If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.
This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.
Agreed. And that's why the cable guys are investing in content, epecially in sports, in order to stay in control. The landscape is changing and the way we select what we view and the way we view it may change, but I cannot see us paying less. All the players are wary of being taken by surprise and having their b&b taken away from them.
Note that we pay for ad-supported content right now with cable and satellite. Heck, we even pay for access to ad-supported channels that we could otherwise access for "free" over the air.
If people are already complaining about these costs I can't imagine how it could be better unless we're talking about Apple becoming a studio and everything on screen ? right down to the shoes actors are wearing*? are items you can read about and buy instantly by pausing and clicking on an on-screen item.
If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.
This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.
Just some ramblings....
One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
I can see Apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But I doubt Apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios I see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way. It will depend on how attractive the package is out of the gate and on the back of that, how many devices they can sell. If they can sell enough devices and develop an ecosystem (aps) they will gain more confidence from the studios. It's a high stakes game, for sure.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
Apple partnering with networks, studios and distributors to reenforce the established lock-in by adding Apple devices to the mix is the best method of "finally cracked it" I can see that benefits Apple since the hard part is the logistics of partnerships, not the simple concept of sticking an AppleTV in a TV.
The thing about this article and the responses to it is that folks don't seem to get that this is television. Apple made add some value to it. Apple is in a unique position to better integrate certain content. However, it is still television.
I was taken by the following quote:
Quote:
"... whether it would receive traditional broadcast or cable signals remains unclear, said these people, who say Apple may change its plans."
This is not a question. It is a matter of law. Just as the Apple iPhone must be capable of dialing the emergency 911 telephone number prior to activation, so too must an Apple television set be capable of receiving ATSC OTA broadcasts. Otherwise, it cannot be sold in the USA as a television set or television monitor. Presumably, it could be sold as a computer monitor. If the TV has an ATSC tuner, then it will also have a ClearQAM tuner for unscrambled digital cable programming, and possibly a NTSC for analog cable and low-power OTA.
As for cable transmission, cable TV providers in the US operate as franchises that are approved by local governments. Each municipal government sets conditions for its local cable franchise(s) to operate within its jurisdiction. This means that the governmental environment in South Podunk, Missouri is completely different from those in Podunk, Iowa or East Podunk, Iowa for that matter. If Apple were to enter the cable TV business, then not only would Apple have to worry about the fine-grained governmental regulatory environment, but it would also have to deal with the strong opposition from existing franchises. Does anyone really believe that Apple will get into the cable TV business?
Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.
However, a TV set has to accommodate a huge existing infrastructure of broadcast and cable programming, DVD players, Blu-ray players, video game consoles, camcorder playback, etc. There appears to be a popular notion among some that Apple can just chuck all of this and start with a clean slate of its own making. Well, it can't. What Apple can do, however, it to rationalize the various and sundry components of the modern home entertainment system. It appears as though this is the tack that it is taking.
Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.
I wonder how Angry Birds would look across a 55" television.
The business model will be the least innovative aspect of the product. I guarantee that there will be innovative features that will seem completely obvious in retrospect. If I were designing the Apple TV, there would be:
A camera on the TV. This one is a no-brainer. Facetime, social networking... but also, Wii/Kinect type gaming.
Siri in the TV (and the TV is just the beginning).
Content sharing between the TV and the other iOS devices including an iOS device synch cradle.
Bluetooth in the TV. A keyboard on an iOS device with a big screen, even if confined to 1080p resolution, would be very useful in my office.
The ability to steam video to/from other devices over WiFi.
The App Store built right into the TV. And combined with the Bluetooth/camera, this would allow serious revenue through games. People spend a lot more for XBox games than the do for iPad games. There's the business model right there.
This is just off of the top of my head. I'm sure that I'm missing something that will surprise us all.
i can see apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But i doubt apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios i see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way.
If Apple are just a conduit it's not going to revolutionise anything. That isn't any different to Google's (unsanctioned) Google TV or Microsoft's (sanctioned) Xbox 360 update. i.e. if you search for a movie\\tv show you are presented with the all the apps that can serve that content to you.
If Apple were able get control of the content then I can see how they could be a very disruptive force... but there is no way in hell the studios will hand control over to Apple unless Apple have some serious leverage (it has even been said that Apple pose a bigger threat to the movie industry than piracy).
I'm yet to see a great idea of how Apple can create enough leverage to get access to the content they need.
I hope Apple has some amazing new way to watch TV.
