I have to laugh at everyone trying to beat Apple to the punch in TV when they really have no idea what Apple is planning on doing in this space. I think where companies are missing the boat though is people don't really care about so-called smart TV's. They haven't taken off at all. Hopefully Apple realizes its not about a cool UI. They can have the coolest UI ever but if you're still stuck with cable monopolies and bundled packages where you're paying for channels you never watch its not really solving anything. Cable companies get all the blame but its the content providers pushing/forcing bundling. I'm skeptical Apple will be able to change any of that.
Is no company now capable of coming up with a good idea without it being them having to beat Apple?
I have to laugh at everyone trying to beat Apple to the punch in TV when they really have no idea what Apple is planning on doing in this space. I think where companies are missing the boat though is people don't really care about so-called smart TV's. They haven't taken off at all. Hopefully Apple realizes its not about a cool UI. They can have the coolest UI ever but if you're still stuck with cable monopolies and bundled packages where you're paying for channels you never watch its not really solving anything. Cable companies get all the blame but its the content providers pushing/forcing bundling. I'm skeptical Apple will be able to change any of that.
I think that is partially correct. I feel the problem with today's SmartTVs isn't just a slow and convoluted UI but a lack of content that simple cant be had today without working with the cable/sat providers.
I don't want Apple to ignore cae/sat but to work with them so that the Apple TV UI is I tethered seamlessly into the content you get from your cable/sat providers.
I've envisioned a couple ways (logistically) this can be done but none of them seem like a great solution. Apple typically doesn't do partnerships like this but like most things there is an exception. They partner with telcos for the iPhone and it's their most successful product line. I don't think it would be if they were there own MVNO or only sold it unlocked at their retail price.
Whether we get Apple HDTVs or not I'm hoping Apple has inked deals with a large cae company (like they did with Cingular) to get the ball rolling with an Apple-branded cable box that has WiFi and BT.
An HD Scientific Atlanta box is in the retail iPhone and iPad prices, if memory serves. I'm not sure how much of that is profit but I have to think Apple can do it more efficiently as there is no part of the HW they don't have experience with, save the specific HW for the digital cable decoding. Apple even has experience with analog TV tuners but I would doubt that would be included in this 21st century device.
One caveat is, I think, most cable companies are still using MPEG-2 for digital cable, including HD. Not hard to support in the device since we're talking about a codec and the processing is considerably less than H.264. Having a separate backend system for just H.264 for Apple's content would be an undertaking. That said, I have faith that would be considered since a transition would have to happen and it will save them considerable bandwidth saturation, data usage, and allow for On Demand to be queued faster.
I don't think it's worth talking about H.265 until later in the year. Once it's finalized (next month?) then the re work starts.
Thanks for the link. I do remember that now and here we are in the winter of 2012 and it still hasn't happened and I for one am glad it didn't.
It wasn't realistic when he states it. Sometimes I think execs get so used to getting told what they want to hear that they then make statements based on that. The Emperor's new HDTV, so to speak.
Is no company now capable of coming up with a good idea without it being them having to beat Apple?
We saw this 3 years ago when rumours of the iTablet were heavy in the air. CES was filled with tablets that never made it to market after Apple unveiled the iPad.
Is no company now capable of coming up with a good idea without it being them having to beat Apple?
If they were actually capable of anything, they would have done it already while they still have any control of the industry whatsoever. BEFORE Apple gets there. They're obviously just not capable of creating something new.
They'd get the telecoms together and scare them to death with a deal that the company imagines Apple will force the telecoms into. Provided Apple hasn't already gotten to said telecoms (who are gonna be dead anyway), the company will offer subservience as long as the telecoms agree to putting their content through the company's UI system. And then they'd have something. Customers would still hate it, but telecoms would think it's the future.
Some industry watchers had initially speculated that Motorola's set-top box business might have been a key part of the acquisition for Google, as the company offers its own Android-based Google TV business.
It would have been funny to watch Microsoft and Google in a bidding war over WebTV.
Then to watch the winner drive WebTV into the ground the way Microsoft did.
Our counterparts in infinite alternate universes are madly munching popcorn watching that right now.
Agreed. Cable companies will eventually be reduced to just renting and servicing their "pipes!"
But am really looking fwd to an Apple TV because I know Apple will do it right!
Cable companies will not be reduced to renting and servicing their pipes. The cable networks are not going to give up that revenue stream. For most people, it's still far easier to tune in a live channel than to enter URLs or search for bookmarks, especially on TV interfaces where there's no keyboard.
