Apple has talked with cable companies about 'new TV product,' but launch not imminent

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple has reportedly held talks with some major cable operators in the U.S. about "some new TV product," but the debut of a potential Apple television set is not expected to come in the immediate future.

Rumors of an Apple television set picked up steam earlier this week after a research note by Jefferies & Co.'s James Kisner was published. But the information it contained was actually a rehash of an earlier note that Kisner sent out on Oct. 19.

In that month-old note, Kisner revealed that at least one major U.S. cable operator was in the process of estimating how much additional capacity would be needed for a new Apple device on their broadband network.

To Kisner, that suggested an "imminent launch" of an Apple television, but John Paczkowski of AllThingsD downplayed that speculation on Friday.

"If Apple were close to launching a new service, it would almost certainly be in touch with TV programmers about new arrangements, and we haven't heard anything along those lines," he said.

Television


However, Paczkowski did reveal that Apple had held talks with "a few large cable operators" about an unnamed "new TV product." He suggested those talks likely prompted at least one cable operator to do "due diligence on capacity issues and whatnot," which was probably the source of information relayed to Kisner.

"There are still a lot of missing pieces here, and while a major cable providers running what-if scenarios on a rumored Apple product is certainly interesting, it's not necessarily a trumpet fanfare announcing its imminent arrival," Paczkowski said.

Rumors of a full-fledged television set from Apple have persisted for years. But in August, Apple executive Eddy Cue suggested that such a product would be unlikely without necessary deals for content.

Cue said that Apple could create a better television user interface, but that alone would be an "incomplete solution."

One report earlier this year claimed Apple was toying with the idea of building a new set-top box that would handle live TV. The Wall Street Journal said Apple had not reached any deals with cable operators, however, possibly because of their reluctance to let Apple into the live TV space.
«13456789

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 167


    Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".


     


    They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.

  • Reply 2 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    This certainly goes along with my hypothesis that all the updates we just had to Apple products leaves a large gap for the first part of 2013 that is ripe for a new product or product category.
  • Reply 3 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".

    They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.

    Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products. If they release a TV (or, what I think is most likely, a digibox) then it will be because they feel they have all the parts ready to make it work.
  • Reply 4 of 167


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Apple has no history of releasing "me too" products.


     


    See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.

  • Reply 5 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.

    What products? What name?
  • Reply 6 of 167


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    What products? What name?


     


    The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.


     


    They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

  • Reply 7 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    The iPad mini and the newest iPhone. It's quite evident.

    They're certainly not doing it everywhere; not with their computers yet, at least (I even consider the new iMac to be massive evidence against what I'm saying). But in parts of the company that make the greatest profit? Two down, one to go.

    Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.
  • Reply 8 of 167
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    See, that's the thing. Apple doesn't, because they're just starting to do it. They've done it twice; once with a product, once with a name.
    Just because YOU don't care for the mini doesn't make it a me-too product. When this thing gets retina display it WILL be the 2nd most popular Apple product (behind iPhone). As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid. It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.
  • Reply 9 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Just because YOU don't care for the mini doesn't make it a me-too product. When this thing gets retina display it WILL be the 2nd most popular Apple product (behind iPhone). As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid. It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.

    I personally don't care for the iPad mini but I do think that it could make Apple's iPad segment the most popular leg in revenue and profit within 2 quarters.
  • Reply 10 of 167
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.

    The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product. As far as TVs goes Apple is quickly falling behind, I believe it's BOXEE that allows users to view live TV along with the digital streaming content.
  • Reply 11 of 167
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Those are in no way "me too" products. They were born out current market saturation paired with a change in technology that allowed them. For instance, the iPad mini, which is an 8" 4:3 tablet not 7" 16:9, was only possible after the switch to 32nm. It's also starting at $329. Absolutely nothing about it is driven toward the sub-$200 and sub-$100 market segment.
    If you read the reviews on the mini it's turning out to be one of Apples most popular products. If they manage to get retina display in the current form factor I could easily see the mini becoming more popular than the bigger IPad.
  • Reply 12 of 167
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,694member


    Apple needs to be very smart and careful entering into hardware agreements with the cable industry.  Look at what they did with cable cards and the SDV tech that made them almost useless.  Tivo can tell you some stories about dealing with big cable.

  • Reply 13 of 167


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    Those are in no way "me too" products.


     


    I see a market segment (tablets). I see a first-in-its-class product that reinvents the market segment (iPad). I see a branch market segment borne of this reinvention (smaller tablets). And I see a last-in-its-class product entering the branch segment (iPad mini). 


     


    Now, I use "last-in-its-class" as one would use "last word in". But I also use it to show order. 


     


    That was the product.





    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    As far as iPhone 5, everyone and their mother was calling it that so calling it iPhone 6 would have been stupid.


     


    "As for the iPad, everyone and their mother was calling it 'MacTablet', 'iTablet', 'iTab', 'MacPad'… 






     It's only certain purists (a small segment of the population) that think calling the 6th gen phone iPhone 5 is a big deal.



     


    It's a sad state of affairs when "a small segment of the population" are the only ones with the common frigging sense that Apple used to have.


     


    No, seriously, you would have been fine with Apple calling this product "iPod Mega"?


