DISH Network will jump on it just like Cingular did with the iPhone.
BBC, BSkyB, ITV and Channel 4 in the UK have been supplying this service to other Smart TV/Set-Top Box manufacturers for ages now. Apple will just be another one in the pile to write for. *shrug*
Cook: Look, here's the deal. We're going to start offering your shows the way we offer music: Pay for access to a show, stream any episode of that show any time you want any way you want, no commercials.
Companies: No!
(one of them perks up): Well?
Cook: Okay, so we'll just drop all access to the rest of you guys' stuff and let his stuff through.
Rest: ? We fold?
It did play out that way in the early days of iTunes and iPod. Lately, not so much. Studios and other media companies are determined not to give up control to Apple and are explicitly refusing to follow the footsteps of the music industry. A shame, really. That model works not too badly for the consumer.
With $80b to spend, Apple could buy 2 or 3 movie production companies and a collection of tv production companies and still have most of that left over. Apple only need to buy enough to ensure compelling content and drive the remaining companies into line.
Didn't Apple say they were going to keep their financial powder dry and then spend big. If not to buy Facebook then maybe TV?
why does everyone assume that Apple TV actually means a physical TV????
to me, the idea of Apple and TV is more of a way for Apple to serve MORE media via iTunes to ANY apple device.
I can already watch almost everyting via iTunes now except that is is not live. Maybe Apple is trying to get something worked out where iTunes can stream LIVE content...
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).
Well that makes it even more interesting as it implies the means Apple with use to gain leverage over the networks already exists in some form.
I've noticed Apple can shift technology from an existing market to a new one with success.
Maybe there is some huge revenue stream generator being used in another market just waiting to be applied to TV...
Forgetting for a second about whether it'll be a TV or a separate box (or both)...
What if instead of going directly to the media companies, Apple side-steps the issue by going directly to cable/satellite companies? Currently in Canada at least, it costs $500 for an HD PVR with a garbage interface. What if the Apple device took the place of the cable/satellite box? They can get their foot in the door way easier as they're not disrupting the way the industry currently makes money. The Apple device would have full access to all the channels and program guide so they can do their magic on the searching/browsing/scheduling recordings thing. Plus it could do all the normal AppleTV things, and maybe even stream recorded programs or live shows to iOS devices via Homesharing. They would just need to add a coax-in/tuner and a hard drive. It would be even easier to make for the providers that are moving to IPTV.
Then once Apple is in a ton of living rooms, all of a sudden they have the sway to lean harder and start modify how content is delivered.
I'd believe a targeted IPTV advertising platform with pin-point accuracy based on the Facebook social graph would certainly be an incentive for the networks to play ball.
However that would involve a creepy amount of spying on customers and selling them to advertisers which is very un-Apple-like (and frankly not one of Apple's strengths).
So I would see some kind of Facebook partnership as being more likely than a complete buy-out.
What if instead of going directly to the media companies, Apple side-steps the issue by going directly to cable/satellite companies? What if the Apple device took the place of the cable/satellite box?
Cable companies won't give up control of the set top box.
What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.
it's not pointless, it's just pointless for you. I'm in the market for such a TV right now and it pisses me off that I have to buy some other piece of crap as a stopgap device knowing that in a year or two Apple will come out with this.
The advantages over the current choices would be:
1) no cables and wires (other than a power cord)
2) no cable TV at all (yay!)
3) no "channel guide" to navigate
4) no amplifier to connect
5) no remotes (except your phone)
6) no speakers to string around your living room
7) almost certainly a far better quality picture than the crap out there now.
8) no 200 useless "features" and controls on the thing that you don't need and don't do anything anyway.
I was shopping for a TV just yesterday and they are uniformly shite IMO. There wasn't a single one that had accurate colour, and not a single one that wasn't blurry or faded, or pixelated at distances of less than ten feet.
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
I'm reasonably certain that whatever Apple ends up doing, it will be far better than what we have 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 don't see any reason in the world why it would have a TV tuner in it at all. Let alone two.
If you are going to "reinvent" TV, the very first thing to drop would be cable TV and all the mess that comes with it.
It would probably have a single connector for a cable box so the old folks can connect their stuff if they want to but I would imagine that the whole thrust of the thing would be away from old-school cable TV.
Cable companies won't give up control of the set top box.
Why not? The cable companies get money from the cable subscription... not the box.
Right now... you get a cable box made by Motorola, Samsung or Scientific Atlanta.
Why not a cable box made by Apple? One that actually works well? Hell, just charge $10 a month extra for the Apple box over the generic cable box.
The only problem I could see is that the Apple cable box would promote iTunes rentals instead of the cable company's own VOD service.
But here's the thing... if you have the generic cable box provided by the cable company right now... there's nothing to prevent you from also having an AppleTV or Roku or something.
So... people are already using services outside of the cable company for additional content. (hello Netflix)
I think an Apple cable box would be the easiest way for Apple to get into the living room.... far easier than making their own expensive TVs or extra boxes that you use in addition to the cable box you already need.
There are millions upon millions of people still paying for cable... and there is a crappy cable box that comes with it.
