I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
Well actually Pace Thomson and Cisco are all tied or nearly ties. Of the four Pace makes sense, since they have globe solutions, they have CATV, Telco, IP and SAT based solutions. So does Motorola but I highly doubt Motorola will sell that business to Apple, Cisco does not have a global present and doubt they would sell that either.
Lastly, it would need to be more than a $1B more like $4B to $8B acquisition, this is the only way apple could solve it go to market problem in the video world.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks
I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.
Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks
I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
C.
Actually this is not true, Directv make people buy the hardware and it not cheap unless they are doing some sort of deal. The Cable companies do not want to sell hardware to you since they make more money renting the hardware. A STB cost them between $50 and $250 and then rent them to you for at little as $3 to $15 a month depending on the feature and these product are usually in the field for 5 to 7 years so do the math you see why they do not want you owning your hardware.
The FCC is in the process of outlawing STB or at least one which are locked to 1 provider which is the way it is done today. There was talk about a software encryption solution which would allow any STB to be plugged into any provider but that failed and I believe Apple was waiting for this to happen then they could sell boxes at retail to anyone.
Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.
I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.
Most Cable provide buy form Motorola, Cisco or Pace these days, some providers so single source with one which goes back to the good old boy network.
I can tell some Motorola solutions work really well depending on the provider, all the STB is doing is decoding the transmitted signal and putting up the on screen messages and guides. It has been my experience when the video looks bad it is the cable operator's fault they doing something screw at the head end. Same thing if the guild does not work right it was who every the cable operator contracted to develop guide.
This is the reason I use Directv, best in class video and theirs just works and it all digital unlike the Cable guys many times they digitize a analog signal which has lots of noise on it, they do not bother cleaning it up.
I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors.
With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.
But I thought the FCC was in control of broadcast and satellite communications. Do they also control what comes in through the internet?
C.
I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
Will not happen, Apple would have to buy the cable card from Motorola since Motorola own the IP and the only manufacturer of the cable card today, Cisco and Pace both buy from Motorola, I do not think Apple would want to give Motorola a heads up on what they are doing, considering Apple put the screws to them with ROKR phone.
Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.
My idea makes the box free or rented for the consumer as they are selling to the cable providers, not the consumer.
Quote:
With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.
I don't think it'll happen either, but I'd like to. Note that historically, Apple's primary focus has been on HW sales and their primary profits are from HW. I think even the iPad takes in more revenue than all their SW and services combines. Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.
I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.
The BBC licence/license fee is both deeply unfair .... but is also extraordinarily good value. It's a love/hate historical anomaly thing.
So...
However the AppleTV evolves, It will remain as a device that connects a television screen to internet delivered content. It's not going to turn into a cable box or a TiVo.
And if there are technical limitations on the volume of data now. There were many more restrictions in the past and there will be far fewer restrictions in the future.
Currently, in the UK for instance, all of the BBC content is available in standard-def over the internet via the iPlayer. Some of it is in HD.
TV and Movies are just files. The internet is designed to move files. And keeps getting better at it.
Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.
If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.
Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.
You may be onto something there. More than a few have wondered if that may be the reason Apple has put so much energy into lowering Adobe's value....
If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.
C.
I highly doubt this will happen. Like i said in a post earlier, i think it's going to be something like iOS in a new form-factor STB. If anyone has noticed yet, there are several apps out there that are surfacing to replace regular over-air TV. Hulu App with subscription, Netflix app, ABC Network App. and now HULU's subscription App. So i think the iTunes subscription would be overkill and unnecessary.
The partnering with ATT and U-Verse IMO is the most likely sinario if they want to start cannibalizing the traditional STB. But even that's a long shot. I could easily see the "App" format as the new way to market the aTV.
CBS, FOX, NBC and ABC are the big 4, they are owned by larger companies that own many many more Cable networks (i.e. Disney owns ESPN, ABC, etc.). The Big companies start investing in the App idea for TV, we might see the end of Network TV and more of the a-la-carte programming, exactly the way SJ want's it...
...I wish this "Apple fanbois will buy anything with an Apple logo" crap would disappear since it couldn't be further from the truth. When Apple makes a product with no compelling advantage, it doesn't sell well - Apple Cube, Apple TV, etc.
