Eddy Cue suggests Apple television unlikely without content deals - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

Suppress rumours. Misdirect and mislead. 

 

Then bring it out during a Keynote.

 

;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 

That's how they usually do it.  "No we're not making a tablet." Then 6 months later, there it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 

 

Perhaps the Justice Department should look into this rather than ebook price fixing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkichline 

Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.

Way too Big Headache!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

When h265 comes out and they can hit closer to 'real BluRay' without a huge file size markup, that will be another step in the right direction.

H265 Smaller File Sizes will give more power to iPads, iPhones, Macs etc!!! Time Warner Cable and other ISPs and Cell Carriers won't be able to Charge the Public for Extra Data, because H265 Video Files will be smaller!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by herbapou 

The solution to this is easy: "a la carte" bundles.   We already have this is Quebec, Canada.  How it works is you still bundle channels, but instead of theme bundles, you pick up the channels you want. So the bundle are per number of channels. For example, 10$ for 10 channels, 15$ for 20 channels, ...

 

It may not be perfect, but this at least has a chance of making the content providers bend.

 

Another thing they are doing is combine channels and count them as a single choice.  For example, inside a 10 channels bundle, you could have a choice that combines 2 or 3 channels and count as only 1 channel choice. To see what it looks like go to the following link and select QC province.

http://fibetv.bell.ca/en/programming/

I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gwmac 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.

I agree. I have DirecTV with a DVR and find the interface extremely easy to use. Exactly what problem would Apple be looking to fix? Even finding shows for VOD (video on demand) is very straightforward. Just type in a few letters and the show appears and then you can watch a VOD episode. It found Breaking Bad for example just after typing "BRE". 

 

I don't see how a new Apple TV could ever compete with cable or satellite when in comes to live TV broadcasts like sports or news for example. How would it deliver live content without partnering with the dumb pipe companies like cable internet. A new Apple TV that simply adds a fuller iOS experience makes a lot more sense. Then you could control your 65" iPad like TV with a an iPhone, iPod, or iPad as your remote and possibly even another method like the Xbox Kinect or something completely new.  

mp3 players played music just fine before the iPod came along. Phones dialed phone numbers just fine before the iPhone came along.

The current state of set top boxes is beyond pathetic. Seriously. They're stuck with interfaces that haven't really evolved in nearly 20 years.

To name just one improvement, airplay. The browsing/surfing experience is a whole new paradigm. The existing paradigm doesn't need mere improvement, it needs replacement. Barbaric channel surfing and on-demand lists of videos is far from optimal.

But I agree that content licensing is the hold-up. The current hardware is more than capable. It's just that the people who hold the content rights won't license content to anyone else because they're also the distributors to end customers. To license it to apple mean a quicker end to their vertical domination of content creation to end user eyeballs.

I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strat09 

Why don't they make Content Makers Stream their channels to the Apple TV over the internet? Avoiding the Cable Companies. Microsoft did it for their Xbox. It'll feel like an interactive experience... Like in an example here... When a number is shown to vote for a contestant in American Idol, the user would not have to dial a number, rather just select it on the screen, and the vote would be sent to Fox for Results. And Users should be able to set to Save TV shows for later watch all over their iDevices over Wifi with iTunes Sharing and an Apple TV App that has a guide, and volume/ channel controls, as well as Siri on it to tell it to "change to kids shows" or "Show me the weather forecast" and " "Connect with Augustine" (facetime) or " Play My Music" You could use the App to also control a Note reminder system when a user turns on the tv, if another person in the same wifi network leaves a reminder for another person, the reminder is shown on the tv UI for them to see, as well as their iDevices Reminders App, and when they clear it it will dissappear from the Built in Calendar.

The Cable companies are NOT the problem with gaining content distribution rights, It's the media giants that don't want to give Apple permission.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GadgetCanada 

I agree. I could search for a movie I want to watch or browse the current popular lists and the movie page pops up. The Apple service searches your local cable company VOD, Apple movies, Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, other services and broadcast television and lists all the services I can watch it from. If it finds the movie is playing on broadcast TV next week, I can set it to automatically record it to iCloud where I can watch it on any iOS device next week. I've cracked it!