Apple's current subscription pricing is crazy. Right now... a single TV show season is $20 (or $30 in HD)
If you like 4 shows... that's $80 or $120.
That'll suit you if all you ever wanna watch is those 4 shows.
The other option is paying for cable. While that will run you $80 or more every month... you also get access to EVERY TV show that is currently on the air. Every channel... every show. If you program your DVR to record all those shows... you basically have unlimited access to every show on TV.
There are some cord-cutters out there... and I'm sure they are happy with renting or purchasing a selection of TV shows. But there are far more people who still want cable and who watch tons of TV shows. Plus news, sports, all sorts of stuff.
Apple's gonna have to appeal to those people as well.
The features will be more innovative than the business model
I don't think so because the innovative ideas you list already exist.
For Apple to get access to the content they need at the price they need to make this work they will need leverage over the networks/studios/distributors etc.
It's unlikely that an external threat to their business model will cause them to hand control to Apple. Cross that off the list.
It's unlikely that Apple will gain such total control over the existing TV industry that the networks will be forced to come around. Cross that off the list.
The only thing I can think for Apple to do is come up with a new revenue model that only Apple can do and/or no one else has thought of, and for the promise of this new revenue stream to be too great for the studios to turn down.
Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.
Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.
I can't think of any innovation that Apple has utilized with great success that wasn't simply a massive refinement of current technologies (which the naysayers isn't real innovation), wasn't a combination of multiple technologies (which the dissenters claim was always obvious), or something that simplified technologies (which the indecorums claim just adds proprietary lock-ins).
I think whatever they do will something that has been discussed [Ia]d nauseam[/I] but falls under the "easier said than done" category of integration and convenience. For example, the iPhone. The idea for a large touchscreen that reacts instantly and smoothly to your touch, weighs only a few ounces yet lasts all day on a single charge while always being connected to a wireless network has been around for 100(?) years, but it wasn't until many technologies were refined, combined and simplified that it becomes the standard by which all others now have to springboard from if they wish to compete.
Am i the only one that thinks that this tv set idea is stupid and a step backwards?
A) they already have apple tv. Instead of amtv set: why not focussing on this device and make the software a lot better and the films cheaper and ad realtime streaming capabilities and siri input? The missing key is a remote with a microphone. No big deal.
one of the things i noticed within the last 10 years: i watch a lot less tv! Tv is so 80ies! Ir is backwards because it pressures the viewer to watch things at a certain time. I watch most content now on the ipad - when i want. I rarely switch on my tv at all. I could even go without it (not the tv set itself, but the program on it). I can even watch real tv as a stream from my ipad to the apple tv.
C) i like apples design, but i am sure that their tv sets would cost a fortune. Many people would of course pay 1,5 to 2 times more for an 'ives'designed tv, but it would not become the mass market. The apple tv box is the key. But this device is continously left on the side. And unless they don't lower the film rental prices (especially in europe where the rental of sn hd film that isn't even hd cost about 7 us$) they won't succeed.
Apple could be the only TV provider in the world who could potentially think about the consumers. If they licensed all TV content of the whole world, then made it super easy for people to FIND GREAT CONTENT - then there it is.
Hopefully with Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set. After image quality, that is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?
Hopefully with Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set. After image quality, that is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?
I think the point is in replacing your cable box. If could get the 10 or so channels I watch a la carte via apple then he product(appletv) is worh considering. I'm annoyed that I pay 50+ dollars for a couple channels and DVR support
That's assuming the cable companies which are also the broadband ISPs don't mind being dumb pipes. They are going to look to making up their loss profits from cable TV subscriptions somehow, and the only thing they would have left is charging super high data rates.
Apple would most likely have to charge $5 per channel al a carte to placate the studio content providers. So that's $50 for the 10 channels. But the ISPs will make up their loss by doubling you data fees. So you'll be ~ $100+ for those same 10 channels and you would be required to have broadband to get Apple's channels over Internet.
You will pay more than you're paying now for less channels.
Comments
Nobody likes ads but the question would be wether you'd rather pay for content or not pay but have ads.
Pay, no ads.
When you buy a season the shows become available week on week. Not sure if there is a delay in comparison to broadcast.
Hmm?
If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.
This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.
Agreed. And that's why the cable guys are investing in content, epecially in sports, in order to stay in control. The landscape is changing and the way we select what we view and the way we view it may change, but I cannot see us paying less. All the players are wary of being taken by surprise and having their b&b taken away from them.
Pay, no ads.
