Whats the best way to beat cable companies? Bypass them!
I think cable service and cable companies are a real red herring. We could all go crazy trying to think of ways to beat the cable companies, but in the end Apple should just side step them. Just like how Apple isn't trying to be a cell carrier, they shouldn't try to be a cable company.
We already know that Apple doesn't think that a standalone box is going to be successful with the mass market. We also know that the cable companies are too big to beat. So how do you get into people's living rooms? Well, what is the one thing that every cable/sat/DVR/Apple TV customer has? A TV! Even people who don't have cable/sat have TVs.
The heart of the living room is the TV. So if Apple can sell a TV then they become first in line to also sell ondemand content onto that TV. Movie rentals, television episodes, etc right there in the TV. No extra box needed, no cable/sat needed... The user can just turn on their TV and start spending money.
Everybody else is trying to compete by adding boxes to the TV. So why struggle to get noticed in that mess? Why not just be the TV? Let everybody else be the afterthought.
You cannot just simply bypass the cable companies anymore. They have been buying up companies to attempt to prevent this from happening. Time Warner owns HBO. Comcast now owns NBC/Universal and the ton of cable channels that these companies own such as Syfy, Bravo, AMC, etc.. Recently OTA networks have asked for and received extremely high fees from cable companies to show their channels. Apple would hav to prove that everyone could make more money through iTunes than what they make now. I don't know if that's possible.
The main problem with Apple making their own TV is that all of Apple's products are priced on the high end. The TV is like the PC business where most sales are on the low end with companies like Vizio. People will generally not pay for high priced TVs especially since many can't even the tell the difference between 720p and an upscaled DVD.
I'd love for this to happen but Apple still seems to be at a point where they can't even get a subscription service deal from these networks. Maybe iAds will help.
It's headaches like this which is the reason that piracy exists. The networks may not even care since TV viewership is higher than it's ever been.
If you're watching TV rentals occasionally then I'd say this is the perfect price. But if we assume iTunes is gonna replace one's TV habits completely - it could potentially get crazy.
Let's say you're watching TV 2 hours a day. Perhaps that equals to 2 rentals a day = $60 a month. I dunno.. No, I take it all back. It doesn't seem so crazy after all. But in order to replace TV they ought to have a news channel - and I guess sports would drive interest too. Is there news and sports on iTunes now? I wouldn't know. It'll never be available to me anyway since I'm not in the US...
How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!
All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.
Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.
The next Apple TV is a TV.
My two cents.
Not a chance. TVs are very low margin, and incredibly competitive. Pioneer tried to sell premium TVs and look what happened there.
Apple's best chance is a cheap set top box with a content subscription deal so compelling people will ditch their CATV subs.
I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.
What would it actually take? Well, they just need a product which is really one TV scaled to different sizes (20, 30, 40, 50, etc). They could probably make do with 3-4 sizes. Do a version refresh once a year with maybe a point update mid-year. Hang them in Apple stores (hey look, there are TVs behind the Genius bar already!). Sell them online. Apple faithful would gobble them up.
If Apple can be successful in the phone, computer and music player market they can easily be successful selling TVs. They are arguably a far less complex technology and there are no carriers or service provider relationships to worry about. Really, what would be more difficult to make and sell: a computer with a full OS or a TV?? I think Apple can handle a TV.
TV companies want us to think TVs are complicated. They want us to think that the technology changes every 5 minutes. In reality though I think the market would be easy to crack. If you can put a product on the shelf that looks good people will buy it. If you're Apple lots of people will buy it.
The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.
There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTV... the Apple ecosystem wherever you are.
Completely disagree...
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity.
That said, I am not head of a multibillion dollar company which seems to be printing money. So I'll let the ones who seem to master technology figure out what they think is best. Provided quality is top notch.
Having a plethora of TVs over the years makes it impossible to support an App ecosystem. Prices are too high. Give people a separate device and they might change it more often than the TV set.
The average teenager watches 4 to 6 hours of TV a day, and the majority of the shows are half hour ones. In any fairly normal household in North America, the total hours of shows watched in a year is an astronomical figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
I've said this before....
If "your" kid watches 4-6 hours of TV a day, you've got one dull ass kid who probably doesn't study enough. Further, it's my understanding that they are spending way more time on the internet these days anyway; it's changing the way Cartoon Network does business anyway.