An Apple cable box would be a welcome change... much better than this:
I've yet to hear a single feature of the supposed iTV that couldn't be achieved with an upgraded Apple TV box. Which begs the question; why would Apple try and sell you an Apple TV buried in a screen for two grand when they would have better luck continuing to sell a $99 box that connects to the tv you already own? What if anything does Apple have to offer for the tv itself? What's going to make a $2,000 Apple-branded television any better than a $900 Panasonic Plasma connected to a $99 Apple TV?
I think the most interesting development in TV at the moment is Xbox TV, which once it's fully decked out with video services will be a pretty attractive proposition. For those that haven't seen it - you can search every video service from a single search interface (Bing), through text entry or voice. It then presents you with unified results showing you which services have your requested content, and then with a single click watch it from your requested service.
It's the best offering yet and works pretty well, and looks very nice too with the new Xbox Metro UI. I don't really know what else Apple could do other than copy what MS has already done.
it's not pointless, it's just pointless for you. I'm in the market for such a TV right now and it pisses me off that I have to buy some other piece of crap as a stopgap device knowing that in a year or two Apple will come out with this.
The advantages over the current choices would be:
1) no cables and wires (other than a power cord)
2) no cable TV at all (yay!)
3) no "channel guide" to navigate
4) no amplifier to connect
5) no remotes (except your phone)
6) no speakers to string around your living room
7) almost certainly a far better quality picture than the crap out there now.
8) no 200 useless "features" and controls on the thing that you don't need and don't do anything anyway.
I was shopping for a TV just yesterday and they are uniformly shite IMO. There wasn't a single one that had accurate colour, and not a single one that wasn't blurry or faded, or pixelated at distances of less than ten feet.
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
I'm reasonably certain that whatever Apple ends up doing, it will be far better than what we have now.
Would you like cheese with that whine? I mean really! It might interest you to learn that the color on every single one of those TVs that you saw yesterday can be adjusted. As of the 2012 model year, no TV set has replaced its speakers/audio output with an aural link directly to your brain. Until LG perfects is clairvoyant link for the psychically challenged, we have need a program guide to tell us which shows are on when.
I am curious why you specifically don't mind a power cord when there are TV sets that have been available for a while now that do not have power cords. Of course, there are also TVs that don't have wires that connect them to their content source. Therefore, the cord-free TV set is hardly novel. Of course, it does require a nearby brick for power and content connections.
What this all gets down to is that your dream TV is an amalgam of two kinds of things--those that are physically impossible and those that you didn't know existed but have been around for awhile.
Comments
DISH Network will jump on it just like Cingular did with the iPhone.
BBC, BSkyB, ITV and Channel 4 in the UK have been supplying this service to other Smart TV/Set-Top Box manufacturers for ages now. Apple will just be another one in the pile to write for. *shrug*
Cook: Look, here's the deal. We're going to start offering your shows the way we offer music: Pay for access to a show, stream any episode of that show any time you want any way you want, no commercials.
Companies: No!
(one of them perks up): Well?
Cook: Okay, so we'll just drop all access to the rest of you guys' stuff and let his stuff through.
Rest: ? We fold?
It did play out that way in the early days of iTunes and iPod. Lately, not so much. Studios and other media companies are determined not to give up control to Apple and are explicitly refusing to follow the footsteps of the music industry. A shame, really. That model works not too badly for the consumer.
Didn't Apple say they were going to keep their financial powder dry and then spend big. If not to buy Facebook then maybe TV?
to me, the idea of Apple and TV is more of a way for Apple to serve MORE media via iTunes to ANY apple device.
I can already watch almost everyting via iTunes now except that is is not live. Maybe Apple is trying to get something worked out where iTunes can stream LIVE content...
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).
Well that makes it even more interesting as it implies the means Apple with use to gain leverage over the networks already exists in some form.
I've noticed Apple can shift technology from an existing market to a new one with success.
Maybe there is some huge revenue stream generator being used in another market just waiting to be applied to TV...
What if instead of going directly to the media companies, Apple side-steps the issue by going directly to cable/satellite companies? Currently in Canada at least, it costs $500 for an HD PVR with a garbage interface. What if the Apple device took the place of the cable/satellite box? They can get their foot in the door way easier as they're not disrupting the way the industry currently makes money. The Apple device would have full access to all the channels and program guide so they can do their magic on the searching/browsing/scheduling recordings thing. Plus it could do all the normal AppleTV things, and maybe even stream recorded programs or live shows to iOS devices via Homesharing. They would just need to add a coax-in/tuner and a hard drive. It would be even easier to make for the providers that are moving to IPTV.
Then once Apple is in a ton of living rooms, all of a sudden they have the sway to lean harder and start modify how content is delivered.
If not to buy Facebook then maybe TV?
I'd believe a targeted IPTV advertising platform with pin-point accuracy based on the Facebook social graph would certainly be an incentive for the networks to play ball.
However that would involve a creepy amount of spying on customers and selling them to advertisers which is very un-Apple-like (and frankly not one of Apple's strengths).
So I would see some kind of Facebook partnership as being more likely than a complete buy-out.
