Jobs: Apple TV a hobby because there's no market

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Again, this is not up to Apple, this is up to the content owners.



    I used to put the lions share of the blame on the content providers making it difficult for Apple to get them organized the way they did with Music. But listening Jobs, it seems a good portion of the problem is the 'balkanized' cable operators and TV stations around the country!
  • Reply 62 of 85
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post


    Talk about a smokescreen.



    IPTV. The internet is the media provider. It's a standard. You only need 1 cable for it. You only need 1 remote and if you have an iphone or an ipad, those should double as remotes via wifi since apple decided that IR ports weren't useful (stupid move, apple). It's not difficult, dudes. It really isn't. They have how many billion dollars and they're building a huge datacenter out in BFE for cloud hosting? They could outstream netflix and call it a day.



    Great dream, but sadly just a dream.



    "The internet" doesn't exist unless you pay someone for access to it. That someone is a cable or telephone company. They own the pipes so it's quite literally impossible to avoid paying them.



    Without strong net neutrality rules they can easily push their own content and hold back others'. Even with such laws they can using pricing models that make television a very low price add-on to internet service. Why pay Apple for something you already get 'free' from your ISP?
  • Reply 63 of 85
    I have a huge interest in ATV's success and have owned one for a few years now.



    I'd like to hear people's thoughts on the following notions.



    - Apple buys (or controlling interest in) directv or similar company to roll out a world wide service that features their own "magical", "incredible" branded box.



    - ATV becomes more a mobile extension of an iPad/iPhone - a wireless HDMI dongle with some embedded UI or software that can plug into projectors and HD tvs.



    - ATV becomes a proper gaming console - Steam on the big screen? - cloud based games?





    But besides the content or major redesign, what would get the ATV out of the garage is the apps potential. Something beyond a simple collection of dashboard widgets - I mean come on guys.
  • Reply 64 of 85
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


    I used to put the lions share of the blame on the content providers making it difficult for Apple to get them organized the way they did with Music. But listening Jobs, it seems a good portion of the problem is the 'balkanized' cable operators and TV stations around the country!



    In regards to the actual content being distributed the way the OP suggested it's clearly them. In regards to making a great AppleTV the division Jobs stated does seem to be an issue with the cable companies.



    My first comment on this thread was a potential move from Apple to work with most, if not all, of the cable companies to supply a a device they could all use. Scientific Atlanta seems to have a monopoly on that market. I think Apple could undercut them while offering a better solution with a better UI and UX. The consumer wins by getting a choice, & cable companies win because they get a choice of boxes, potential low-cost up-front option from profit-sharing, and Scientific Atlanta steps up services and lowers prices to better compete. The only one who really loses here is Scientific Atlanta. If it uses CableCards the customer can still buy their own at full price and use on any cable company in the US as I think this is now a requirement. I think the only issue would be with satellite.
  • Reply 65 of 85
    babaloobabaloo Posts: 14member
    Pfff its because of iTunes horrific movie quality. No one wants to buy "HD" movies off iTunes if its not HD. Add blu-ray to "Apple TV" and to you computers too, thats long over due. In fact, blu-ray alone would sell Apple TVs as most consumers still think a blue ray player cost $600. And get the name iTV back, why don't you own that Apple?
  • Reply 66 of 85
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robert.Public View Post


    Possibilities / It's the Apps stoopid!



    I agree that apps would be a great way to sell the AppleTV using A4 running the iPhone OS sans Cocoa Touch.



    However, I can't agree with anything you stated in your body. If you've seen what an iPhone app looks like 2x scaled on an iPad you've see that running those apps on an HDTV would be utter crap. And that's just the look, note that you don't turn your TV as it's always in landscape mode with an aspect ratio that doesn't fit any iPhone-OS iDevice, there are no accelerometers, and no way to use the CocoaTouch buttons.