Personally that just sounds like a bad habit. 1-2 shows a week is more than enough. Otherwise they should be encouraged to read or pursue some other physical activity.
+1 for "sayin' it like it is!" I was thinking exactly the same thing.
More than a couple shows a week for teens is not cool. Even if they're caught up with homework and studying, there are a zillion other better things to do.
How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!
All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.
Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.
The next Apple TV is a TV.
I can't imagine Apple getting into the TV business. Too complicated and too little value - added for the UI - which is what Apple specializes in. How many people have trouble using a TV? Almost none.
The various devices surrounding the TV would be a different matter. My ex still struggles to figure out how to change from TV to watching a DVD. A time-shifting device would be beyond her capabilities (and that's even using a Harmony remote which makes things much easier). I could picture Apple selling a device that plays optical disks (hopefully Blu-Ray), streams video, handles Cable TV, records your shows, possibly even a built-in audio amplifier for surround, etc - a true all-in-one box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
If you're watching TV rentals occasionally then I'd say this is the perfect price. But if we assume iTunes is gonna replace one's TV habits completely - it could potentially get crazy.
Let's say you're watching TV 2 hours a day. Perhaps that equals to 2 rentals a day = $60 a month. I dunno.. No, I take it all back. It doesn't seem so crazy after all. But in order to replace TV they ought to have a news channel - and I guess sports would drive interest too. Is there news and sports on iTunes now? I wouldn't know. It'll never be available to me anyway since I'm not in the US...
That's exactly the point. If Apple were to offer such a service, I doubt very much that they would intend for it to be for EVERYONE. Apple has historically chosen niches to dominate. The fact that there are some people who watch TV 10 hours per day and would find $0.99 per show to be too expensive doesn't negate the fact that there are also people who watch so little TV that they'd save money with this type of plan. My family watches little TV (maybe 3 hours per week, max) and a plan like that might be less expensive. I'm not sure we'd switch, though, since most of what we watch are cable channels that would probably be hard for Apple to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity..
Exactly. Apple's value-added proposition is in ease of use and reliability. TVs are already extremely reliable and easy to use. it's pretty hard to see what Apple could offer in a TV that would justify the high margins they need.
A set-top box, maybe (see above), but even there, there are a lot of strong vested interests that Apple would have to overcome.
Someone care to point out how $1 rentals are a good deal when you can already buy the episodes for $2. Save a dollar watch it once? Pay extra dollar, keep it forever..
They better not remove the ability to purchase shows. I don't want to rent my videos, I want to own them.
I think offering both options is a WIN/WIN for consumers, Apple and content providers.
Also, come on, content-owners... give us 48 hours! Where?s the harm?
Movies are 48-hours... it's important because it allows you to watch half one night and half at the same time next night, which is important for tired workers.
I would also pay to rent a TV show, but would want it on my Mac not Apple TV.
you can rent a two hour movie from the Redbox across the street for $1 and TV show episodes tend to be 30 minutes of content.
Looking at the numbers Redbox is providing two hours of value for $1. If they can do this I don't see why Apple couldn't figure our a way to do it streaming rather than making me hit up a Redbox.
It ends up being a cost of $0.25/30 minutes of content. That's what I'm doing these days as it's providing the best value to me.
I would pay even $5-$10 per event.... just to avoid paying networks for bulk subscription to majority of nothing interesting to me.
For now I have to use shadowy web sites to get that streaming because i am not paying any contracts for "1 milion channels" that are useless to my interest and I need about select 10 of them from time to time.
This rental model may be a step in the right direction, but I want an affordable subscription service like others have already talked about. I pay a fixed amount per month whether I watch a million different shows, or the same show a million times. And I will never buy any content as long as it has DRM.
Not too different here in Canada. You can easily pay $60 to $80 just to get the "TV Channel Package" that includes the channels you want, and you end up paying for a whole whack of channels you'll never watch.
I vastly prefer the on-demand pay-for-what-I-want-to-watch model that Apple is popularizing. And I don't want to pay with my time. I want to pay cold, hard cash. $0.99 is comfortable since I'd probably just watch 5 shows a week, so that works out to $20 to $25 per month for my TV expenses.