I don't know why people refuse to understand that while one technology may partially cannibalize another, it generally doesn't replace it. Road warriors and those who don't spend a lot of time at home (young people) want to stream onto portable devices. Those who still watch in the traditional home setting (whether living room, media room or bedroom) don't care about streaming - they hardly even use VOD, which is easier.
Also, the industry as a whole has to be very careful - if you sell your content to every possible distribution channel and every vendor within those channels, you wind up with an unsustainable business model because the fragments become so small, none of those distribution channels can make a profit.
Especially for sports channels, the MSOs pay hefty fees to the content networks. The MSOs are not going to continue to pay those fees if the channels sell their content via streaming either directly or via other third parties. And industries tend not to want to give up substantial current revenue streams. So I find it a bit hard to believe that Intel (or Apple for that matter) has been able to obtain rights to substantial sports packages.
So be careful what you wish for. If the market becomes as fragmented as it looks like it's going to become, the major OTA and cable networks will look more like YouTube as they greatly reduce the amount of money they'll be willing to invest in content. (Not that there's anything so great to watch on those networks today.)
As for Apple "doing it right", I'm not so sure anymore. IMO, I really don't see anything very special about Apple TV, either from a content standpoint or from a UI standpoint. And I don't think that Apple's UI is bleeding edge (or even leading edge) anymore, the way that it used to be. And I suspect that any Apple TV set is going to either wind up being a traditional set with a super nice frame and an Apple TV embedded (yawn!) or a very closed box system which doesn't permit you to easily access content that doesn't come from an Apple source. The latter will only sell to Apple fanboys.
Steve's comment about solving the interface problem was a bit of a red herring.
Apple is going to solve the [I]content[/I] problem, by building a network of data centers that allow live one-to-many broadcasts from any individual to any number of other individuals anywhere in the world. When it becomes 3-D, this world FaceTime "conversation" will be more compelling than any canned programming put out by any legacy "providers." Only live sports and other high-level performance will be able to compete with actual humans talking, virtually visiting and traveling with other actual humans.
I shouldn't be revealing this strategy, but I know no one's going to pay the slightest attention.
Edit: I'm kind of with [B]zoetmb[/B] above, except from the other side of the fence. Yes, the cable providers and networks will be left with the couch potato demographic. Those he scornfully calls Apple "f-boys" in his last sentence will be most of the intelligent world. It stands to reason that Apple will become the communications giant of the 21st century, like the pre-break-up AT&T was in the last century, only without the monopoly perniciousness that led to the break-up.
Edit2: The point is that the center-to-margin broadcast model is finally dying, making room for person-to-person(s) manycasting. No matter how much I dislike Google's subversion through advertising, I'm still grateful for what they've shown us with YouTube.
Apple is going to solve the content problem, by building a network of data centers that allow live one-to-many broadcasts from any individual to any number of other individuals anywhere in the world.
Useless without cheap fiber access between them. And Apple has no control over that.
We saw this 3 years ago when rumours of the iTablet were heavy in the air. CES was filled with tablets that never made it to market after Apple unveiled the iPad.
In a Schadenfreudian way it was kind of funny.
Steve Ballmer at CES with his red sweater vest trying his darnedest to look like uncle Ballmer on Christmas morning with a Windows 7-based HP Slate was funny. A few tech elites openly salivated at the prospects for Windows on a tablet. Then a few weeks later, iPad happened. And IT changed everything.
Steve's comment about solving the interface problem was a bit of a red herring.
Apple is going to solve the content problem, by building a network of data centers that allow live one-to-many broadcasts from any individual to any number of other individuals anywhere in the world. When it becomes 3-D, this world FaceTime "conversation" will be more compelling than any canned programming put out by any legacy "providers." Only live sports and other high-level performance will be able to compete with actual humans talking, virtually visiting and traveling with other actual humans.
I shouldn't be revealing this strategy, but I know no one's going to pay the slightest attention.
Edit: I'm kind of with zoetmb above, except from the other side of the fence. Yes, the cable providers and networks will be left with the couch potato demographic. Those he scornfully calls Apple "f-boys" in his last sentence will be most of the intelligent world. It stands to reason that Apple will become the communications giant of the 21st century, like the pre-break-up AT&T was in the last century, only without the monopoly perniciousness that led to the break-up.
What TS said. I think this is why we'll see Apple work with the cable companies... because they supply the internet. He who controls the spice controls the Universe.