     


    image


     


    You are claiming that the name, a name which defines the product (because some names don't; Apple's iDevice names specifically do), does not have to apply to the product in any actual capacity. This is what you're saying! And that's why I still fight it! 


     


    Schiller needs to be asked! No one in the media would do it because they're the idiots that perpetrated this crap in the first place, but he needs to be asked, "What of this new iPhone makes it '5'?" 


     


    If a name that is supposed to describe the product it names does not do this for the sole purpose of bowing to media- or rumormongering, you can't say there isn't something wrong.


     


    Now, to the Apple TV.


     


    Apple needs to not make a follower product. A follower product would be a "smart TV". Truly. It would be a TV with the Apple TV interface in it, and there wouldn't be any differentiation or point. If they think that throwing a FaceTime camera on your TV (so that you can call people out in the world and they can see you in your recliner with Cheet-os down your front) is reason enough to make one, then I (I'm sure 'we') have news for 'em. 


     


    The Apple TV is spectacular. And it can be made more so with the right content deals. Everyone else is copying the Apple TV as is, so you know it's a good product. Roku has a box exactly the same shape and exactly the same height. It's disgusting and despicable and it proves Apple is right. Not the smart TV nonsense. Anyone can make a panel. But Apple can handle the software.

  • Reply 14 of 167
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    The million dollar question is would Apple have made the iPad mini if no 7" tablets existed? I'd consider the iPod a "me too" product.
    We'll never know but I personally don't care. I don't see the mini as a "me too" product. If Apple has been able to give the mini retina display in the same form factor, size, weight it would be game over for everyone else. I wish they would have been able to do it this year but they obviously felt thin and light was more important right now than retina,
  • Reply 15 of 167
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I see a market segment (tablets). I see a first-in-its-class product that reinvents the market segment (iPad). I see a branch market segment borne of this reinvention (smaller tablets). And I see a last-in-its-class product entering the branch segment (iPad mini). 

    Now, I use "last-in-its-class" as one would use "last word in". But I also use it to show order. 

    That was the product.

    The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad. Not every great device can be a flagship device. The iPad mini from the iPad is more aligned with the iPod Touch from the iPhone. It came after and filled a lower price point with lower functionality but that doesn't mean it's not a worth product. I have less use for an iPod Touch than an iPad mini but I'd never say the Touch is crap or a "me too" product simply because it doesn't suit my needs.

    Most of Apple's products come to market after other vendors try and fail to capture any real dominance in the market so coming after some other poorly contrived product has hit the market does not mean Apple is playing catch-up. In fact, the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac segments show Apple consistently trickling down to the cheaper market segments after they capture the top tiers.


    PS: As a moderator you're not allowed to have an opinion¡ :D
  • Reply 16 of 167


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad.


     


    I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

  • Reply 17 of 167
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    I'm not saying the iPad mini is supposed to. I'm saying it's following its competitors into its market without redefining it. Were there any competitors when the iPod shuffle was released?

    Very few competitors at that time. With the shuffle they were able to hit the price point of their remaining competitors.
  • Reply 18 of 167


    I have an Apple TV and I love it - but I'm not sure I'd be able or willing to pay the price Apple would command for a true TV.  And it comes down to content deals.  If Apple can provide an "a la carte" option (only Apple could do this) then I'd be very interested.  But again, at what cost?  I'd guess a real "iTV" would cost around $3k - minimum.


     


    It'd be a beaut but too costly for most folks I think.


     


    I kind of see this as vaporware anyway

  • Reply 19 of 167


    Judging by the price drops in large TVs and an upper limit to increasingly larger displays, I think the business is ripe for adding features through software instead of purely hardware considerations. A TV box makes more sense for people who already have TVs, but an integrated device will work better and is Apple's modus operandi.

  • Reply 20 of 167
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Knowing New Apple, it's a TV, made because they read one rumor on one website that said they were making one, so "we better not disappoint our fans".


     


    They'd disappoint most of us by making a TV.



    I've considered purchasing the Apple TV for netflix and a few other things. I'd never buy an actual television from Apple.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    The iPod Shuffle was isa great product, but it wasn't some climatic release that shock the world like the iPhone and iPad. Not every great device can be a flagship device. The iPad mini from the iPad is more aligned with the iPod Touch from the iPhone. It came after and filled a lower price point with lower functionality but that doesn't mean it's not a worth product. I have less use for an iPod Touch than an iPad mini but I'd never say the Touch is crap or a "me too" product simply because it doesn't suit my needs.

    Most of Apple's products come to market after other vendors try and fail to capture any real dominance in the market so coming after some other poorly contrived product has hit the market does not mean Apple is playing catch-up. In fact, the iPhone, iPad, iPod and Mac segments show Apple consistently trickling down to the cheaper market segments after they capture the top tiers.

    PS: As a moderator you're not allowed to have an opinion¡ image


    As much as I disagree with him at times, I never see the mod status as an issue. Having a range of successful products isn't a bad thing. Right now the iphone accounts for the majority of operating income and overall growth, which is somewhat scary. This has nothing to do with the typical doom and gloom. They're just extremely dependent on continual growth of that specific product. Spreading growth into other areas would help ensure some stability as long as it doesn't reach a point where their design and engineering teams are just spread too thin. I read Adobe's blogs occasionally. Their different software teams sometimes sound as if they lack enough communication.

Sign In or Register to comment.