I don't know about you, but even with my HDPVR, I pay about $50 per month to Rogers. You really aren't bargaining well if you pay $80 for cable. So under this pay-per-use model, for me, that would mean about 50 shows, or about 50 hours (at most...assuming they are all 1 hr shows....a wildly optimistic assumption) of TV a month. Not a bad deal...if you live alone.
But I foresee several problems:
1) HD - You can get shows in full 1080p. Will Apple be able to match that?
2) Bandwith - Can you imagine the internet subscription you'll need to download 50 hrs of HDTV every month? I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, home internet has bandwith caps. Right now, I can survive on a 25GB per month cap.
3) Sports - Best watched live. What's Apple going to do about providing this?
4) Replay - When I watch something interesting, I often save it for weeks or months to show to friends and family when they come over, if I know they'd be interested in it.
5) Channel surfing - Slam the hundreds of channels all you want. But we all know that we've discovered new shows by surfing and spontaneously trying out a show. Do you really want to pay $1 every time to try out a new series?
Given all these issues, I can see this being a supplemental service, or at best a full cable replacement for a single person. Anything beyond that is questionable. I am pretty sure, my girlfriend watches more than 50 hrs of A&E, HGTV and the Food Network alone every month. And that just works out to an hour or two every day. I can't imagine how pricey this proposal would be for a family or even somebody who's a regular couch potato.
Whats the best way to beat cable companies? Bypass them!
I think cable service and cable companies are a real red herring. We could all go crazy trying to think of ways to beat the cable companies, but in the end Apple should just side step them. Just like how Apple isn't trying to be a cell carrier, they shouldn't try to be a cable company.
We already know that Apple doesn't think that a standalone box is going to be successful with the mass market. We also know that the cable companies are too big to beat. So how do you get into people's living rooms? Well, what is the one thing that every cable/sat/DVR/Apple TV customer has? A TV! Even people who don't have cable/sat have TVs.
The heart of the living room is the TV. So if Apple can sell a TV then they become first in line to also sell ondemand content onto that TV. Movie rentals, television episodes, etc right there in the TV. No extra box needed, no cable/sat needed... The user can just turn on their TV and start spending money.
Everybody else is trying to compete by adding boxes to the TV. So why struggle to get noticed in that mess? Why not just be the TV? Let everybody else be the afterthought.
What makes you so sure the content providers will play with Apple, when the cable companies provide a highly profitable alternative?
And what makes you so sure that people will fork out so much for an iTV? You can get a top quality 40 inch LCD for under $1000, here in Canada. I am sure, it's even cheaper in the US. What makes you think will pay more only to then turn around and pay even more for their content which comes with far less flexibility?
The iPhone precedent has been brought up. But people forget lots of things. Smartphones were rather niche and cumbersome when the iPhone came along. High end TVs aren't really a niche product today and they are relatively easy to use. Plug in your HDMI cable into your cable box and your coax into your cable box and you are good to go. Next was the price. In 2007, people were paying hundreds of dollars for their Motorola RAZRs. A few hundred more for a remarkable gain in capability wasn't a stretch. What's Apple going to bring to the table that's a marked jump over what the current cable company offers? And is it worth 50% more (for example) on the cost of you TV? And then there's subscriptions. Getting a data plan over and above a cellphone plan was a marginal expense. And it didn't change usage. It just added functionality (data). In this case, you could end up paying more for less. And your usage pattern would be altered significantly. For starters, no repeat watching and only 30 days to start and 24 hrs to finish watching a show. Not to mention the introduction of buyer's remorse into the realm of TV watching. So this idea that bringing a TV service to market would be just like the iPhone is certainly questionable....the context is not the same. The TV experience isn't as substantially behind as the smartphone experience was.
Lastly, this idea that Apple has to sell a TV to sell its service. What logic is there in that? Why do they have to sell TVs to sell you the TV service? If they do that and restrict access to the TV service, it would actually hurt the uptake of this service. The ideal to make it accessible to the billions of people who already have HDTVs at home. For these people, they need a box not another TV.
You can't blame Apple, its the TV studios, but this is still another fail.
People don't and won't see streaming over dl'ing as a convenience. If it were, then the price would not have to go down to make it seem more attractive.