Hate to burst your bubble, but that's basically what Google tried to do, and it was a flop.  I'm not saying this is a bad solution, quite the contrary, it felt like a natural progression of the home theater experience.  But Google tried to do it without talking to the Big Media Giants and they shut Google out.

It's not labor and talent acquisition, materials sourcing, manufacturing, scaling, or any of that other stuff. Apple is an amazing ability to scale up the company and its product shipments concurrently. Right now, however, content acquisition and bandwidth value for Apple customers are two of the biggest bottlenecks to Apple's continued growth. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO), carrier bandwidth costs about 3.4 times as much as MVNO bandwidth. Bandwidth affordability, especially, should be a major focus of Apple's long-term strategy. Once they capture more content in more markets at bandwidth costs their customers can afford, the more people will buy iDevices (and Macs).

Unfortunately, Apple, on the one side is being screwed by the cable companies and phone carriers (FaceTime over cellular only with more ridiculous bandwidth costs, anyone)?. They're also getting taken by cable guys again, as they tend to own content and its delivery system. It's almost like big banks. Could be an anti-competitive issue in the making. Perhaps they should spend a teensy bit more in Washington on lobbying.

Here's how this could play out:

1. Apple gets the best monetary settlement as possible from Samesung and move on while finding some way to continue to vigorously defend their patents and other innovations. Next,

2. Apple shifts its legal focus to determine whether cable and cell companies that hold the keys to content and bandwidth are doing so in an anti-competitive way. I happen to think they are (based on no legal training at all). 

3. They convince cable networks whose contracts with cable providers are expiring to renegotiate in order to be able and convinced to take an Apple TV (set top box) deal. Slowly build out out programming with network and tv show apps while winning more cord cutters. 

4. If #2 and #3 yield no real results, Apple needs to buy their own spectrum on the open market. They inevitably will become encumbered in law suits and regulatory opposition relevant to vertical monopolies, copyright, patents, etc., litigation. They then successfully argue that the cable and cell guys shut Apple out of certain content delivery markets to benefit their business models. Therefore, Apple deserves the right to buy spectrum and/or purchase content on somewhat equivalent terms as that content is sold elsewhere. 

5. When they do not acquire outright, Apple sometimes buys significant portions of companies that they do not wish to own solely. Similarly, they should acquire an MVNO, not become one, or seek the services of an MVNE. That could be a worthwhile use for some of Apple's bilions. It's outside their core competencies, but I'm sure they've given it a lot of thought even if they dismissed it. I don't see the downsides of either of those options.

Because Apple has bet and won on an increasingly mobile strategy, Apple device owners need affordable mobile bandwidth, including ubiquitous Wifi. I think the analyst who predicted that content guys will need to eventually partner with Apple is right. But Apple needs more control over bandwidth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dysamoria 

Proofread before submitting stories, AI. For crying out loud.

Or at least run spell check.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.

I think Apple will side with IPTV Verizon and AT&T to give them a edge (the iOS set top box)  to win customers from Cable to DSL.  Until we all have 1 g/s + fibe connection straight into homes, it wont be possible to broadcast live TV without using the IPTV distribution architecture, which is implemented inside the distributor network. I dont think Apple can wait another 10 years, they need to make a moved before that or lose that market to windows and Android.  Its only a matter time before Google puts android on the millions of already installed Motorola set top boxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by macologist 

I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!

That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries.  However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.

I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly.  There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable).  Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA.  You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck.  My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo.  However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD.  So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.

I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though.  It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together.  Same goes for Cell service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 

That's how they usually do it.  "No we're not making a tablet." Then 6 months later, there it is.

But that is just it.  Windows pushed for tablets for 10 years.... they all sucked...  

Apple did not make a "tablet"............. they made an iPad.... and it did not suck.

Just a thought. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.

