabbelen - 8/22/12 at 12:51am
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post

He's not insane. So encourage him to stick with it. We need more of this to change the way the traditional industry works.
I recently read of one tv series that was independently produced and released this way -- direct to iTunes. Just one so far, I think. It was in Australia, I believe.
Horace Dediu of @asymco.com goes into the 100 year-old business model of cinema and tv. It may only be disrupted asymmetrically when someone finally finds a way to reliably break the traditional avenues of funding for new productions -- new avenues for distribution are already here in the form of iTunes.
Tell your friend to consider Kickstarter -- that could be a really good way to go. Essentially have people pay in advance for purchasing the season much as they would on iTunes. Promote the series on Kickstarter, get people to pay 25 or 50 bucks or whatever. Start production when all the funding is in. When ready, give those who "prepaid" their copy/access to stream/download, and get new customers on iTunes according to plan.
Essentially, you are trying to find your special audience interested in this topic/project/storyline in advance, worldwide, and developing a relationship with that audience, worldwide. No more pitching to a network which takes into account your idea's appeal to advertisers; no more negotiating "windows" or syndication. Go direct to viewers. Alternatively, you are looking for that one big sponsor, like tv shows in the 50's, but then you have to worry about product placement and integrity, etc.
Sent from my iPad.

What a wonderful idea. Apple should encourage this development by creating a category in iTunes specifically for independent shows/movies. Then promote the heck out of it.

As with great products, great content tend to make people more invested and willing to pay premium, because it's worth it.

The big boys really need to figure out how to deliver content without ads or they will not survive in the long run.
Edited by uguysrnuts - 8/22/12 at 4:44am
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

 

What Apple did was good for the consumer, it was not good for the record companies and phone companies.

 

Apple took away their control. Record company revenues are down because Apple ushered in a new model where you can pick and choose individual songs for low prices.

Phone companies are becoming dumb pipes. If you want music or apps you buy from iTunes. The phone company gets nothing from the deal. Apple has even taken away the ability for phone companies to differentiate based on the phones they sell. The iPhone is identical no matter which network you are on.

 

If Apple is successful then cable and media companies will lose much of their current control of the market and get cut out of much of the revenue.

 

Revenues are down compared to what? If you want to make claims like this, you'll need to support them, and I doubt very much that you can. What you are calling "control" is simply the illusion of control, and while it's true that companies may sometimes work hard to maintain that illusion because it's what they know, there isn't any evidence that Apple's shattering that illusion in certain industries has been anything but beneficial for them.

 

To paraphrase Steve Jobs, we have to let go of this notion that for content providers to win, consumers have to lose.

post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

What Apple did was good for the consumer, it was not good for the record companies and phone companies.

Apple took away their control. Record company revenues are down because Apple ushered in a new model where you can pick and choose individual songs for low prices.
Phone companies are becoming dumb pipes. If you want music or apps you buy from iTunes. The phone company gets nothing from the deal. Apple has even taken away the ability for phone companies to differentiate based on the phones they sell. The iPhone is identical no matter which network you are on.

If Apple is successful then cable and media companies will lose much of their current control of the market and get cut out of much of the revenue.

The music industry failed not so much because of Apple, but because of their ineptitude and refusal to truly analyze the market and adapt to change.

It never ceases to amaze me that ills of various industries (music, movies, computing, etc) and society gets attached to a single company, when the solution should come from where they originated.

When someone gambles their money away, is it Apple's fault?
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

It's interesting how we can be blind to some trends until someone points them out to us.

 

In the last three years we've had this accelerating trend to small cable-free iPads, and yet we still think of TV as being that huge thing in the living room. Young adults are much more mobile that us older adults believe and if Apple "cracks" the old entertainment paradigm it may be with a 10" screen and not a 55" screen. 

I very much doubt it. As adults we are the ones who pay for these things. As adults we want to watch movies and TV shows with our families on a big screen.

post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post


There is no nfl package- direct tv had that contract and you obviously have to have direct tv to purchase it.
And MLB would be great except you don't get local team. So if youre not local it's great- but if you root root root for the home team... You can't.