    The only this will work is if Apple makes an SDK for the next AppleTV specifically for the 10-foot user interface.
  • Reply 67 of 85
    woochiferwoochifer Posts: 385member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    My first comment on this thread was a potential move from Apple to work with most, if not all, of the cable companies to supply a a device they could all use. Scientific Atlanta seems to have a monopoly on that market. I think Apple could undercut them while offering a better solution with a better UI and UX. The consumer wins by getting a choice, & cable companies win because they get a choice of boxes, potential low-cost up-front option from profit-sharing, and Scientific Atlanta steps up services and lowers prices to better compete. The only one who really loses here is Scientific Atlanta. If it uses CableCards the customer can still buy their own at full price and use on any cable company in the US as I think this is now a requirement. I think the only issue would be with satellite.



    They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers. Last year, the top manufacturer in the world was Pace, followed by Technicolor (formerly Thomson), Motorola, and then Scientific Atlanta/Cisco. And Pace only accounted for 7.0% of the market, and the top four manufacturers combined only accounted for 22% of the global STB market. It might seem like a particular box manufacturer dominates the market because a cable company (which has a local monopoly) standardizes around their offerings and that's all you see locally. But, in the big picture, there is no single dominant player.



    http://www.multichannel.com/article/...009_Report.php



    The problem with trying to make inroads in the TV market is that the only truly national players are the satellite companies, and together they control less than 1/4 of the US TV market. Everybody else serves a local/regional monopoly. You can't grant exclusivity to one cable company, because that would completely lock you out of particular markets. The cable operators have effectively locked out regional competition by colluding with one another to horse trade their territories.



    For example, Comcast and Time Warner traded their California territories so that now Comcast has a near monopoly on the entire SF Bay Area, and Time Warner controls most of the LA region. You can't serve the Philly market without talking to Comcast, and you won't get a sniff of the New York market unless you play ball with Cablevision and Time Warner.



    This is not like breaking into the cell phone market, where Apple had a choice of national service providers to negotiate with -- each of whom could gain Apple significant market coverage at the outset. Apple built the iPhone so that it would work on AT&T's network, and that same GSM standard is used in other markets around the world.



    TV is not that simple. The hardware specs are different between different service providers, and broadcast standards vary from country to country. Apple could market their own souped up STB to cable/satellite operators, but how many consumers would take the Apple option (esp if it's more expensive) and are there potential compatibility issues from system to system?



    No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).



    Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market.
  • Reply 68 of 85
    christopher126christopher126 Posts: 4,366member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post


    They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers. Last year, the top manufacturer in the world was Pace, followed by Technicolor (formerly Thomson), Motorola, and then Scientific Atlanta/Cisco. And Pace only accounted for 7.0% of the market, and the top four manufacturers combined only accounted for 22% of the global STB market.



    http://www.multichannel.com/article/...009_Report.php



    The problem with trying to make inroads in the TV market is that the only truly national players are the satellite companies, and together they control less than 1/4 of the US TV market. Everybody else serves a local/regional monopoly. You can't grant exclusivity to one cable company, because that would completely lock you out of particular markets. The cable operators have effectively locked out regional competition by colluding with one another to horse trade their territories.



    For example, Comcast and Time Warner traded their California territories so that now Comcast has a near monopoly on the entire SF Bay Area, and Time Warner controls most of the LA region. You can't serve the Philly market without talking to Comcast, and you won't get a sniff of the New York market unless you play ball with Cablevision and Time Warner.



    This is not like breaking into the cell phone market, where Apple had a choice of national service providers to negotiate with -- each of whom could gain Apple significant market coverage at the outset. Apple built the iPhone so that it would work on AT&T's network, and that same GSM standard is used in other markets around the world.



    TV is not that simple. The hardware specs are different between different service providers, and broadcast standards vary from country to country.



    No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).



    Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market. There are many ways that they can try to break into the TV market, but whether that presents any revenue and profit opportunities is another story.