This translates to: "We're going to charge a little less, but offer less, so in short, we all lose."
This may be fine for an Apple TV device that is stationary, powered, and always connected.
This is a terrible model for Apple's iOS portables, most of which do not have 3G (half of iPads, all iPod touch, etc..), those with 3G now have limited plans, and streaming video battery life is absolutely positively terrible.
I'm sorry but I don't see one single benefit here for iOS device users.
If Apple can be successful in the phone, computer and music player market they can easily be successful selling TVs. They are arguably a far less complex technology and there are no carriers or service provider relationships to worry about. Really, what would be more difficult to make and sell: a computer with a full OS or a TV?? I think Apple can handle a TV.
This is the single worst business-related comment I have ever read on this site...or, anywhere for that mater.
You're comparing 3 successes of Apple's, all of which are done in markets that Apple has invented, to one of the oldest and most mature technology markets in the world.
Absolutely laughable Apple's Macs, iPhone, and iPods are unique devices in their category and have defined, niche markets. Those niches happen to be majorities in the music player, and now in the smartphone market.
There is no market or category or even niche for an Apple branded TV. I have no doubt that they might do a physical TV, but not before taking another shot (or two) at the current AppleTV product model, both of which will fail by comparison to other Apple product lines. The new iOS Apple TV will have the most success of any Apple TV product. The actual TV set coming a year or two down the line will be an utter failure.
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I think it depends how you define the TV market. The TV market as a whole might seem mature because there are a bunch of established players selling similar products via similar channels. In my mind though there is a new category of TV/display that will emerge over the coming years: the connected TV. This market is totally fragmented and immature although the big players are dabbling in it (with awful results). In my mind there are similarities here with the smartphone market, which was a small but emerging piece of the larger more mature cellphone market.
Google sees this and their approach is to have a box and also load their software on other OEM TV hardware. Hmm... sounds exactly like their cell phone strategy. So when we look to Apple we can expect them to mirror their iPhone strategy, which is to make both their own hardware and software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMat
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity.
Sure that might be the easy thing to do, but how exactly would you make money on this model? And would it even be successful? How many people are going to buy a $99 box to add to their TV? Aside from us geeks I don't think many would. Certainly people aren't going to preorder millions of them like the latest iPhone or iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I can't imagine Apple getting into the TV business. Too complicated and too little value - added for the UI - which is what Apple specializes in. How many people have trouble using a TV? Almost none.
Apple's value adds are ease of use, reliability, quality and appealing industrial design and last not least the Apple ecosystem. I think these could make a rather compelling TV if executed well.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
This is the single worst business-related comment I have ever read on this site...or, anywhere for that mater.
You're comparing 3 successes of Apple's, all of which are done in markets that Apple has invented, to one of the oldest and most mature technology markets in the world.
Absolutely laughable Apple's Macs, iPhone, and iPods are unique devices in their category and have defined, niche markets. Those niches happen to be majorities in the music player, and now in the smartphone market.
The MP3 player market existed before the iPod. Apple just made a better player. The smartphone market existed before the iPhone. Apple just made a better smartphone. And the computer market existed before Apple made the successful iMac and Mac Books. Apple just made a better computer.
Apple didn't invent any of these markets. They just recognized the piece of the market that was growing and made a better product for that piece.
Comments
I think we should all wave placards with various messages and stand outside Apple headquarters and chant.
What do we want? 1080p movies.
When do we want it? Now!
What do we want? Movie subscriptions.
When do we want it? Now!
What do we want? Full blown web browser.
When do we want it? Now!
Not very cult-like behaviour but just keep this going until they give in.
Whats the best way to beat cable companies? Bypass them!
I think cable service and cable companies are a real red herring. We could all go crazy trying to think of ways to beat the cable companies, but in the end Apple should just side step them. Just like how Apple isn't trying to be a cell carrier, they shouldn't try to be a cable company.
We already know that Apple doesn't think that a standalone box is going to be successful with the mass market. We also know that the cable companies are too big to beat. So how do you get into people's living rooms? Well, what is the one thing that every cable/sat/DVR/Apple TV customer has? A TV! Even people who don't have cable/sat have TVs.