I ran into the same issue with the MLB app. I had to sign up for a cheap VPN to bypass the blackout issues. Luckily, my sister gets the NFL package with her DirecTV and lets me use her login so I can stream it to my TV. I don't really care about any other sports.

post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Revenues are down compared to what? If you want to make claims like this, you'll need to support them, and I doubt very much that you can.

 

 

It is pretty easy to find evidence that music revenues are down. For example: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2 It even has lots of pretty graphs.

 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post


The music industry failed not so much because of Apple, but because of their ineptitude and refusal to truly analyze the market and adapt to change.
It never ceases to amaze me that ills of various industries (music, movies, computing, etc) and society gets attached to a single company, when the solution should come from where they originated.
When someone gambles their money away, is it Apple's fault?

I'm not blaming Apple for their ills. Why must any comment on this board be taken by some as an attack on Apple?

post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Think of the social possibilities:
You and your friends are watching the same TV show and making extemporaneous comments... But you're in different places (rooms, houses, towns)...
Prepared on my personal TV

 

Are you talking about live chat which you could accomplish today with the TV and phone you already own?

Or obnoxious text that pops up on the video, which some shows already do via twitter and social media sites? (though it's obviously not restricted to people you know)

 

I'm not exactly sure why either one of those possibilities should excite me.

post #55 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Think of the social possibilities:
You and your friends are watching the same TV show and making extemporaneous comments... But you're in different places (rooms, houses, towns)...
Prepared on my personal TV

 

Are you talking about live chat which you could accomplish today with the TV and phone you already own?

Or obnoxious text that pops up on the video, which some shows already do via twitter and social media sites? (though it's obviously not restricted to people you know)

 

I'm not exactly sure why either one of those possibilities should excite me.

 

 

This thread is about the small screen, the portable screen... the iPad.

 

You, and your friends, could stream the same video (Movie, TV Show, Music Video, Live Event, Vimeo, YouTube, etc.).  Each person could display the video full screen or partial screen.  The social interaction could be by voice, text, or even voice to text ala Siri.

 

For the friend viewing the video in full screen, the text or voice would appear in a semi-transparent HUD that overlays the video;  or mute the video sound and play the voice over sound.

 

I suspect that most friends would opt for something like a video chat room where the video plays in one area and the chat messages scroll in another area *. There are all inds of variations possible -- multiple mini windows, one for each friend...

 

* A Windows Surface Tablet's entire screen can be displayed in less than 1/3 of the Retina iPad's display

 

There are some technology enhancements coming that will make this possible such as:

 

  • more powerful iPad hardware-- RAM,CPU, GPU video encoder/decoder specialty chips
  • faster WiFi
  • faster cell
  • better streaming compression that uses lower bandwidth **

 

** In a recent writeup of Apple patents:

 

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2012/08/new-apple-patents-relate-to-sim-cards-radio-transparent-materials-video-editing-more.html#more

 

Jack Purcher points to a patent application near the end of the article:

 

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120195376%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120195376&RS=DN/20120195376

 

Below's an overview from the patent application. It's a little hard to follow but it appears to be directly related to preserving image quality and reducing bandwidth when transmitting video.  This certainly would apply to video streaming and video chat -- but it could also be used in any collaboration involving video, such as video editing.

 

 

Quote:
BACKGROUND 

[0001] In video coder/decoder systems, a video encoder may code a source video sequence into a coded representation that has a smaller bit rate than does the source video and, thereby may achieve data compression. The encoder may code processed video data according to any of a variety of different coding techniques to achieve bandwidth compression. One common technique for data compression uses predictive coding techniques (e.g., temporal/motion predictive encoding). For example, some frames in a video stream may be coded independently (I-frames) and some other frames (e.g., P-frames or B-frames) may be coded using other frames as reference frames. P-frames may be coded with reference to a single previously coded frame and B-frames may be coded with reference to a pair of previously-coded frames, typically a frame that occurs prior to the B-frame in display order and another frame that occurs subsequently to the B-frame in display order. The resulting compressed sequence (bitstream) may be transmitted to a decoder via a channel. To recover the video data, the bitstream may be decompressed at the decoder, by inverting the coding processes performed by the encoder, yielding a received decoded video sequence. In some circumstances, the decoder may acknowledge received frames and report lost frames. 