Steve Ballmer at CES with his red sweater vest trying his darnedest to look like uncle Ballmer on Christmas morning with a Windows 7-based HP Slate was funny. A few tech elites openly salivated at the prospects for Windows on a tablet. Then a few weeks later, iPad happened. And IT changed everything.
That was one of the very few tablets to make it into production, too. I do hope we get to see MSTV next week.
I still can't figure why they used an image with an apple on it to showcase the HP Slate. Was it because the Twilight book was so popular making it a coincidence or was it some odd slam on Apple?
[INDENT][/INDENT] Agree with Flaneur's big -picture predictions. However, timing is everything and I wonder WHEN we will get more of Apple's coolest stuff.
It will get here when it gets here.
I really can't wait until Hollywood is just one tiny subset of a giant content producing universe of talent throughout the world.
But yes. YouTube over DSL is sometimes torture aleady.
Not if you buy a fast enough package.
My only problem with the service is the "slower as you get further from the hub" thing (so people in rural areas can't get the fastest packages), but fiber fixes that, yeah? No loss over distance there, right?
Comments
Thanks for the link. I do remember that now and here we are in the winter of 2012 and it still hasn't happened and I for one am glad it didn't.
Is no company now capable of coming up with a good idea without it being them having to beat Apple?
I think that is partially correct. I feel the problem with today's SmartTVs isn't just a slow and convoluted UI but a lack of content that simple cant be had today without working with the cable/sat providers.
I don't want Apple to ignore cae/sat but to work with them so that the Apple TV UI is I tethered seamlessly into the content you get from your cable/sat providers.
I've envisioned a couple ways (logistically) this can be done but none of them seem like a great solution. Apple typically doesn't do partnerships like this but like most things there is an exception. They partner with telcos for the iPhone and it's their most successful product line. I don't think it would be if they were there own MVNO or only sold it unlocked at their retail price.
Whether we get Apple HDTVs or not I'm hoping Apple has inked deals with a large cae company (like they did with Cingular) to get the ball rolling with an Apple-branded cable box that has WiFi and BT.
An HD Scientific Atlanta box is in the retail iPhone and iPad prices, if memory serves. I'm not sure how much of that is profit but I have to think Apple can do it more efficiently as there is no part of the HW they don't have experience with, save the specific HW for the digital cable decoding. Apple even has experience with analog TV tuners but I would doubt that would be included in this 21st century device.
One caveat is, I think, most cable companies are still using MPEG-2 for digital cable, including HD. Not hard to support in the device since we're talking about a codec and the processing is considerably less than H.264. Having a separate backend system for just H.264 for Apple's content would be an undertaking. That said, I have faith that would be considered since a transition would have to happen and it will save them considerable bandwidth saturation, data usage, and allow for On Demand to be queued faster.
I don't think it's worth talking about H.265 until later in the year. Once it's finalized (next month?) then the re work starts.
It wasn't realistic when he states it. Sometimes I think execs get so used to getting told what they want to hear that they then make statements based on that. The Emperor's new HDTV, so to speak.
We saw this 3 years ago when rumours of the iTablet were heavy in the air. CES was filled with tablets that never made it to market after Apple unveiled the iPad.
In a Schadenfreudian way it was kind of funny.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Is no company now capable of coming up with a good idea without it being them having to beat Apple?
If they were actually capable of anything, they would have done it already while they still have any control of the industry whatsoever. BEFORE Apple gets there. They're obviously just not capable of creating something new.
They'd get the telecoms together and scare them to death with a deal that the company imagines Apple will force the telecoms into. Provided Apple hasn't already gotten to said telecoms (who are gonna be dead anyway), the company will offer subservience as long as the telecoms agree to putting their content through the company's UI system. And then they'd have something. Customers would still hate it, but telecoms would think it's the future.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Some industry watchers had initially speculated that Motorola's set-top box business might have been a key part of the acquisition for Google, as the company offers its own Android-based Google TV business.
It would have been funny to watch Microsoft and Google in a bidding war over WebTV.
Then to watch the winner drive WebTV into the ground the way Microsoft did.
Our counterparts in infinite alternate universes are madly munching popcorn watching that right now.
All fun and games until Apple shows up.
He who has the best fundamentals will make the biggest impact. He who does consumer-centrism best.
No one's fundamentals can even approach Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
Agreed. Cable companies will eventually be reduced to just renting and servicing their "pipes!"
But am really looking fwd to an Apple TV because I know Apple will do it right!