The heart of the living room is the TV. So if Apple can sell a TV then they become first in line to also sell ondemand content onto that TV. Movie rentals, television episodes, etc right there in the TV. No extra box needed, no cable/sat needed... The user can just turn on their TV and start spending money.
Everybody else is trying to compete by adding boxes to the TV. So why struggle to get noticed in that mess? Why not just be the TV? Let everybody else be the afterthought.
You cannot just simply bypass the cable companies anymore. They have been buying up companies to attempt to prevent this from happening. Time Warner owns HBO. Comcast now owns NBC/Universal and the ton of cable channels that these companies own such as Syfy, Bravo, AMC, etc.. Recently OTA networks have asked for and received extremely high fees from cable companies to show their channels. Apple would hav to prove that everyone could make more money through iTunes than what they make now. I don't know if that's possible.
The main problem with Apple making their own TV is that all of Apple's products are priced on the high end. The TV is like the PC business where most sales are on the low end with companies like Vizio. People will generally not pay for high priced TVs especially since many can't even the tell the difference between 720p and an upscaled DVD.
I'd love for this to happen but Apple still seems to be at a point where they can't even get a subscription service deal from these networks. Maybe iAds will help.
It's headaches like this which is the reason that piracy exists. The networks may not even care since TV viewership is higher than it's ever been.
99 cents is too much for a TV rental.
If you're watching TV rentals occasionally then I'd say this is the perfect price. But if we assume iTunes is gonna replace one's TV habits completely - it could potentially get crazy.
Let's say you're watching TV 2 hours a day. Perhaps that equals to 2 rentals a day = $60 a month. I dunno.. No, I take it all back. It doesn't seem so crazy after all. But in order to replace TV they ought to have a news channel - and I guess sports would drive interest too. Is there news and sports on iTunes now? I wouldn't know. It'll never be available to me anyway since I'm not in the US...
How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!
All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.
Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.
The next Apple TV is a TV.
My two cents.
Not a chance. TVs are very low margin, and incredibly competitive. Pioneer tried to sell premium TVs and look what happened there.
Apple's best chance is a cheap set top box with a content subscription deal so compelling people will ditch their CATV subs.
I absolutely disagree. I think the TV market is complex because nobody has ever made it simple. It would be an easy market for Apple to enter. Selling TVs is not rocket science.
What would it actually take? Well, they just need a product which is really one TV scaled to different sizes (20, 30, 40, 50, etc). They could probably make do with 3-4 sizes. Do a version refresh once a year with maybe a point update mid-year. Hang them in Apple stores (hey look, there are TVs behind the Genius bar already!). Sell them online. Apple faithful would gobble them up.
If Apple can be successful in the phone, computer and music player market they can easily be successful selling TVs. They are arguably a far less complex technology and there are no carriers or service provider relationships to worry about. Really, what would be more difficult to make and sell: a computer with a full OS or a TV?? I think Apple can handle a TV.
TV companies want us to think TVs are complicated. They want us to think that the technology changes every 5 minutes. In reality though I think the market would be easy to crack. If you can put a product on the shelf that looks good people will buy it. If you're Apple lots of people will buy it.
The flip side is sticking with an Apple TV box model, which makes no sense. Apple wouldn't make any margin selling a $99 box. And they wouldn't make any margin selling 99 cent TV shows. There is no money it it. They have to sell the TV and make big margin on a big ticket item. Then they make a small recurring profit on each TV show and movie they sell/rent. Its the iPod and iPhone model all over again.
There is a reason Apple TV is called Apple TV: because the real product that they've been planning for years is the iTV. Its an actual TV.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTV... the Apple ecosystem wherever you are.
Completely disagree...
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity.
That said, I am not head of a multibillion dollar company which seems to be printing money. So I'll let the ones who seem to master technology figure out what they think is best. Provided quality is top notch.
Having a plethora of TVs over the years makes it impossible to support an App ecosystem. Prices are too high. Give people a separate device and they might change it more often than the TV set.
My two cents.
This is a meaningless argument.
The average teenager watches 4 to 6 hours of TV a day, and the majority of the shows are half hour ones. In any fairly normal household in North America, the total hours of shows watched in a year is an astronomical figure.
I've said this before....