Note that we pay for ad-supported content right now with cable and satellite. Heck, we even pay for access to ad-supported channels that we could otherwise access for "free" over the air.
If people are already complaining about these costs I can't imagine how it could be better unless we're talking about Apple becoming a studio and everything on screen ? right down to the shoes actors are wearing*? are items you can read about and buy instantly by pausing and clicking on an on-screen item.
If people flock to such a concept the way they have to other Apple products you'll 1) be paying a lot less to your cable company for content they bought in bulk based on expected viewership, and 2) you'll be using more of their internet services.
This means to make up the massive losses they'll have to raise the price per cable TV charge for those still buying such services (but that would force even more to leave) and/or raise the prices on cable, add hard caps, soft caps with additional payments, and/or throttle your speed which could make Apple's service unfriendly as a result.
Just some ramblings....
One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
Just some ramblings....
One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
I can see Apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But I doubt Apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios I see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way. It will depend on how attractive the package is out of the gate and on the back of that, how many devices they can sell. If they can sell enough devices and develop an ecosystem (aps) they will gain more confidence from the studios. It's a high stakes game, for sure.
Just some ramblings....
One way things could is the HBOGO method.
So... Perhaps a Comcast app fo example. Get anything they offer(based on your subscription) on demand. The app could have built in Siri navigation. New shows probably won't appear until the next day. Not sure how local stations would work. Cable providers aren't going down without a fight. At this point I don't see apple can leverage to displace the cable providers. If you cant beat them join them. But eh I'm no expert.
Apple partnering with networks, studios and distributors to reenforce the established lock-in by adding Apple devices to the mix is the best method of "finally cracked it" I can see that benefits Apple since the hard part is the logistics of partnerships, not the simple concept of sticking an AppleTV in a TV.
I was taken by the following quote:
"... whether it would receive traditional broadcast or cable signals remains unclear, said these people, who say Apple may change its plans."
This is not a question. It is a matter of law. Just as the Apple iPhone must be capable of dialing the emergency 911 telephone number prior to activation, so too must an Apple television set be capable of receiving ATSC OTA broadcasts. Otherwise, it cannot be sold in the USA as a television set or television monitor. Presumably, it could be sold as a computer monitor. If the TV has an ATSC tuner, then it will also have a ClearQAM tuner for unscrambled digital cable programming, and possibly a NTSC for analog cable and low-power OTA.
As for cable transmission, cable TV providers in the US operate as franchises that are approved by local governments. Each municipal government sets conditions for its local cable franchise(s) to operate within its jurisdiction. This means that the governmental environment in South Podunk, Missouri is completely different from those in Podunk, Iowa or East Podunk, Iowa for that matter. If Apple were to enter the cable TV business, then not only would Apple have to worry about the fine-grained governmental regulatory environment, but it would also have to deal with the strong opposition from existing franchises. Does anyone really believe that Apple will get into the cable TV business?
Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.
However, a TV set has to accommodate a huge existing infrastructure of broadcast and cable programming, DVD players, Blu-ray players, video game consoles, camcorder playback, etc. There appears to be a popular notion among some that Apple can just chuck all of this and start with a clean slate of its own making. Well, it can't. What Apple can do, however, it to rationalize the various and sundry components of the modern home entertainment system. It appears as though this is the tack that it is taking.
Based on the general thrust of the OP, it appears that Apple HDTV will be a smart TV. This is to be expected. Such a device would certainly run iOS. It could leverage the 10 thousands of existing iOS apps and motivate thousands more. Smart TVs from other manufacturers already have apps for various and sundry streaming video sources. Certainly Apple's smart TV could follow suit.
I wonder how Angry Birds would look across a 55" television.
A camera on the TV. This one is a no-brainer. Facetime, social networking... but also, Wii/Kinect type gaming.
Siri in the TV (and the TV is just the beginning).
Content sharing between the TV and the other iOS devices including an iOS device synch cradle.
Bluetooth in the TV. A keyboard on an iOS device with a big screen, even if confined to 1080p resolution, would be very useful in my office.
The ability to steam video to/from other devices over WiFi.
The App Store built right into the TV. And combined with the Bluetooth/camera, this would allow serious revenue through games. People spend a lot more for XBox games than the do for iPad games. There's the business model right there.