    Well said...I a bit surprised at Job's description of Apple...'we don't have the resources other big companies do...we put the iPad on the shelf and made the iPhone, not AppleTV, then we took the iPad off the shelf and made it, not the ATV...' He made Apple sound like 5 guys working in a garage!
  • Reply 69 of 85
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post


    They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't.

    [...]

    Jobs did a good job at summing up the current state of the market.



    Thanks for the excellent post.
  • Reply 70 of 85
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post


    No matter which part of the TV nut Apple wants to crack -- whether it's the content side, the service side, or the hardware side -- there are a lot more market obstacles than existed in the phone market. Even though Apple had to confront an entrenched bureaucratic industry there, they only have to deal with one partner (or overseas, multiple partners that use the same standard).



    Yes! And if Apple were successful and delivered a superior customer experience, the Feds would, surely, start an investigation...



    ... Oops, didn't mean to call you Shirley.



    .
  • Reply 71 of 85
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post


    Maybe he was telling truth and people over analysis is words and get it entirely wrong, just a thought.



    Oh come on, where is the fun in taking that attitude?
  • Reply 72 of 85
    smurfmansmurfman Posts: 119member
    I think what Steve is really saying here is that cable companies themselves are the barrier and that Apple is in the process of innovating away from cable/satellite/etc and toward an internet-only, standards-based, "cable" company. With iTunes having such broad, world-wide, membership being fueled by Macs, iPods, iPhones and now iPads, and internet speeds continuing to rise, it's just about the perfect time to take on all cable companies everywhere.



    Just look at the name "cable company". How old school is that in today's wireless culture?!?



    I think Apple will be attempting a piercing blow toward the heart of ALL cable companies and Steve Jobs is merely setting the stage for that attack. In our household, we gave up cable 5 years ago and have been primarily using the AppleTV. The new $99 AppleTV based on cloud tech may or may not be announced next week but if it is it could either be the boxer entering the ring or the ding of the bell to begin the fight. Just my 2¢.
  • Reply 73 of 85
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Thanks for the excellent post.



    Yes it was well laid out as how it is now for traditional TV delivery. Yet I can't help wondering if the solution is to totally ignore what went before (which is an holy mess for sure) and, as someone else suggested, approach TV from a totally new perspective.



    If you use the internet (high speed) you have total coverage at home so that's one issue done with, leaving only content, advertisers and UI. If content is there advertisers will follow. We know SJ can get ABC and Disney and the only thing holding back the others is they all want to do this themselves. No other company can do UI like Apple. If Apple ever did come up with a great solution (iPad and new data center maybe?) and got the eyeballs, others will follow as they did with music. My money is still on Apple going into TV sooner than later and seriously this time not as a hobby. I could be wrong but SJ seemed to be teasing us all ... just my take.



    How this differs from ATV is a matter of the how as in what hardware, at what cost and the revenue model at Apple's end I guess...
  • Reply 74 of 85
    smurfmansmurfman Posts: 119member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    SJ seemed to be teasing us all ... just my take.



    Definitely looks like he's been thinking A LOT about this market. I believe he has something up his sleeve and will pull the rabbit out of the hat soon (maybe next week). ;-)
  • Reply 75 of 85
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,234member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post


    Maybe he was telling truth and people over analysis is words and get it entirely wrong, just a thought.



    I have been stalking this dude for 20 years. I know what he had for breakfast just by counting the crumbs on his black turtleneck.



    But no, I do not think I am over analysing. I'm very confident in my BS detecting skills (i have worked with enough!). I would say there is only 10% chance that the interview wasn't loaded with misdirection.
  • Reply 76 of 85
    redhandedredhanded Posts: 34member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woochifer View Post


    They (Scientific Atlanta/Cisco) don't. The market for STBs is just as balkanized as it is with content providers and service providers.



    Excellent post. There's a lot of very US-centric views of the world here... but if you think it is complicated in the US, just wait until you look everywhere else with a plethora of satellite, cable, IPTV and terrestrial broadcasters, manufacturers, TV standards and local regulations. "balkanised" doesn't even come close to describing how fragmented things are.