If "your" kid watches 4-6 hours of TV a day, you've got one dull ass kid who probably doesn't study enough. Further, it's my understanding that they are spending way more time on the internet these days anyway; it's changing the way Cartoon Network does business anyway.
Personally that just sounds like a bad habit. 1-2 shows a week is more than enough. Otherwise they should be encouraged to read or pursue some other physical activity.
+1 for "sayin' it like it is!" I was thinking exactly the same thing.
More than a couple shows a week for teens is not cool. Even if they're caught up with homework and studying, there are a zillion other better things to do.
How's this for a report: None of these reports are anything close to what Apple is actually going to do with TV!
All these Apple TV rumours are so far off the mark its amazing that people pay attention to them.
Don't you get it? Apple doesn't want sell a box that you hook up to a TV. Apple wants to sell a TV. An actual TV. Which just happens to be loaded with Apple services and software.
The next Apple TV is a TV.
I can't imagine Apple getting into the TV business. Too complicated and too little value - added for the UI - which is what Apple specializes in. How many people have trouble using a TV? Almost none.
The various devices surrounding the TV would be a different matter. My ex still struggles to figure out how to change from TV to watching a DVD. A time-shifting device would be beyond her capabilities (and that's even using a Harmony remote which makes things much easier). I could picture Apple selling a device that plays optical disks (hopefully Blu-Ray), streams video, handles Cable TV, records your shows, possibly even a built-in audio amplifier for surround, etc - a true all-in-one box.
If you're watching TV rentals occasionally then I'd say this is the perfect price. But if we assume iTunes is gonna replace one's TV habits completely - it could potentially get crazy.
Let's say you're watching TV 2 hours a day. Perhaps that equals to 2 rentals a day = $60 a month. I dunno.. No, I take it all back. It doesn't seem so crazy after all. But in order to replace TV they ought to have a news channel - and I guess sports would drive interest too. Is there news and sports on iTunes now? I wouldn't know. It'll never be available to me anyway since I'm not in the US...
That's exactly the point. If Apple were to offer such a service, I doubt very much that they would intend for it to be for EVERYONE. Apple has historically chosen niches to dominate. The fact that there are some people who watch TV 10 hours per day and would find $0.99 per show to be too expensive doesn't negate the fact that there are also people who watch so little TV that they'd save money with this type of plan. My family watches little TV (maybe 3 hours per week, max) and a plan like that might be less expensive. I'm not sure we'd switch, though, since most of what we watch are cable channels that would probably be hard for Apple to get.
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity..
Exactly. Apple's value-added proposition is in ease of use and reliability. TVs are already extremely reliable and easy to use. it's pretty hard to see what Apple could offer in a TV that would justify the high margins they need.
A set-top box, maybe (see above), but even there, there are a lot of strong vested interests that Apple would have to overcome.
Someone care to point out how $1 rentals are a good deal when you can already buy the episodes for $2. Save a dollar watch it once? Pay extra dollar, keep it forever..
They better not remove the ability to purchase shows. I don't want to rent my videos, I want to own them.
I think offering both options is a WIN/WIN for consumers, Apple and content providers.
Also, come on, content-owners... give us 48 hours! Where?s the harm?
Movies are 48-hours... it's important because it allows you to watch half one night and half at the same time next night, which is important for tired workers.
I would also pay to rent a TV show, but would want it on my Mac not Apple TV.
99 cents is too much for a TV rental.
you can rent a two hour movie from the Redbox across the street for $1 and TV show episodes tend to be 30 minutes of content.
Looking at the numbers Redbox is providing two hours of value for $1. If they can do this I don't see why Apple couldn't figure our a way to do it streaming rather than making me hit up a Redbox.
It ends up being a cost of $0.25/30 minutes of content. That's what I'm doing these days as it's providing the best value to me.
I would pay even $5-$10 per event.... just to avoid paying networks for bulk subscription to majority of nothing interesting to me.
For now I have to use shadowy web sites to get that streaming because i am not paying any contracts for "1 milion channels" that are useless to my interest and I need about select 10 of them from time to time.
Not too different here in Canada. You can easily pay $60 to $80 just to get the "TV Channel Package" that includes the channels you want, and you end up paying for a whole whack of channels you'll never watch.
