This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market. Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.
That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade. Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle. Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor.
I think the point is to spread the ecosystem. From what I ear one large iptv provider was able to support both the apple box and the motorola box on the same network. So its only a matter of striking a deal, technically, it works.
Cable Qam is a different tech, i didnt ear anything about anyone playing with apple qam cable box prototypes. Maybe the iptv apple box prototypes means at least one provider agreed to some kind of deal already.
I am glad to see those rumors coming out again, been a long time since the lasg ones.
Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Tivio's business model is completely broken, since the cable companies subsidize their own PVR boxes. Apple requires healthy profit margins on all their hardware, so how is this going to fly? Besides, I'm sure Apple has no desire to be a middle man, since their M.O. has been to deal directly with content providers. Apple going through the cable companies to provide content, as well as requiring their customers to have cable subscriptions, make absolutely no sense. Where's the value proposition for Apple?
Perhaps Apple feels they need to try a Trojan Horse tactic to crack this nut. The cable companies are fully aware of their intentions. Should be interesting.
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google so it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Online viewing really sucks!
I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience. Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle. I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good. I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively. All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges. There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling. Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others. Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that. I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense. Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.
I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience. Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle. I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good. I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively. All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges. There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling. Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others. Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that. I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense. Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.
Personnaly, i dont think Apple will try to support conventional qam cable unless they strike a deal with a major us cable provider. Its much easier to just support iptv, which is much more advance. And i think iptv coverage has improved a lot. FibeTV now as good coverage in canada and u-verse and Fios have decent coverage now in the US. Imo if apple can secure BCE, AT&T and Verizon it would be enough for a launch.
DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?
Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!
I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience. Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle. I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good. I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively. All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges. There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling. Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others. Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that. I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense. Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.
Good to know...I've often thought that if money were no object, get TIVO, all the premium channels and just put it down as part of my entertainment budget! Some people blow the same amount of money in a bar on one night or a mediocre meal!
Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$ i don't have to give away-
I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...
Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!
A lot of words...but you are entirely correct! Sports to TV is like porn to the internet...both dominate.
Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$ i don't have to give away-
I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...
My 2 cents... bitzandbitez
I used that, too. but the picture quality was always subpar. I assume the HD is better. I used to Egalto Eyetv (DVR) everything I wanted on my iMac and then stream it to my AppleTV. Once it was set up it was pretty cool....again, except for the picture quality.
But… but I want to waste thousands on a giant television that I'll replace every single year instead of a $99 box!
Just gotta keep reminding myself: I do want AI to report on everything, no matter how outlandish…
Because you will have a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade it every year. If you haven't noticed, every TV manufacturer releases several new models a year. Somehow, it works out. If there is indeed an Apple TV, the hardware will be less important than the content and the ecosystem that goes along with it. And like it or not, a self contained TV is easier for most people to understand, and more tangible, than black box you need to plug in to your TV, change the inputs to access, etc. Also, mobile CPUs/GPUs have reached a point where almost anything is possible. I don't see what they won't be able to do with an A15 chip in a TV, that will require yearly updates. This isn't 2007. The processing tech has matured greatly. The A5X handles the ultra-high resolution, beyond HDTV resolution iPad like butter. An A6 would be able to run a TV interface in its sleep.
Apple has missed the opportunity to monetize pay TV now that all the pay TV operators expose their content via the 'TV Everywhere' paywall. Apple won't get a revenue split because all the pay TV operators are app developers, the apps themselves are free and the user pays the pay TV company for the programming directly.
Look at the AT&T, Verizon, Xfinity, etc apps, and NBCU's Olympics LiveExtra and you'll see. Yes it's pay TV - not everything on the Internet wants to be free. Online TV and Pay TV will grow more and more alike over time.
Same thing happened with Google TV. Only one pay TV provider integrated with the platform: Dish (and they did a pretty good job) . Google has since realized that its opportunity lies in embedding the GoogleTV platform with CE devices, not in trying to go up against a business model that the TV industry has been honing for 60+ years. That industry will continue in its own self interest, not that of Apple, Boxee, Google, or even TiVo ( which now pursues service providers, not consumer end users).
As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well
This direction for "Apple TV" is vastly superior to entering the commoditized flat screen market. Let Sony, Sharp, Vizio, et al fight over the big box.
That market stinks, with low margins, high stocking and shipping expenses, and a generalized lack of enthusiasm amongst customers to upgrade. Just getting the new set attached to the wall and the old set disposed of is a huge hassle and is inconsistent with the typical Apple upgrade cycle. Stay away from the big set and sell an iPhone sized accessory that can link to any communications capable monitor.
have you ever owned an apple product? even if you haven't, are you *still* not yet aware that apple's goal is *always* to do things better than anyone else has previously?
every issue you cited assumes (erroneously) one thing: that an apple-branded TV would be just like every other company's TVs. you seem to forget that apple is in the business of *revolutionizing* products. every single aspect of an apple TV would have been rethought -- right down to some new and simple way to affix it to one's wall. apple's goal would be to eliminate *everything* that you currently consider to be a hassle.
everything you mentioned is true *only* for TVs as we already know them. by your logic, apple should have stayed out of the mobile-phone space, as well. because -- you know -- "phones suck. let other companies fight over that stuff." :-)
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?
Brilliant! Are you from the future?
I think the point is to spread the ecosystem. From what I ear one large iptv provider was able to support both the apple box and the motorola box on the same network. So its only a matter of striking a deal, technically, it works.