Cable companies are all broke right now.  They already lease off part of the physical cable lines to people like AT&T for UVerse and other ISP's.  So I don't see Cable Companies as an obstacle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkichline 

Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.

The same reason it doesn't make sense to buy a network or movie company.

At that point, they become a competitor to the others and all other content dries up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antkm1 

That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries.  However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.

 

I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly.  There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable).  Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA.  You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck.  My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo.  However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD.  So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.

 

I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though.  It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together.  Same goes for Cell service.

There is essentially no cable competition.

Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?

And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.

Its a monopoly if I've ever seen one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


I agree, but it's not likely to happen. There's a major problem:
Cable companies are used to getting $100 (or whatever) from each household. In my family, we only watch about 5 channels regularly and 3 or 4 less frequently. They'd have to charge us $12 per channel per month in order to break even - and at that price, many people would refuse, so revenues would likely drop.
Your analogy doesn't apply. If I go to McDonald's and don't want a Value Meal, I can alway buy a Big Mac by itself. Try calling the cable company and telling them you don't want a bundle but only want to buy Discovery and ESPN.
Actually, in many areas, it is a monopoly or close to it. Keep in mind that 'monopoly' in legal terms doesn't mean that there are no other options. Rather, it means that one company has a high enough market share to control the market. In my city, Cox has about 95% of households - and that's enough to control the market. Until a few months ago, I couldn't even get Dish for some reason and I still can't get any cable alternatives (Comcast and Uverse aren't available in my area).
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GQB 

There is essentially no cable competition.

Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?

And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.

 

Its a monopoly if I've ever seen one.

My point was less on technology and more on content distribution, which I still hold has no monopoly.  Cable isn't the only way to get Paid digital TV.  You don't even have to pay if you just want Basic channels.  Dish, Direct, AT&T and traditional Cable all provide virtually the same content, just using different technology to do so.  Method of distribution (meaning they all only offer packages) might need a look at by the DOJ though, but you still don't have to buy any one plan, there are many to choose from.  Which is why my original argument was that there is no monopoly because there is at least a choice to opt-out of any or all.

Yes, the the USA there is no A-la-Carte TV so that analogy doesn't really apply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.

I also have DirecTV. And while I would agree that the basic interface is relatively easy to use, I'd also say that it's not overly effective in finding what I might want to watch... unless I already know what I want to watch and what channel and time it comes on. I have TiVo on my DirecTV box and that helps a great deal. But its ability to "learn" is quite limited. The Suggestions and Wishlist features are very handy. But comparing them to what *could* be done says that the set-top box makers are still in early days. Most of what's out there are just "dumb boxes" that require the user to do most of the work. Apple could/should be able to improve on this. Although I'm not convinced that Apple needs to produce a TV set to do it, as I don't see why the current AppleTV couldn't accomplish roughly the same things. But yes, I can see lots of room for improvement in this sector.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.

You can't blame it all on monopoly. Content providers have been raising prices too. ESPN has been paying a lot for NFL and college football. Networks have started to charge to carry the broadcast channel that use to be free. There is a lot of blame to go around to the price increases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider 

"The risk of not partnering with Apple is that as young people may 'cut the cord' given the cost of cable that a screen connected to an Apple TV with AirPlay can provide a substantial array of content."

And anyone can cut the (cable and virtual satellite) cord by watching TV on their computer.

The cable industry is already feeling pressure from users streaming video over the internet.  It's just a matter of time before the hideously expensive cable / satellite "channel bundle" model crumbles.  It could take years, but eventually the TV and movie industries will suffer the same fate that the music industry suffered.  Rampant piracy.  They'll fight it, they'll try to keep Apple out of the business, but they'll eventually fail.

Legacy cable / satellite networks will lose revenue from piracy.  Inevitable.  And the TV and movie studios will also lose revenue from piracy.  So what will they do?  They'll look to Apple for salvation like the recording studios did.  Better to give Apple a 30% cut than to lose the full 100%.  Better to let Apple handle the user experience, because "easy" beats "free."