I vastly prefer the on-demand pay-for-what-I-want-to-watch model that Apple is popularizing. And I don't want to pay with my time. I want to pay cold, hard cash. $0.99 is comfortable since I'd probably just watch 5 shows a week, so that works out to $20 to $25 per month for my TV expenses.
I don't know about you, but even with my HDPVR, I pay about $50 per month to Rogers. You really aren't bargaining well if you pay $80 for cable. So under this pay-per-use model, for me, that would mean about 50 shows, or about 50 hours (at most...assuming they are all 1 hr shows....a wildly optimistic assumption) of TV a month. Not a bad deal...if you live alone.
But I foresee several problems:
1) HD - You can get shows in full 1080p. Will Apple be able to match that?
2) Bandwith - Can you imagine the internet subscription you'll need to download 50 hrs of HDTV every month? I don't know about the US, but here in Canada, home internet has bandwith caps. Right now, I can survive on a 25GB per month cap.
3) Sports - Best watched live. What's Apple going to do about providing this?
4) Replay - When I watch something interesting, I often save it for weeks or months to show to friends and family when they come over, if I know they'd be interested in it.
5) Channel surfing - Slam the hundreds of channels all you want. But we all know that we've discovered new shows by surfing and spontaneously trying out a show. Do you really want to pay $1 every time to try out a new series?
Given all these issues, I can see this being a supplemental service, or at best a full cable replacement for a single person. Anything beyond that is questionable. I am pretty sure, my girlfriend watches more than 50 hrs of A&E, HGTV and the Food Network alone every month. And that just works out to an hour or two every day. I can't imagine how pricey this proposal would be for a family or even somebody who's a regular couch potato.
Whats the best way to beat cable companies? Bypass them!
I think cable service and cable companies are a real red herring. We could all go crazy trying to think of ways to beat the cable companies, but in the end Apple should just side step them. Just like how Apple isn't trying to be a cell carrier, they shouldn't try to be a cable company.
We already know that Apple doesn't think that a standalone box is going to be successful with the mass market. We also know that the cable companies are too big to beat. So how do you get into people's living rooms? Well, what is the one thing that every cable/sat/DVR/Apple TV customer has? A TV! Even people who don't have cable/sat have TVs.
The heart of the living room is the TV. So if Apple can sell a TV then they become first in line to also sell ondemand content onto that TV. Movie rentals, television episodes, etc right there in the TV. No extra box needed, no cable/sat needed... The user can just turn on their TV and start spending money.
Everybody else is trying to compete by adding boxes to the TV. So why struggle to get noticed in that mess? Why not just be the TV? Let everybody else be the afterthought.
What makes you so sure the content providers will play with Apple, when the cable companies provide a highly profitable alternative?
And what makes you so sure that people will fork out so much for an iTV? You can get a top quality 40 inch LCD for under $1000, here in Canada. I am sure, it's even cheaper in the US. What makes you think will pay more only to then turn around and pay even more for their content which comes with far less flexibility?
The iPhone precedent has been brought up. But people forget lots of things. Smartphones were rather niche and cumbersome when the iPhone came along. High end TVs aren't really a niche product today and they are relatively easy to use. Plug in your HDMI cable into your cable box and your coax into your cable box and you are good to go. Next was the price. In 2007, people were paying hundreds of dollars for their Motorola RAZRs. A few hundred more for a remarkable gain in capability wasn't a stretch. What's Apple going to bring to the table that's a marked jump over what the current cable company offers? And is it worth 50% more (for example) on the cost of you TV? And then there's subscriptions. Getting a data plan over and above a cellphone plan was a marginal expense. And it didn't change usage. It just added functionality (data). In this case, you could end up paying more for less. And your usage pattern would be altered significantly. For starters, no repeat watching and only 30 days to start and 24 hrs to finish watching a show. Not to mention the introduction of buyer's remorse into the realm of TV watching. So this idea that bringing a TV service to market would be just like the iPhone is certainly questionable....the context is not the same. The TV experience isn't as substantially behind as the smartphone experience was.
Lastly, this idea that Apple has to sell a TV to sell its service. What logic is there in that? Why do they have to sell TVs to sell you the TV service? If they do that and restrict access to the TV service, it would actually hurt the uptake of this service. The ideal to make it accessible to the billions of people who already have HDTVs at home. For these people, they need a box not another TV.