What if instead of going directly to the media companies, Apple side-steps the issue by going directly to cable/satellite companies? What if the Apple device took the place of the cable/satellite box?
Cable companies won't give up control of the set top box.
.... 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.
Apple has no authority to license any content because it owns no content to license.
Have you ever yelled at the TV?
What if it cold yell back at you?
What is the point? We have the Apple TV already that works with any screen. Any features can be added to a similar device that works with any TV... massive sales potential that way. Making a TV itself is pointless.
it's not pointless, it's just pointless for you. I'm in the market for such a TV right now and it pisses me off that I have to buy some other piece of crap as a stopgap device knowing that in a year or two Apple will come out with this.
The advantages over the current choices would be:
1) no cables and wires (other than a power cord)
2) no cable TV at all (yay!)
3) no "channel guide" to navigate
4) no amplifier to connect
5) no remotes (except your phone)
6) no speakers to string around your living room
7) almost certainly a far better quality picture than the crap out there now.
8) no 200 useless "features" and controls on the thing that you don't need and don't do anything anyway.
I was shopping for a TV just yesterday and they are uniformly shite IMO. There wasn't a single one that had accurate colour, and not a single one that wasn't blurry or faded, or pixelated at distances of less than ten feet.
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
I'm reasonably certain that whatever Apple ends up doing, it will be far better than what we have 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 don't see any reason in the world why it would have a TV tuner in it at all. Let alone two.
If you are going to "reinvent" TV, the very first thing to drop would be cable TV and all the mess that comes with it.
It would probably have a single connector for a cable box so the old folks can connect their stuff if they want to but I would imagine that the whole thrust of the thing would be away from old-school cable TV.
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
Compared to the amazing CRT TVs before...? You are a touch cantankerous aren't you?
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
Both technology and production have advanced considerably. I see no defense that TV is "absolute crap nowadays".
Cable companies won't give up control of the set top box.
Why not? The cable companies get money from the cable subscription... not the box.
Right now... you get a cable box made by Motorola, Samsung or Scientific Atlanta.
Why not a cable box made by Apple? One that actually works well? Hell, just charge $10 a month extra for the Apple box over the generic cable box.
The only problem I could see is that the Apple cable box would promote iTunes rentals instead of the cable company's own VOD service.
But here's the thing... if you have the generic cable box provided by the cable company right now... there's nothing to prevent you from also having an AppleTV or Roku or something.
So... people are already using services outside of the cable company for additional content. (hello Netflix)
I think an Apple cable box would be the easiest way for Apple to get into the living room.... far easier than making their own expensive TVs or extra boxes that you use in addition to the cable box you already need.
There are millions upon millions of people still paying for cable... and there is a crappy cable box that comes with it.
An Apple cable box would be a welcome change... much better than this:
Siri put BBC News channel on
Siri lower the volume and read my emails and play my video messages
Siri start video call to my mother (using built in FaceTime camera)
Siri access my iCloud and show comedy TV shows > next > select 24 > play episode 5
Siri play Gran Turismo > play using built in motion sensor without any remote/controller
Siri play Radio 2
Siri play MLB channel > switch to Red Sox game > switch to 3D (without galsses)
Siri access internet with current scores (picture in picture)
Siri record The Gadget Show and remind me to watch it tomorrow at 7pm
It's the best offering yet and works pretty well, and looks very nice too with the new Xbox Metro UI. I don't really know what else Apple could do other than copy what MS has already done.
it's not pointless, it's just pointless for you. I'm in the market for such a TV right now and it pisses me off that I have to buy some other piece of crap as a stopgap device knowing that in a year or two Apple will come out with this.
The advantages over the current choices would be:
1) no cables and wires (other than a power cord)
2) no cable TV at all (yay!)
3) no "channel guide" to navigate
4) no amplifier to connect
5) no remotes (except your phone)
6) no speakers to string around your living room
7) almost certainly a far better quality picture than the crap out there now.
8) no 200 useless "features" and controls on the thing that you don't need and don't do anything anyway.
I was shopping for a TV just yesterday and they are uniformly shite IMO. There wasn't a single one that had accurate colour, and not a single one that wasn't blurry or faded, or pixelated at distances of less than ten feet.
TV is absolute crap nowadays, both the devices and the content.
I'm reasonably certain that whatever Apple ends up doing, it will be far better than what we have now.
Would you like cheese with that whine? I mean really! It might interest you to learn that the color on every single one of those TVs that you saw yesterday can be adjusted. As of the 2012 model year, no TV set has replaced its speakers/audio output with an aural link directly to your brain. Until LG perfects is clairvoyant link for the psychically challenged, we have need a program guide to tell us which shows are on when.
I am curious why you specifically don't mind a power cord when there are TV sets that have been available for a while now that do not have power cords. Of course, there are also TVs that don't have wires that connect them to their content source. Therefore, the cord-free TV set is hardly novel. Of course, it does require a nearby brick for power and content connections.
What this all gets down to is that your dream TV is an amalgam of two kinds of things--those that are physically impossible and those that you didn't know existed but have been around for awhile.
I don't really know what else Apple could do other than copy what MS has already done.
It may also simply be revealing the fact that your imagination is lacking (relative to Apple's).