So what will Apple do?  They won't buy the Comcasts and DirecTVs of the world.  They'll avoid all that crumbling 20th century technology.  They'll make the cell carriers an offer they can't refuse.  By the time the TV and movie industries get desperate (maybe 5 to 10 years from now) "real 4G" cell networks may be on the horizon.  The "real 4G" that is the next-generation beyond LTE, which, by the way, is simply the fastest and final version of 3G.  (The full name of LTE being "3rd Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution.")  "Real 4G" requirements include 1Gbit/sec to stationary and slow-moving (e.g. walking) devices and 100Mbit/sec to fast-moving (car / train) devices.  Plenty fast enough to deliver video content to any of your iOS devices.

The problem with "real 4G," for the cell carriers, is that it will eliminate the need for separate voice and data plans.  The current 3G-based LTE technology still requires separate voice and data connections.  But the ITU 4G requirements call for merging all voice and data traffic into a single internet packet stream.  This is one reason why the cell carriers jumped the gun and misleadingly called LTE "4G."  So when "real 4G" arrives, there won't be anything to announce except faster speeds.  They'll hide the fact that there is new technology which eliminates their justification for separate voice and data plans.  It will be interesting to see if they still try to charge separately for voice and data.

So, "real 4G" will be another huge step toward dumb-pipe-hood for the cell carriers.  They'll essentially be "wireless ISPs."  Everything will be internet packets.  They'll need something to differentiate themselves.  And Apple could give it to them.  Apple could offer the cell carriers the chance to be the new TV networks.  The cell carriers could replace over-the-air broadcast to rabbit ear antennas, copper and optical cable, and satellite downlink.  Say goodbye to the cable guy and the "professional satellite dish installers" forever.

Apple could leapfrog all that copper wire / optical fiber / satellite downlink technology and go wireless for all devices.    Including that Apple television in your living room.

Apple has no reason to build a TV...

If one takes what Cue said at face value, it suggests little or noting about Apple ever building a TV set. The reference was to "television user interface," which sounds more like set-top box, which already has a jack in every TV.

Apple, after all, does not live and breathe to disrupt. It's not like the iPod was an end-run around the music industry. Or, the iPhone was an end-run around carriers.

Hence, logically anything Apple builds in the living room will not be an end-run around cable + satellite or content makers,especially since both industries are increasingly commingled (e.g., Comcast owns NBC, Disney owned ESPN gets $4.69 per subscriber from the cable cos).

The only scenario that makes sense is a set-top box, as it's a domain that Apple could use as a wedge to create a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, an area where content folks and carriers could build loyalty and facilitate the evolution of their services to platforms, and besides, hardware is not the core secret sauce of either content or cable/satellite, so it's a relatively clear 1+1 = 3.

The reason it does not happen is that cable + satellite are not in enough pain to consider such an evolution.

TV makes no sense when you consider the high price point, the ten year replace cycles and the logistics of dealing with inventory of 50 inch screens (ok, that one is solvable).

Some fodder on this topic at:

Apple's iTV and the Implications of what Steve Said

http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/02/apple-itv-television.html

Check it out, if interested.

Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features/

It is not that easy to just replace the cable boxes. Those boxes provide conditional access (security) that goes hand-in-hand with encoder equipment at the headend. This would have to be licensed or there would have to be an separate encryption/decryption solution at each headend.

It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo.  You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage.  Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports

Quote:

Originally Posted by antkm1 

Cable companies are all broke right now.  They already lease off part of the physical cable lines to people like AT&T for UVerse and other ISP's.  So I don't see Cable Companies as an obstacle.

I really don't care too much about the price even though I think $120 a month is too high for what you get. The part that irritates me is the horrible quality. In the evenings both the Internet and the TV are really slow and the picture freezes and the audio cuts out. During the day when no one is home it is fine. I had them come out to repair it a couple times and had to wait 3 hours during the middle of the day instead of being at work. When they finally get there everything is fine. As soon as everyone comes home from work in the evening the network is overloaded and virtually unwatchable and the Internet sometimes just goes missing. So yes the cable companies are an obstacle. I have also suspected that they screw with the Internet when the the data is being streamed from Netflix in order to degrade the quality and make it buffer constantly. I canceled my Netflix account anyway because there was nothing online that I wanted to watch. All of their content are just old "B" movies.