[0002] Modern coder/decoder systems often operate in processing environments in which the resources available for coding/decoding operations varies dynamically. Modern communications networks provide variable bandwidth channels to connect an encoder to a decoder. Further, processing resources available at an encoder or a decoder may be constrained by hardware limitations or power consumption objectives that limit the complexity of analytical operations that can be performed for coding or decoding operations. Accordingly, many modern coder/decoder systems employ a variety of techniques to constraint bandwidth consumption and/or conserve processing resources. 

[0003] Video Resolution Adaptation ("VRA") is one such a technique used in video coding/decoding systems to manage bandwidth and/or resource consumption within the coder/decoder system. VRA is a technique that alters the resolution of images prior to being coded for bandwidth conservation. For example, a camera may output video data to an encoder at a predetermined resolution (say, 960.times.720 pixels) but an encoder may reduce this resolution to a lower resolution (ex., 320.times.240 pixels) to meet a performance constraint. Reducing the resolution of the image effectively reduces its size for coding and, therefore, contributes to reduced bandwidth when the resulting image is coded. Similarly, a reduced resolution image also is less complex to code than a full resolution image. 

[0004] When a decoder receives and decodes such an image, it will generate a recovered image with reduced resolution. If the image is rendered on a display device and expanded to fit a larger display area than the reduced size (ex., 320.times.240 pixels to 960.times.640 pixels), it will appear blurry and will be perceived as having lower quality. Alternatively, it might be displayed at a reduced size--a 320.times.240 pixel window on a 960.times.640 pixel display--but it also will be perceived as having low quality even though it may appear relatively sharper than the expanded version. 

[0005] Accordingly, there is a need in the art for a video coder/decoder system that takes advantage of the bandwidth and resource conservation that VRA techniques can provide but still provide high image quality. There is a need in the art for a video coder/decoder system that allows images to be coded as low resolution images and be displayed at a decoder as if they were high resolution images.

 

Finally, I am 73 (next Wed) and have 3 teenage grandkids...  all have had their own iPad for 2 years,  and the oldest has an iPhone 4 (they'll all have iPhones after the September announcement).  This generation uses technology in totally different ways than my, or their mother's, generation.  They don't know a world without Television, personal computers, cell phones, and the pre-post-pc (mobile phone, iPad) world, to them, is a fading memory.

 

One of the things, that constantly amazes me -- is that they can simultaneously watch the HDTV, do homework, do something on their iPad while talking to or texting friends.  Sometimes, the use one of the "truck" computers in the home -- but mostly it's iPads and cell phones.

 

My point... while the capability may not excite you or me -- the socially-active younger generations will incorporate something like this into their lives, without giving it a second thought.

 

 

Edit: Finally 2:  One of the reasons we're getting iPhone 4 (or better) for the grandkids is that it eliminates the need for an extra camera or video cam.

 

Here's something I recently learned:  Each iPhone (and some cameras) have an unique ID.  When you ingest photos or video into Final Cut Pro X (retail $299) the ID (as well as accurate date and time) accompanies the media as metadata.  So, if you and a bunch of family and friends are all attending an event (rave, soccer game, picnic, amusement park, etc.) and taking pictures and/or videos -- you can easily combine them into a multicam video ***.  

 

Then, with Final Cut Pro X it is ridiculously easy (automatic) to ingest the media, assemble an angle from each camera and synchronize these angles based on time. (Using other methods could take days or weeks and involve preplanning, special equipment, etc).  

 

Once you have all the [camera] angles assembled and synchronized it is fun and easy to view them and switch (cut) between them -- so that the video includes shots from whatever camera has the most interesting content at any given time.

 

My 15-year-old granddaughter is learning how to do this now -- with an iPhone or iPad as a camera, it is trivial.

 

 

***A multicam video is like a music video where several cameras are used -- each focused on a different player.  After the shooting, media is selected from various cameras, at various points in time, to create a final video.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 8/23/12 at 9:57am
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple could be key for big media to monetize the small screen