or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple has talked with cable companies about 'new TV product,' but launch not imminent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple has talked with cable companies about 'new TV product,' but launch not imminent

post #1 of 167
Thread Starter 
Apple has reportedly held talks with some major cable operators in the U.S. about "some new TV product," but the debut of a potential Apple television set is not expected to come in the immediate future.

Rumors of an Apple television set picked up steam earlier this week after a research note by Jefferies & Co.'s James Kisner was published. But the information it contained was actually a rehash of an earlier note that Kisner sent out on Oct. 19.

In that month-old note, Kisner revealed that at least one major U.S. cable operator was in the process of estimating how much additional capacity would be needed for a new Apple device on their broadband network.

To Kisner, that suggested an "imminent launch" of an Apple television, but John Paczkowski of AllThingsD downplayed that speculation on Friday.

"If Apple were close to launching a new service, it would almost certainly be in touch with TV programmers about new arrangements, and we haven't heard anything along those lines," he said.

Television


However, Paczkowski did reveal that Apple had held talks with "a few large cable operators" about an unnamed "new TV product." He suggested those talks likely prompted at least one cable operator to do "due diligence on capacity issues and whatnot," which was probably the source of information relayed to Kisner.

"There are still a lot of missing pieces here, and while a major cable providers running what-if scenarios on a rumored Apple product is certainly interesting, it's not necessarily a trumpet fanfare announcing its imminent arrival," Paczkowski said.

Rumors of a full-fledged television set from Apple have persisted for years. But in August, Apple executive Eddy Cue suggested that such a product would be unlikely without necessary deals for content.

Cue said that Apple could create a better television user interface, but that alone would be an "incomplete solution."

One report earlier this year claimed Apple was toying with the idea of building a new set-top box that would handle live TV. The Wall Street Journal said Apple had not reached any deals with cable operators, however, possibly because of their reluctance to let Apple into the live TV space.
post #2 of 167

Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".

 

They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #3 of 167
This certainly goes along with my hypothesis that all the updates we just had to Apple products leaves a large gap for the first part of 2013 that is ripe for a new product or product category.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #4 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".

They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.

Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products. If they release a TV (or, what I think is most likely, a digibox) then it will be because they feel they have all the parts ready to make it work.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #5 of 167
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products.

 

See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #6 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.

What products? What name?

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #7 of 167
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
What products? What name?

 

The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.

 

They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #8 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.

They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #9 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.
Just because YOU don't care for the mini doesn't make it a me-too product. When this thing gets retina display it WILL be the 2nd most popular Apple product (behind iPhone). As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid. It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.
post #10 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Just because YOU don't care for the mini doesn't make it a me-too product. When this thing gets retina display it WILL be the 2nd most popular Apple product (behind iPhone). As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid. It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.

I personally don't care for the iPad mini but I do think that it could make Apple's iPad segment the most popular leg in revenue and profit within 2 quarters.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #11 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.

The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product. As far as TVs goes Apple is quickly falling behind, I believe it's BOXEE that allows users to view live TV along with the digital streaming content.
Edited by dasanman69 - 11/16/12 at 7:04am
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.
If you read the reviews on the mini it's turning out to be one of Apples most popular products. If they manage to get retina display in the current form factor I could easily see the mini becoming more popular than the bigger IPad.
post #13 of 167

Apple needs to be very smart and careful entering into hardware agreements with the cable industry.  Look at what they did with cable cards and the SDV tech that made them almost useless.  Tivo can tell you some stories about dealing with big cable.

post #14 of 167
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Those are in no way "me too" products.

 

I see a market segment (tablets). I see a first-in-its-class product that reinvents the market segment (iPad). I see a branch market segment borne of this reinvention (smaller tablets). And I see a last-in-its-class product entering the branch segment (iPad mini). 

 

Now, I use "last-in-its-class" as one would use "last word in". But I also use it to show order. 

 

That was the product.


Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid.

 

"As for the iPad, everyone and their mother was calling it 'MacTablet', 'iTablet', 'iTab', 'MacPad'… 


 It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.

 

It's a sad state of affairs when "a small segment of the population" are the only ones with the common frigging sense that Apple used to have.

 

No, seriously, you would have been fine with Apple calling this product "iPod Mega"?

 

1000

 

You are claiming that the name, a name which defines the product (because some names don't; Apple's iDevice names specifically do), does not have to apply to the product in any actual capacity. This is what you're saying! And that's why I still fight it! 

 

Schiller needs to be asked! No one in the media would do it because they're the idiots that perpetrated this crap in the first place, but he needs to be asked, "What of this new iPhone makes it '5'?" 

 

If a name that is supposed to describe the product it names does not do this for the sole purpose of bowing to media- or rumormongering, you can't say there isn't something wrong.