Cable companies will not be reduced to renting and servicing their pipes. The cable networks are not going to give up that revenue stream. For most people, it's still far easier to tune in a live channel than to enter URLs or search for bookmarks, especially on TV interfaces where there's no keyboard.
I don't know why people refuse to understand that while one technology may partially cannibalize another, it generally doesn't replace it. Road warriors and those who don't spend a lot of time at home (young people) want to stream onto portable devices. Those who still watch in the traditional home setting (whether living room, media room or bedroom) don't care about streaming - they hardly even use VOD, which is easier.
Also, the industry as a whole has to be very careful - if you sell your content to every possible distribution channel and every vendor within those channels, you wind up with an unsustainable business model because the fragments become so small, none of those distribution channels can make a profit.
Especially for sports channels, the MSOs pay hefty fees to the content networks. The MSOs are not going to continue to pay those fees if the channels sell their content via streaming either directly or via other third parties. And industries tend not to want to give up substantial current revenue streams. So I find it a bit hard to believe that Intel (or Apple for that matter) has been able to obtain rights to substantial sports packages.
So be careful what you wish for. If the market becomes as fragmented as it looks like it's going to become, the major OTA and cable networks will look more like YouTube as they greatly reduce the amount of money they'll be willing to invest in content. (Not that there's anything so great to watch on those networks today.)
As for Apple "doing it right", I'm not so sure anymore. IMO, I really don't see anything very special about Apple TV, either from a content standpoint or from a UI standpoint. And I don't think that Apple's UI is bleeding edge (or even leading edge) anymore, the way that it used to be. And I suspect that any Apple TV set is going to either wind up being a traditional set with a super nice frame and an Apple TV embedded (yawn!) or a very closed box system which doesn't permit you to easily access content that doesn't come from an Apple source. The latter will only sell to Apple fanboys.
Apple is going to solve the [I]content[/I] problem, by building a network of data centers that allow live one-to-many broadcasts from any individual to any number of other individuals anywhere in the world. When it becomes 3-D, this world FaceTime "conversation" will be more compelling than any canned programming put out by any legacy "providers." Only live sports and other high-level performance will be able to compete with actual humans talking, virtually visiting and traveling with other actual humans.
I shouldn't be revealing this strategy, but I know no one's going to pay the slightest attention.
Edit: I'm kind of with [B]zoetmb[/B] above, except from the other side of the fence. Yes, the cable providers and networks will be left with the couch potato demographic. Those he scornfully calls Apple "f-boys" in his last sentence will be most of the intelligent world. It stands to reason that Apple will become the communications giant of the 21st century, like the pre-break-up AT&T was in the last century, only without the monopoly perniciousness that led to the break-up.
Edit2: The point is that the center-to-margin broadcast model is finally dying, making room for person-to-person(s) manycasting. No matter how much I dislike Google's subversion through advertising, I'm still grateful for what they've shown us with YouTube.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Apple is going to solve the content problem, by building a network of data centers that allow live one-to-many broadcasts from any individual to any number of other individuals anywhere in the world.
Useless without cheap fiber access between them. And Apple has no control over that.
Steve Ballmer at CES with his red sweater vest trying his darnedest to look like uncle Ballmer on Christmas morning with a Windows 7-based HP Slate was funny. A few tech elites openly salivated at the prospects for Windows on a tablet. Then a few weeks later, iPad happened. And IT changed everything.
Yet.
But yes. YouTube over DSL is sometimes torture aleady.
What TS said. I think this is why we'll see Apple work with the cable companies... because they supply the internet. He who controls the spice controls the Universe.
That was one of the very few tablets to make it into production, too. I do hope we get to see MSTV next week.
I still can't figure why they used an image with an apple on it to showcase the HP Slate. Was it because the Twilight book was so popular making it a coincidence or was it some odd slam on Apple?
What I said to TS.
But I like the spice analogy. Soon the English and Americans became the imperial powers by dealing in spicier stuff like opium.
Agree with Flaneur's big -picture predictions. However, timing is everything and I wonder WHEN we will get more of Apple's coolest stuff.
It will get here when it gets here.
I really can't wait until Hollywood is just one tiny subset of a giant content producing universe of talent throughout the world.
The glass pipes are on the way regardless.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
But yes. YouTube over DSL is sometimes torture aleady.
Not if you buy a fast enough package.
My only problem with the service is the "slower as you get further from the hub" thing (so people in rural areas can't get the fastest packages), but fiber fixes that, yeah? No loss over distance there, right?
Right on, as we used to say in the 60s.
(From Hollywood adjacent.)