    A reason why there is no global dominant STB supplier is the high degree of customisation they all do for individual broadcasters and countries/regions... global standards just don't apply.



    It look like Apple wants to build global products... thats why they went for GSM/3G for the iPhone. So other than serving up content over the internet, or from Apple's own boxes (iTunes) like Apple TV does now... I can't see much prospect of a global TV product from Apple.



    If Apple did something with a US cable company, for example, you can guarantee it wouldn't be applicable anywhere else.
  • Reply 77 of 85
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post


    steve pointed two things in his showup yesterday:



    1: on mobile device, or at least on mobile device, the way to do ad as google does is not the way he wanted

    2: to revolutionize tv market is not just to provide another settop box as google is doing. google is doing it from ad point of view, while steve thinks it as user experience point of view. of course, both want to make money.



    Can you point out where in the Google TV keynote and demo they showed an "ad point of view" or any ads at all?
  • Reply 78 of 85
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by redhanded View Post


    Excellent post. There's a lot of very US-centric views of the world here... but if you think it is complicated in the US, just wait until you look everywhere else with a plethora of satellite, cable, IPTV and terrestrial broadcasters, manufacturers, TV standards and local regulations. "balkanised" doesn't even come close to describing how fragmented things are.



    A reason why there is no global dominant STB supplier is the high degree of customisation they all do for individual broadcasters and countries/regions... global standards just don't apply.



    It look like Apple wants to build global products... thats why they went for GSM/3G for the iPhone. So other than serving up content over the internet, or from Apple's own boxes (iTunes) like Apple TV does now... I can't see much prospect of a global TV product from Apple.



    If Apple did something with a US cable company, for example, you can guarantee it wouldn't be applicable anywhere else.





    And that's where Google's approach might actually work better. At least licensing their OS to different STB makers might bring some level of standardization (the same platform) across the board.
  • Reply 79 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jetz View Post


    And that's where Google's approach might actually work better. At least licensing their OS to different STB makers might bring some level of standardization (the same platform) across the board.



    Its unlikely there will ever be standardisation... there is a similar variation in the STB market as there is with mobile phones... the majority being cheap, dumb boxes.



    Once a box is out there, it will be left there for years until it stops working or the customer wants new functionality that needs a new box (like HD or a PVR).



    In addition to the STB hardware manufacturers, there is another set of competitors for STB conditional access software from vendors like NDS and Nagravision and this is also unlikely to be standardised.
  • Reply 80 of 85
    oneaburnsoneaburns Posts: 354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by krabbelen View Post


    Uhhh, that's because it's not a TV or Set-top box replacement; it never was. It's a DVD Player replacement. It's (at this moment) purely and simply about serving your iTunes media to your TV; that and nothing else. The "TV" in Apple TV is to do with connecting to a TV, not anything to with monitoring or storing programming from the traditional TV or Cable TV medium. Firmware or OS updates can change that in an instant.



    And that's why Apple still class it as a hobby. When they shake up the TV industry like they have with the music, movie and phone industries, I am sure we will be the among the first to know. I bet they do have ideas. Furthermore, I bet those who have the current incarnation of Apple TV won't be disappointed, because whatever the shake-up is, they will be able to make use of it with their early Apple TVs.



    If you like renting iTunes Movies for your large TV, if you like YouTube in your living room, if you like displaying photo albums of your grandkids with your own music in the background, if you don't like running out to the video store and running back to return movies, if you have lots of media in iTunes (and you can do a simple rip of your physical DVDs, then Apple TV is still a great product. Anyone expecting more may well be disappointed. Those who know what it does and use it for that really enjoy it.



    Well said. I love my AppleTV. I still think they're missing out on a lot of potential sales due to a poor marketing strategy for it. Most people don't know what it is and what it does and that is Apple's fault. I just hope they don't ever scrap the whole thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.