 

Now, to the Apple TV.

 

Apple needs to not make a follower product. A follower product would be a "smart TV". Truly. It would be a TV with the Apple TV interface in it, and there wouldn't be any differentiation or point. If they think that throwing a FaceTime camera on your TV (so that you can call people out in the world and they can see you in your recliner with Cheet-os down your front) is reason enough to make one, then I (I'm sure 'we') have news for 'em. 

 

The Apple TV is spectacular. And it can be made more so with the right content deals. Everyone else is copying the Apple TV as is, so you know it's a good product. Roku has a box exactly the same shape and exactly the same height. It's disgusting and despicable and it proves Apple is right. Not the smart TV nonsense. Anyone can make a panel. But Apple can handle the software.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #15 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product.
We'll never know but I personally don't care. I don't see the mini as a "me too" product. If Apple has been able to give the mini retina display in the same form factor, size, weight it would be game over for everyone else. I wish they would have been able to do it this year but they obviously felt thin and light was more important right now than retina,
post #16 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I see a market segment (tablets). I see a first-in-its-class product that reinvents the market segment (iPad). I see a branch market segment borne of this reinvention (smaller tablets). And I see a last-in-its-class product entering the branch segment (iPad mini). 

Now, I use "last-in-its-class" as one would use "last word in". But I also use it to show order. 

That was the product.

The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad. Not every great device can be a flagship device. The iPad mini from the iPad is more aligned with the iPod Touch from the iPhone. It came after and filled a lower price point with lower functionality but that doesn't mean it's not a worth product. I have less use for an iPod Touch than an iPad mini but I'd never say the Touch is crap or a "me too" product simply because it doesn't suit my needs.

Most of Apple's products come to market after other vendors try and fail to capture any real dominance in the market so coming after some other poorly contrived product has hit the market does not mean Apple is playing catch-up. In fact, the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac segments show Apple consistently trickling down to the cheaper market segments after they capture the top tiers.


PS: As a moderator you're not allowed to have an opinion¡ 1biggrin.gif

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #17 of 167
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad.

 

I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

Very few competitors at that time. With the shuffle they were able to hit the price point of their remaining competitors.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #19 of 167

I have an Apple TV and I love it - but I'm not sure I'd be able or willing to pay the price Apple would command for a true TV.  And it comes down to content deals.  If Apple can provide an "a la carte" option (only Apple could do this) then I'd be very interested.  But again, at what cost?  I'd guess a real "iTV" would cost around $3k - minimum.

 

It'd be a beaut but too costly for most folks I think.

 

I kind of see this as vaporware anyway

post #20 of 167

Judging by the price drops in large TVs and an upper limit to increasingly larger displays, I think the business is ripe for adding features through software instead of purely hardware considerations. A TV box makes more sense for people who already have TVs, but an integrated device will work better and is Apple's modus operandi.

post #21 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".

 

They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.

I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad. Not every great device can be a flagship device. The iPad mini from the iPad is more aligned with the iPod Touch from the iPhone. It came after and filled a lower price point with lower functionality but that doesn't mean it's not a worth product. I have less use for an iPod Touch than an iPad mini but I'd never say the Touch is crap or a "me too" product simply because it doesn't suit my needs.
Most of Apple's products come to market after other vendors try and fail to capture any real dominance in the market so coming after some other poorly contrived product has hit the market does not mean Apple is playing catch-up. In fact, the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac segments show Apple consistently trickling down to the cheaper market segments after they capture the top tiers.
PS: As a moderator you're not allowed to have an opinion¡ 1biggrin.gif

As much as I disagree with him at times, I never see the mod status as an issue. Having a range of successful products isn't a bad thing. Right now the iphone accounts for the majority of operating income and overall growth, which is somewhat scary. This has nothing to do with the typical doom and gloom. They're just extremely dependent on continual growth of that specific product. Spreading growth into other areas would help ensure some stability as long as it doesn't reach a point where their design and engineering teams are just spread too thin. I read Adobe's blogs occasionally. Their different software teams sometimes sound as if they lack enough communication.

post #22 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.

The iPad Mini was hardly a me too product. If it had been, we'd see it at 7 inches, plastic and selling for $150 tops.

And the name, prove they were ever going to call it anything but iPhone 5.

As for your WE. no WE will not. YOU will be. which is fine, you can have that opinion and act on it. But please show some respect for our right to have our own opinions and speak only for yourself, not presume to tell us what we think
post #23 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products. If they release a TV (or, what I think is most likely, a digibox) then it will be because they feel they have all the parts ready to make it work.

 

actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].  

 

The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home.  They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV).   My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big.  What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports).  This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well).  Effectively they want cloud DVR.