This is the perfect industry for Apple to disrupt in my opinion.

yep... read this thread, and I hear a lot of things Apple decision makers will have to say 'no' to.  Most of this stuff is what 'you' want, not what will make TV (semi-realtime streaming content via broadband, coax, and OTA) 'insanely great.'

Apple has to 

1) make navigating 300 odd 'channels' containing several thousand shows/episodes/real-time-happening content as easy as 'search for your favorite shows'

2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content...  if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able 

=====

those are hard.... because you have to crack the cable providers monopoly of the cablebox.  2 is semi possible OTA, but most stuff is on cable/sat only now.

These are easier

3) provide a central searchable hub of previously broadcast material from all sources

4) provide a single simple way of navigating, and purchasing non-free content

5) maintain security/privacy for those viewing content

6) ability to centrally put parental controls on everything on the 'web' visible on a TV  (youtube, netflix, vimeo, hulu, podcasts, etc.)

7) One button, one controller to rule them all (and/or iRemote on an iPod/Phone/Pad).

8) learn your preferences and 'genius-ize' them

9) design it to have 'profiles' (authenticated access... Mommy's 50-shades-of-Grey movie and Dad's 'Expendibles 17' won't show up on kiddies 'watch list')

My guess it will build for 1-9, and deliver a subset of 3-9, and establish a platform, and then get either channels/networks, or the direct production houses to buy in.

In all of this, much like disintermediating mobile carriers, and album sales (record stores), this is all about making the 'cable' (DSL/FIOS/Coax) 'dumb', because the Cable/Telcos are making bundling the only way to watch popular shows, thereby increasing their profits, and making the content viewing experience more painful than what it could be.

Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff 

2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content...  if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able 

On this, and I don't watch sports, so I could be wrong in my desire for this, but…

How about forcing channels to send out just the clean video stream data for these games and creating a unified UI for stats. If I flip between channels, I don't want to relearn the location of everything and try to figure it out. There should be one UI box, same design all the time, handled by the local device itself, showing exactly what that sport needs to show. Something clean, something beautiful, something simple. 

Plus on everything visible on the TV in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCGOO 

It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo.  You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage.  Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports

eyeTV 3 from Elgato can work just like a DVR. You can even edit out the commercials and save the movie in iTunes, then watch on aTV.

Originally Posted by wizard69 
Ahh but Apple doesn't have to do everything.

Oh, I'm not even talking about any hardware or R&D, I'm just talking about breaking the 60 years of ZERO change to television and how it's done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

eyeTV 3 from Elgato can work just like a DVR. You can even edit out the commercials and save the movie in iTunes, then watch on aTV.

Correct. But AFAIK, it won't work connected to an AppleTV.  If it did, I would have one in a heartbeat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


You're not paying attention.
In my city, I don't have all of those options. Cox is the only land-based option and Dish has only recently become available. Cox has 95% of the market with Dish having the rest. I'd be happy to be able to talk to Comcast or Uverse or anyone else, but it's not an option.
Cox clearly meets the legal definition of a monopoly.

i'm reading your comments.  Charter was the only land-based option in my area, until they started leasing off their land-lines to AT&T.  I think the monopoly argument doesn't specify the TECHNOLOGY being use to proved pay-content.  I've already stated this in my past comment.  I can't get Dish, UVerse or DTV either because I live in an apartment that has lease agreements against mounting dishes to the building.  UVerse would be the other options but for some reason my neighborhood is not available for that service...even though I live in a very connected burb of St. Louis.  So for me I'm in the same boat as you.  But I don't think Charter has a monopoly.

Edit: OK, I did some quick skimming online.  These situations are sometimes called "Micro-monopolies" but are still not considered a monopoly by the DOJ because the majority of subscriptions do not span nation-wide.  So as long as the markets don't grow too much on a national scale, it's perfectly legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Oh, I'm not even talking about any hardware or R&D, I'm just talking about breaking the 60 years of ZERO change to television and how it's done.