Cable Qam is a different tech, i didnt ear anything about anyone playing with apple qam cable box prototypes. Maybe the iptv apple box prototypes means at least one provider agreed to some kind of deal already.
I am glad to see those rumors coming out again, been a long time since the lasg ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99
Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Online viewing really sucks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaCowboy
Tivio's business model is completely broken, since the cable companies subsidize their own PVR boxes. Apple requires healthy profit margins on all their hardware, so how is this going to fly? Besides, I'm sure Apple has no desire to be a middle man, since their M.O. has been to deal directly with content providers. Apple going through the cable companies to provide content, as well as requiring their customers to have cable subscriptions, make absolutely no sense. Where's the value proposition for Apple?Perhaps Apple feels they need to try a Trojan Horse tactic to crack this nut. The cable companies are fully aware of their intentions. Should be interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google so it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Online viewing really sucks!
I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience. Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle. I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good. I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively. All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges. There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling. Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others. Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that. I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense. Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.
Personnaly, i dont think Apple will try to support conventional qam cable unless they strike a deal with a major us cable provider. Its much easier to just support iptv, which is much more advance. And i think iptv coverage has improved a lot. FibeTV now as good coverage in canada and u-verse and Fios have decent coverage now in the US. Imo if apple can secure BCE, AT&T and Verizon it would be enough for a launch.
Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
I think you are right, going online only doesn't yet provide a satisfying experience. Unless you want to steal stuff and deal with that hassle. I'm about picture quality and much of the streaming stuff is not very good. I have 3 Tivos and we still use them extensively. All have lifetime service so we don't have any monthly charges. There are some problems with the Tivo model, but the convenience of having your shows instantly available in HD on a local drive is very compelling. Tivo has some serious problems interfacing with HD cable system due to the use of SDV by TW and others. Not sure how this alleged Apple device would deal with that. I kind of doubt that Apple is talking about a DVR in the conventional sense. Plus, if they are they will either have to license certain DVR patents from Tivo or invent new methods.
Good to know...I've often thought that if money were no object, get TIVO, all the premium channels and just put it down as part of my entertainment budget!
Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$ i don't have to give away-
I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...
My 2 cents... bitzandbitez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!
A lot of words...but you are entirely correct! Sports to TV is like porn to the internet...both dominate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitzandbitez
Me THATS WHO wtf are u talking about we are all not RICH SNOBS that can afford all those "ON DEMAND" offers that stuff cost $$$ i don't have to give away-
I just got my ELGATO EYETV HD delivered TODAY and I will be returning this crappy TIME WARNER DVR box that records when it wants to and I will be recording ALL MY STUFF to my MACBOOK PRO and watch EVERYTHING remotely with my ipad and iphone thru wifi ...
My 2 cents... bitzandbitez
I used that, too. but the picture quality was always subpar. I assume the HD is better. I used to Egalto Eyetv (DVR) everything I wanted on my iMac and then stream it to my AppleTV. Once it was set up it was pretty cool....again, except for the picture quality.
The hype os the Apple Television is dead.
Well, Time Warner Cable's CEO has been quoted as saying that he'd love to get out of the set-top box business. Here's his big chance!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But… but I want to waste thousands on a giant television that I'll replace every single year instead of a $99 box!
Just gotta keep reminding myself: I do want AI to report on everything, no matter how outlandish…
Because you will have a gun to your head forcing you to upgrade it every year. If you haven't noticed, every TV manufacturer releases several new models a year. Somehow, it works out. If there is indeed an Apple TV, the hardware will be less important than the content and the ecosystem that goes along with it. And like it or not, a self contained TV is easier for most people to understand, and more tangible, than black box you need to plug in to your TV, change the inputs to access, etc. Also, mobile CPUs/GPUs have reached a point where almost anything is possible. I don't see what they won't be able to do with an A15 chip in a TV, that will require yearly updates. This isn't 2007. The processing tech has matured greatly. The A5X handles the ultra-high resolution, beyond HDTV resolution iPad like butter. An A6 would be able to run a TV interface in its sleep.
Look at the AT&T, Verizon, Xfinity, etc apps, and NBCU's Olympics LiveExtra and you'll see. Yes it's pay TV - not everything on the Internet wants to be free. Online TV and Pay TV will grow more and more alike over time.
Same thing happened with Google TV. Only one pay TV provider integrated with the platform: Dish (and they did a pretty good job) . Google has since realized that its opportunity lies in embedding the GoogleTV platform with CE devices, not in trying to go up against a business model that the TV industry has been honing for 60+ years. That industry will continue in its own self interest, not that of Apple, Boxee, Google, or even TiVo ( which now pursues service providers, not consumer end users).
As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well
have you ever owned an apple product? even if you haven't, are you *still* not yet aware that apple's goal is *always* to do things better than anyone else has previously?
every issue you cited assumes (erroneously) one thing: that an apple-branded TV would be just like every other company's TVs. you seem to forget that apple is in the business of *revolutionizing* products. every single aspect of an apple TV would have been rethought -- right down to some new and simple way to affix it to one's wall. apple's goal would be to eliminate *everything* that you currently consider to be a hassle.
everything you mentioned is true *only* for TVs as we already know them. by your logic, apple should have stayed out of the mobile-phone space, as well. because -- you know -- "phones suck. let other companies fight over that stuff." :-)