 

I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables).  That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.

post #24 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I personally don't care for the iPad mini ...

 

What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].  

The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home.  They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV).   My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big.  What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports).  This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well).  Effectively they want cloud DVR.

I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables).  That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.

I think you are thinking along the right lines. IMHO Apple is looking at a service rather than a hardware product, that will work with all Apple devices using something that is cloud based akin to iTunesMatch.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #26 of 167
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post
And the name, prove they were ever going to call it anything but iPhone 5.

 

That's not the point I'm making…

 

I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #27 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

What don't you like about it? I haven't received mine yet but I played with one at the Apple Store and I really like it. It will be a great fit for my lifestyle.

I'm tempted, I am developing a really sore wrist holding my iPad while getting to a high score of over 10,000,000 playing Fishdom!
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #28 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That's not the point I'm making…

 

I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.

...jesus

post #29 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

I think they wanted to do a smaller form factor iPad. Eddy Cue saw it as a different market, and I agree with him after playing with one for 2 weeks.

The problem is they did not explain iPad mini's concept well enough. If taken as a whole package, the iPad mini is pretty unique amongst the crowd. A simple screen comparison with other 7" HD tablets is not a good way to convince the specs-driven pundits.

They should have elaborated on the mini's design points and benefits without talking about the competition, especially not just with screen comparison. I would highlight its lightweight, sharper than iPad 2 screen, bandwidth saving benefits, and introduce iPad mini together with AT&T's $100 discount for LTE contracts.

I would also cover iBook 3 in more details. They introduced equation editing feature in iBook 3 but they did not show any (work-in-progress) books using the new features. They didn't show how iPad mini helping kids or engineers in tight spots in videos. They also didn't show any depth and breadth in their collective book and media library, including competitor's offerings (Sony eBook and Kindle are all on iOS).

Should also take the opportunity to remind people about the ecosystem. e.g., iTunes Match, Blu-ray's free digital copy (to iTunes).
post #30 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

I think you are setting too high standards. The idea that every Apple product has to redefine an existing market ignores the fact that Apple has brought out many many products which were iterations and variants of an existing product. To paint the mini as a 'me too' product is simply contextualizing it in the worst possible light to continue your eternal rant about it being an inferior product. While Apple is most famous for redefining markets with ground breaking products, Apple also operates in a wider (commercial) realm. To insist that there is only one true and worthwhile iPad (or any product) is to be a 'design reactionary'. Stop being such a fundamentalist ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.

The Apple TV is a great product and it is cheap. It sits perfectly in an Apple home ecosystem. I can't fault it. That doesn't mean to say I don't look forward to further development and new iterations. But it beats me how people can insist that they will never buy a product that is not even on the market yet. What if it turns out to be the coolest thing since [insert your coolest thing]? 

post #31 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

actually, I think all of apple's history is 'you guys got it all wrong... here is how to do [personal computing|graphical computing|networked personal computing|personal music players|mobile computing on a phone|tablet computing].  

The key here is navigating and selecting your 'personal content' to be delivered to you via a large screen in your home.  They have the hardware (appleTV, iPad), for internet delivery of content... the question is do they want to be 'inline' for cable delivery (coax into the AppleTV).   My guess is they don't (way too complicated, and would make the AppleTV too big.  What they do want is a cloud repository for every cable and broadcast channel for content and live feeds (re: sports).  This aligns with their CDN, and also is the compromise for all other competitors (any network could swing a non-exclusive deal and let others get to their content as well).  Effectively they want cloud DVR.

I've noodled embedding this into a TV, and it doesn't make sense (too many cable co variables).  That is why I think this story is true, but really as a 'last chance' for the cable companies... I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.

The cable companies are making tons of money yet, what leverage does Apple have to get things going their way. It was much easier with the music industry because everyone and their grandmother was stealing music, not so much the same with TV.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #32 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

 I do think Apple is courting content creators to bypass cable and discussing with cable cos is purely a 'you had your chance' moment.

The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection, in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience. 

 

On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #33 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ifij775 View Post

Judging by the price drops in large TVs and an upper limit to increasingly larger displays, I think the business is ripe for adding features through software instead of purely hardware considerations. A TV box makes more sense for people who already have TVs, but an integrated device will work better and is Apple's modus operandi.

It's 2 phased... but it all drops into content delivery... Yes, I've said in the past that tying apple TV to be your cable 'navigation guide' is a smart thing, but you still need to integrate into the (myriad of) cable encryption/signalling system(s).  In the US there are several dozen, I can only imagine the net-net of counting Asia  Europe, Australia, Africa/MiddleEast.   It'a about content delivery.  And Live (sports) streams with HD quality.