This is just off of the top of my head. I'm sure that I'm missing something that will surprise us all.
i can see apple being a conduit for content owned by others - the advantage to the consumer a more unified and simpler experience. But i doubt apple would go that route as its fraught with problems (wary stake holders). If they are dealing directly with the studios i see apple positioning itself as a niche player with a better potential for added revenue for the studios than what is currently available. Something to live alongside the present players. I then see them developing this new model aggressively and if it gains traction it could become disruptive in a major way.
If Apple are just a conduit it's not going to revolutionise anything. That isn't any different to Google's (unsanctioned) Google TV or Microsoft's (sanctioned) Xbox 360 update. i.e. if you search for a movie\\tv show you are presented with the all the apps that can serve that content to you.
If Apple were able get control of the content then I can see how they could be a very disruptive force... but there is no way in hell the studios will hand control over to Apple unless Apple have some serious leverage (it has even been said that Apple pose a bigger threat to the movie industry than piracy).
I'm yet to see a great idea of how Apple can create enough leverage to get access to the content they need.
Apple's current subscription pricing is crazy. Right now... a single TV show season is $20 (or $30 in HD)
If you like 4 shows... that's $80 or $120.
That'll suit you if all you ever wanna watch is those 4 shows.
The other option is paying for cable. While that will run you $80 or more every month... you also get access to EVERY TV show that is currently on the air. Every channel... every show. If you program your DVR to record all those shows... you basically have unlimited access to every show on TV.
There are some cord-cutters out there... and I'm sure they are happy with renting or purchasing a selection of TV shows. But there are far more people who still want cable and who watch tons of TV shows. Plus news, sports, all sorts of stuff.
Apple's gonna have to appeal to those people as well.
The features will be more innovative than the business model
I don't think so because the innovative ideas you list already exist.
For Apple to get access to the content they need at the price they need to make this work they will need leverage over the networks/studios/distributors etc.
It's unlikely that an external threat to their business model will cause them to hand control to Apple. Cross that off the list.
It's unlikely that Apple will gain such total control over the existing TV industry that the networks will be forced to come around. Cross that off the list.
The only thing I can think for Apple to do is come up with a new revenue model that only Apple can do and/or no one else has thought of, and for the promise of this new revenue stream to be too great for the studios to turn down.
Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.
Actually doing something no other company has thought of... that's what I would call innovative.
I can't think of any innovation that Apple has utilized with great success that wasn't simply a massive refinement of current technologies (which the naysayers isn't real innovation), wasn't a combination of multiple technologies (which the dissenters claim was always obvious), or something that simplified technologies (which the indecorums claim just adds proprietary lock-ins).
I think whatever they do will something that has been discussed [Ia]d nauseam[/I] but falls under the "easier said than done" category of integration and convenience. For example, the iPhone. The idea for a large touchscreen that reacts instantly and smoothly to your touch, weighs only a few ounces yet lasts all day on a single charge while always being connected to a wireless network has been around for 100(?) years, but it wasn't until many technologies were refined, combined and simplified that it becomes the standard by which all others now have to springboard from if they wish to compete.
A) they already have apple tv. Instead of amtv set: why not focussing on this device and make the software a lot better and the films cheaper and ad realtime streaming capabilities and siri input? The missing key is a remote with a microphone. No big deal.
C) i like apples design, but i am sure that their tv sets would cost a fortune. Many people would of course pay 1,5 to 2 times more for an 'ives'designed tv, but it would not become the mass market. The apple tv box is the key. But this device is continously left on the side. And unless they don't lower the film rental prices (especially in europe where the rental of sn hd film that isn't even hd cost about 7 us$) they won't succeed.
Hopefully with Full Picture-in-Picture (Full PiP), which requires at least two Digital Terrestrial Television (DTTV or DTT) tuners inside the TV set. After image quality, that is the most important feature of a TV set for many people. Which manufacturers/models deliver that now?
Shouldn't there be a sarcasm tag with your post?
I think the point is in replacing your cable box. If could get the 10 or so channels I watch a la carte via apple then he product(appletv) is worh considering. I'm annoyed that I pay 50+ dollars for a couple channels and DVR support
That's assuming the cable companies which are also the broadband ISPs don't mind being dumb pipes. They are going to look to making up their loss profits from cable TV subscriptions somehow, and the only thing they would have left is charging super high data rates.
Apple would most likely have to charge $5 per channel al a carte to placate the studio content providers. So that's $50 for the 10 channels. But the ISPs will make up their loss by doubling you data fees. So you'll be ~ $100+ for those same 10 channels and you would be required to have broadband to get Apple's channels over Internet.
You will pay more than you're paying now for less channels.