I wouldn't say zero change to TV. We've gone from analog to digital, added HD, added PVR. Pretty cool changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Good. Can we finally put these Apple television rumors to bed?

Gene Munster has been pretty quietly lately about the Apple TVs he's talked about forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antkm1 

Cable companies are all broke right now.  They already lease off part of the physical cable lines to people like AT&T for UVerse and other ISP's.  So I don't see Cable Companies as an obstacle.

AT&T is not leasing physical cable lines for U-Verse. U-Verse is using DSL (phone line). In fact, its the first time Cable is facing real competition because both services are land lines. AT&T even has an edge because they can have packages that includes cellular services. 

source: http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/iptv-technology.jsp

U-Verse is also far more advanced than cable because its using state of the art IPTV architecture for channel distribution which allow them to provide unlimited HD channels over the old copper phone line because they only stream the channels you watch, solving the limited bandwight problem between the fiber node and youre house. The IPTV architecture also allow them to network the set-top boxes, allowing for example all the set-top boxes to share the same PvR.

The Cable companies are over confident and are going to end up like RIM if they dont react. AT&T is going to eat there lunch when they are fully deploy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCGOO 

 

Correct. But AFAIK, it won't work connected to an AppleTV.  If it did, I would have one in a heartbeat.

You do need a Mac. But that is where your iTunes is anyway right?

Originally Posted by mstone 
You do need a Mac. But that is where your iTunes is anyway right?

Yes. But… It shouldn't… have to be?

Gosh, I'm actually torn on this now. I absolutely want more Mac sales as part of the entire iDevice ecosystem halo, but Apple has already effectively removed the Mac from the equation entirely with iTunes Match and redownloading of content (which bothers me). So in the grand scheme of things, my desire to have iTunes Libraries be connected directly to the network only cuts out computers further… But I really, really want greater Mac marketshare.

I suppose since… OH! Have multiple libraries on a hard drive connected to the network. Have the Mac iTunes see them and treat them the same as local device libraries. Then allow similar editing on the iPad and even allow content purchased on the iPad to be copied to said libraries (when they have the proper account authorization). That keeps the Mac in play beyond the initial NAiTL setup. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


ROTFLMAO. I guess it's too much to expect good reporting.
Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features.
It wouldn't be that hard to modify them to purchase their content directly from the Cable companies rather than going through iTunes so there's no reason the cable companies should reject it out of hand.

Still, if the actual attributed quotes are accurate (I'm assuming they are, it would be a bit much to make up actual dialogue for Cue) then it's not unreasonable to conclude that Apple is unlikely to make a big TV move of the sort that has been so enthusiastically predicted as of late.

I mean, if content aggregation is an insurmountable obstacle, as Cue observes that it is, then..... there's really nothing for Apple to do.  They can certainly update the existing AppleTV with apps or additional streaming channels, but if they can't work a deal with big content then there's no reason to expect any kind of game changing device.

As has been mentioned in response to those people who are satisfied with their STB interface, that misses the point.  "TV" is no longer a matter of tuning in to see what's on, or even time shifting via a DVR.  It is an multi-screen, on demand activity, mixed with all kinds of input streams and easy transfer between devices.

The challenge for Apple would be to find a way to elegantly integrate all these options into an easy to use, easy to navigate, easy to access device.  That's what Google was trying to do with their STB, but in typical Google style they thought it ought to be some kind of fantastically elaborate nexus of a far flung search web, and that without securing content-- ending up with needlessly complex show and irritatingly little go.

Apple truly is uniquely suited to figuring this out, which is why, I think, the rumors are so persistent.  But there's no real way forward as long as a substantial portion of what people would like to see on TV is locked up behind an economic model the owners of which see little reason to change.  I think Apple will move AppleTV as far along the road as they can, given what they can get access to, and continue to try and negotiate more, but clearly that time has not come.