Comments
Consumers do not perceive a 3" device as a television. And a large screen HDTV cannot sell for $99, let's get real.
¿Que? is your argument that the name is wrong or are you under the impression that TV has a monitor because it has the letters 'T' and 'V' in it?
I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
Motorola - #1 in the world
Pace - #2 in the world
Thomson - #3 in the world
Cisco - #4 in the world
Well actually Pace Thomson and Cisco are all tied or nearly ties. Of the four Pace makes sense, since they have globe solutions, they have CATV, Telco, IP and SAT based solutions. So does Motorola but I highly doubt Motorola will sell that business to Apple, Cisco does not have a global present and doubt they would sell that either.
Lastly, it would need to be more than a $1B more like $4B to $8B acquisition, this is the only way apple could solve it go to market problem in the video world.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.
Don't Scientific Atlanta and Motorola have the market to themselves, more or less?
We have a Motorola box. It's completely awful in every respect. Apple could beat the poop out of Moto in this market, if they wanted to get into it -- but aren't cable cards essentially obsolete technology?
hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks
I had thought SA pretty much owned it with Moto picking up some slack, but after the last time this rumour came out after Jobs mention of the cable company conundrum i made a similar, yet more detailed post about what I hope would happen, suggesting that selling to cable providers might be a way to get the AppleTV OS into the home, but I was informed there are many companies and the dominance is very regional. It appears that I just happen to travel to areas mostly dominated by SA cable boxes.
Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.
hate to tell you Motorola does not do the software or control on the box, this is done by third parties for the cable operators. Be glad you are not on Unvers with AT&T that control by M$ and that really sucks
I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.
Based on what we know of the iPhone4 - an A4 based AppleTV could be manufactured for around the $100 - $150 mark.
But if Apple charged $150, I think that would be 150 dollars too much. Because the lesson of the (intel) AppleTV and TiVo and what have you is that consumers don't want to pay for add-on boxes. They prefer to pay for content.
Which is why I think a 24 month iTunes subscription (which happens to come with free hardware) would be a much better way of pricing this for the mass market. That subscription would pay for a handful of premium shows, an unlimited amount of advertising sponsored free content. And you could pay on-demand for HD movies whenever you want.
If the AppleTV is to make the move from hobby to business, it will take a bold step.
C.
Actually this is not true, Directv make people buy the hardware and it not cheap unless they are doing some sort of deal. The Cable companies do not want to sell hardware to you since they make more money renting the hardware. A STB cost them between $50 and $250 and then rent them to you for at little as $3 to $15 a month depending on the feature and these product are usually in the field for 5 to 7 years so do the math you see why they do not want you owning your hardware.
The FCC is in the process of outlawing STB or at least one which are locked to 1 provider which is the way it is done today. There was talk about a software encryption solution which would allow any STB to be plugged into any provider but that failed and I believe Apple was waiting for this to happen then they could sell boxes at retail to anyone.
The FCC is in the process of outlawing STB or at least one which are locked to 1 provider which is the way it is done today.
I don't live in the US.
But I thought the FCC was in control of broadcast and satellite communications. Do they also control what comes in through the internet?
C.
Why would the cable providers be married to any one box builder? Maybe there's a reason, but I don't know what it could be.
I don't know if it can get any worse than Motorola and TW, but I suppose it's possible. But it would have to be completely unusable, since the system we've got is virtually unusable.
Most Cable provide buy form Motorola, Cisco or Pace these days, some providers so single source with one which goes back to the good old boy network.
I can tell some Motorola solutions work really well depending on the provider, all the STB is doing is decoding the transmitted signal and putting up the on screen messages and guides. It has been my experience when the video looks bad it is the cable operator's fault they doing something screw at the head end. Same thing if the guild does not work right it was who every the cable operator contracted to develop guide.
This is the reason I use Directv, best in class video and theirs just works and it all digital unlike the Cable guys many times they digitize a analog signal which has lots of noise on it, they do not bother cleaning it up.
I think $99 to $150 is low enough for people to risk the expense in droves, even if they just use it to stream their iTunes, iPhoto content to their TVs.
Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.
I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors.
With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.
C.
I don't live in the US.
But I thought the FCC was in control of broadcast and satellite communications. Do they also control what comes in through the internet?
C.
I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.
What if they are going in with Google on the dark fiber?
Ok, I don't think so either but it would be another kick in the butt of a moribund, uncompetitive industry.
What I would like to see is exactly what you state about paying for content. I'd like to see Apple make a cable box that uses Cable Cards so it can be bought, or they can get partners to overtake the cable boxes we rent from other vendors. As was pointed out to me last time I made mention of this, as I erroneously thought Scientific Atlanta had a monopoly on cable box sales, this may be way to complex for them to tackle.
Will not happen, Apple would have to buy the cable card from Motorola since Motorola own the IP and the only manufacturer of the cable card today, Cisco and Pace both buy from Motorola, I do not think Apple would want to give Motorola a heads up on what they are doing, considering Apple put the screws to them with ROKR phone.
Consumers prefer $0.00 - it's the right price for a content box.
My idea makes the box free or rented for the consumer as they are selling to the cable providers, not the consumer.
With all respect. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
I don't think Apple have any interest in facilitating the delivery of other peoples content.
What Apple wants is people to buy Apple content streamed from Apple servers and paid for via Apple iTunes.
I don't think it'll happen either, but I'd like to. Note that historically, Apple's primary focus has been on HW sales and their primary profits are from HW. I think even the iPad takes in more revenue than all their SW and services combines. Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.
I feel for you, don't have to pay a licensing fee to watch TV in England. No the FCC does not control what broadcast through the internet, but Cable operator control the access to the internet and most all of them have put upper limits on how much internet traffic you can recieve so watch TV over the internet is not a very good experience, plus it assuming a clear path which you can not get in IP based network especially ones that server multiply purposed.
The BBC licence/license fee is both deeply unfair .... but is also extraordinarily good value. It's a love/hate historical anomaly thing.
So...
However the AppleTV evolves, It will remain as a device that connects a television screen to internet delivered content. It's not going to turn into a cable box or a TiVo.
And if there are technical limitations on the volume of data now. There were many more restrictions in the past and there will be far fewer restrictions in the future.
Currently, in the UK for instance, all of the BBC content is available in standard-def over the internet via the iPlayer. Some of it is in HD.
TV and Movies are just files. The internet is designed to move files. And keeps getting better at it.
This trend will continue.
C.
Charing a $1.29 for a song and $3 for a movie isn't going to make giving away TVs profitable. I think they are better off adding features like an iOS SDK for TV and then selling the HW, apps and content to consumers.
If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.
C.
Adobe would be my choice. Then Apple could bring out graphics software that really took advantage of the Mac - it would certainly help to sell more Macs.
You may be onto something there. More than a few have wondered if that may be the reason Apple has put so much energy into lowering Adobe's value....
If you check my posts.... I am proposing an iTunes subscription model.
Charging $30 a month for 24 months = $720.
Charging $40 a month for 24 months = $960
It would not take much financial magic to magically disappear the hardware costs in there.
C.
I highly doubt this will happen. Like i said in a post earlier, i think it's going to be something like iOS in a new form-factor STB. If anyone has noticed yet, there are several apps out there that are surfacing to replace regular over-air TV. Hulu App with subscription, Netflix app, ABC Network App. and now HULU's subscription App. So i think the iTunes subscription would be overkill and unnecessary.
The partnering with ATT and U-Verse IMO is the most likely sinario if they want to start cannibalizing the traditional STB. But even that's a long shot. I could easily see the "App" format as the new way to market the aTV.
CBS, FOX, NBC and ABC are the big 4, they are owned by larger companies that own many many more Cable networks (i.e. Disney owns ESPN, ABC, etc.). The Big companies start investing in the App idea for TV, we might see the end of Network TV and more of the a-la-carte programming, exactly the way SJ want's it...
...I wish this "Apple fanbois will buy anything with an Apple logo" crap would disappear since it couldn't be further from the truth. When Apple makes a product with no compelling advantage, it doesn't sell well - Apple Cube, Apple TV, etc.
I hardily second this. Thank you.