People don't and won't see streaming over dl'ing as a convenience. If it were, then the price would not have to go down to make it seem more attractive.
This translates to: "We're going to charge a little less, but offer less, so in short, we all lose."
This may be fine for an Apple TV device that is stationary, powered, and always connected.
This is a terrible model for Apple's iOS portables, most of which do not have 3G (half of iPads, all iPod touch, etc..), those with 3G now have limited plans, and streaming video battery life is absolutely positively terrible.
I'm sorry but I don't see one single benefit here for iOS device users.
Not. One.
If Apple can be successful in the phone, computer and music player market they can easily be successful selling TVs. They are arguably a far less complex technology and there are no carriers or service provider relationships to worry about. Really, what would be more difficult to make and sell: a computer with a full OS or a TV?? I think Apple can handle a TV.
This is the single worst business-related comment I have ever read on this site...or, anywhere for that mater.
You're comparing 3 successes of Apple's, all of which are done in markets that Apple has invented, to one of the oldest and most mature technology markets in the world.
Absolutely laughable
There is no market or category or even niche for an Apple branded TV. I have no doubt that they might do a physical TV, but not before taking another shot (or two) at the current AppleTV product model, both of which will fail by comparison to other Apple product lines. The new iOS Apple TV will have the most success of any Apple TV product. The actual TV set coming a year or two down the line will be an utter failure.
Completely disagree...
TV is a mature market and Apple always avoids entering them (smartphone market was new, tablet is new). TVs are way too much under price pressure, and differentiating seems hard. Then you must license a ton of patents, you have to add HD 1080, 3d tv, you name it.
Many people already own a TV, the lifespan of a tv is, for the majority of people, a lot longer than the one of a smartphone or a computer (iPad remains to be seen).
I think it depends how you define the TV market. The TV market as a whole might seem mature because there are a bunch of established players selling similar products via similar channels. In my mind though there is a new category of TV/display that will emerge over the coming years: the connected TV. This market is totally fragmented and immature although the big players are dabbling in it (with awful results). In my mind there are similarities here with the smartphone market, which was a small but emerging piece of the larger more mature cellphone market.
Google sees this and their approach is to have a box and also load their software on other OEM TV hardware. Hmm... sounds exactly like their cell phone strategy. So when we look to Apple we can expect them to mirror their iPhone strategy, which is to make both their own hardware and software.
I wouldn't enter that market. I would pursue the idea of an iOS 4 device, interconnected, which has apps (specifically designer for it), which streams and has an HD on board for storage and which consumes very little electricity.
Sure that might be the easy thing to do, but how exactly would you make money on this model? And would it even be successful? How many people are going to buy a $99 box to add to their TV? Aside from us geeks I don't think many would. Certainly people aren't going to preorder millions of them like the latest iPhone or iPad.
I can't imagine Apple getting into the TV business. Too complicated and too little value - added for the UI - which is what Apple specializes in. How many people have trouble using a TV? Almost none.
Apple's value adds are ease of use, reliability, quality and appealing industrial design and last not least the Apple ecosystem. I think these could make a rather compelling TV if executed well.
As for ease of use I don't think existing TVs are easy to use. They generally are if you are just flipping channels and adjusting the volume. But what about the emerging connected TV market? So far those are anything but easy to use and they accomplish very little.
This is the single worst business-related comment I have ever read on this site...or, anywhere for that mater.
You're comparing 3 successes of Apple's, all of which are done in markets that Apple has invented, to one of the oldest and most mature technology markets in the world.
Absolutely laughable
The MP3 player market existed before the iPod. Apple just made a better player. The smartphone market existed before the iPhone. Apple just made a better smartphone. And the computer market existed before Apple made the successful iMac and Mac Books. Apple just made a better computer.
Apple didn't invent any of these markets. They just recognized the piece of the market that was growing and made a better product for that piece.
For the price of 10 rentals, I can see a bunch of different content for $9.99 with Hulu+.
Netflix for $8.99 (or $10.99 Blu-ray) and $9.99 Hulu+ gives you a good deal of content.
I like the idea of streaming options. I hope more networks get on board with streaming.
I would rather pay $50 a month for tons of streaming content that paying the same or more for cable or satellite.