 

Personally, I think the Apple discussions with Cable companies is going something like this:

"You should convert to an IP based delivery system, drop all NTSC and send everything digital," you'll free up a ton of spectrum on your coax, and then convert that to 100mbps Internet, and sell that for $50/month, and convert all your onDemand catalogs into iTunes, available next day.  Sell that for $0.99 for 30 minute shows, $1.99 for hour shows, and $2.99 for anything else.   We'll deliver it all for 30%, and you can shut down 20% of your operations that aren't turning a profit, and we will sell to people who aren't your customers who are pirating anyway!  Deal?"

post #34 of 167
I don't need any new TVs, at least for 5 years. Give me a box by Apple that also delivers cable, and I'll by 5 for all my TVs.
oneof52
Reply
oneof52
Reply
post #35 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.

 

They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

 

 

I will give you the phone to a certain extent. However, Apple did retain the width. The iPad Mini, however, has been in the works since Jobs was still alive. It is the same strategy Apple took with the iPod where Apple increased its market presence by introducing lower priced versions. Different versions of the iPad have been in the works for a while. That isn't a me too approach. It is a let us follow our game plan that has worked in the past. 

 

As for Apple's name, Jobs did work in an Apple orchard and there is nothing wrong with paying tribute to a band you love by naming your company after it's record label. There are tons of companies that share the same name. 

post #36 of 167

Frankly, I never believe any of these stories the minute they suggest that Apple is "talking to the cable companies" (the implication being that cable TV will show up on Apple TV or that Apple TV will integrate with your cable box).  

 

It makes no sense to me that Apple TV will have anything to do with traditional cable TV companies or integrate with it in any way.  They need the content, but they need it on a new distribution system that will replace cable TV, not augment it.  IMO all these stories are fantasy that originates with the cable TV companies and older people who simply can't envision a world without regular old cable TV.  

 

Apple has been in negotiations with the US stakeholders in this industry for at least ten years or more with little result.  Even if they came to an agreement tomorrow, it would just be for a few companies that own the rights to American broadcasting only.  Even if all the US cable companies then followed suit, it would take years and it would still only be a solution for the USA and nowhere else.  

 

How many decades would it take for this to spread around the world and what could/would happen in the interim?  Can you imagine the problems and the level of detail and so forth required to engineer a way for all the various cable TV companies around the world with their differing strategies and equipment, to integrate with Apple TV?  It's ridiculous to even think about it.  Apple will deal with the content owners, not the cable companies, (and even that is a logistical nightmare). 

 

IMO integration with cable boxes is a non-starter as a strategy and a ridiculous idea to anyone, except those that live in the US and have no idea that the rest of the world exists.

(I realise that accounts for about 90% of the population down there, but still).  

post #37 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I guess that explains why I'm the only one bothered by it; I'm the only one that understands it.

Aw, shucks. And I thought I had it figured out... 1embarassed.gif

1wink.gif

post #38 of 167
If Apple does a TV, which I'm still skeptical, as the market is highly competitive but yet not that big, they'll do something that hasn't been done before. How many of you have complicated setups with boxes, receivers, inputs, multi-device remotes, etc. that maybe you have figured out, but the rest of your family still struggles with?

If Apple does a TV, they will try to solve that problem, in addition to finding the content.
post #39 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

The problem with cloud on demand content is that you have to deliver it to the home and cable companies own that connection in the US anyway. Apple doesn't have a choice except to work with the cable companies. I strongly suspect that cable companies are already interfering with the bandwidth when they see the packets are iTunes or NetFlix. They stall the throughput just enough to make it unenjoyable to use. Difficult to prove but nevertheless very likely based on my experience. 

 

On the other hand it is essential that Apple negotiate with the media owners. Netflix for example has nothing but crap content offered through Apple TV. The content owners, for some reason, allow them to have great selection of DVDs but only "B" content for online.

I agree on both counts (although I don't use a cable company for internet).   The key on the latter is convincing the media owners that they shouldn't create their own CDNs (Hulu).   They constantly stalling on these decisions primarily to cut better deals with the cable cos. and the Cable cos then lock them into multi-year exlusivity for 'non-DVD' impressions, and then the cable customer who watches 'The Office' has to pay .10/month so Weeds isn't distributed quickly to NetFlix Instant Queues.   Sucks, but it's the game.

 

But Apple creating a STB is stupid from their HW esthetic, and their model is Internet delivery of all content.

post #40 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.

 

They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

 

This seems like a pretty thin argument to me (even though I had the same thought over the iPhone 5 name when it was announced).  I would argue that the day they come out with an "X-Mac" you'd be proven right, but I doubt you will be.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple has talked with cable companies about 'new TV product,' but launch not imminent