Why on Earth would Apple even partner up with a cable co? Hulu I could see but hard line? Nah, everything will be cellular soon enough- cable companies will die out in a decade (including remote cities once LTEA goes live).
why did apple partner with ATT?
Think about it. Think hard. What is an iPhone but a device that sells Data Plans?
What is a cable box but a box that sells cable content.
Then think about the content that a cable co has That's there value... They've locked up delivery of content... often with exclusive rights to geopgraphies. Apple couldn't get the content
now think about and how bad the cable box interface is. Most of the interface is a bad remote. How do you DVR? How do you Video on Demand? Hard.
replace that cable box with an AppleTV with a 75Ohm connector. Add AppleID (or Passbook), and Apple's Remote.
Think of the possibilities. I mean _REALLY_ think about the possibilities.
Apple doesn't want to compete with Cable Companies... they want Cable companies to give them all their content and customers. The end game world is that Apple evolves to 'frontend' all cable companies.... Sort of like the iPhone fronting ATT's wireless data pipe market, then verizons, then the world.
Bottom line... Apple is a about smart delivery of dumb content on amazing hardware. They want big dumb pipes of content, developers who can write apps to tap that content where Apple doesn't see a global market, so that they can charge 3-30% for the content that comes down the pipe from the content licensees at the back end.
As for Hulu... think about how dumb that is. Basically Hulu and iOS occupy the same customer base.
These cable pipes that come into our homes are owned by the people. Just like when AT&T was broken up, so should Comcast. These pipes should be open to all ISP competitors who wish to compete. This AppleTV app will mean nothing because you will have to subscribe to Comcast and also to their ISP to receive this content.
Change will come, but it will come slow. Blame your municipalities [selling your right to choose content providers to the highest bidder], not the content creators or the cable companies, and the FCC.
All Cellular is hard-lined, in the end. The entire backhaul hard-line connects for redundancy and power.
Exactly, cellular is only wireless from the device to the cell site. It's so funny when people proclaim 'everything will be wireless soon', they have no concept of how much bandwidth that would take, the telecoms are struggling to keep up with demand now so what's going to change? For the foreseeable future there will always be a need for the hardline.
These cable pipes that come into our homes are owned by the people. Just like when AT&T was broken up, so should Comcast. These pipes should be open to all ISP competitors who wish to compete. This AppleTV app will mean nothing because you will have to subscribe to Comcast and also to their ISP to receive this content.
AT&T was a monopoly, Comcast is not. Those pipes were not built with public money so they're not owned by the public. While opening up the network sounds like a good idea it's akin to your building a apartment complex and then having to allow someone else rent out the apartments and collect the rent. You wouldn't do that so why do you expect a cable company to allow what's essentially the same?
why did apple partner with ATT?
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">Think about it. Think hard. What is an iPhone but a device that sells Data Plans? </span>
<span style="font-size:16px;line-height:1.4em;">What is a cable box but a box that sells cable content.</span>
Then think about the content that a cable co has That's there value... They've locked up delivery of content... often with exclusive rights to geopgraphies. Apple couldn't get the content
now think about and how bad the cable box interface is. Most of the interface is a bad remote. How do you DVR? How do you Video on Demand? Hard.
replace that cable box with an AppleTV with a 75Ohm connector. Add AppleID (or Passbook), and Apple's Remote.
Think of the possibilities. I mean _REALLY_ think about the possibilities.
Apple doesn't want to compete with Cable Companies... they want Cable companies to give them all their content and customers. The end game world is that Apple evolves to 'frontend' all cable companies.... Sort of like the iPhone fronting ATT's wireless data pipe market, then verizons, then the world.
Bottom line... Apple is a about smart delivery of dumb content on amazing hardware. They want big dumb pipes of content, developers who can write apps to tap that content where Apple doesn't see a global market, so that they can charge 3-30% for the content that comes down the pipe from the content licensees at the back end.
As for Hulu... think about how dumb that is. Basically Hulu and iOS occupy the same customer base.
Lol, that same thinking is why Apple's competition keeps chasing their own tails. The idea is look to the future, not rehash something already capable. Using your words, let's think _hard_ about a few steps further: set top box... Wires... Now, I'll stop right there because that's all one really needs to consider in this case. Apple doesn't want a set top box nor wires anymore. They're already obsessed with Bluetooth and soon conductive charging. The content deals that are struck with TW & Comcast are too fragile to bet on if you've been paying attention to the last few years. This only makes sense if you're an analyst trying to get a "makes sense" rumor started. But it doesn't truly coincide with Apple's philosophy IMO.
It would appear that Comcast will now have 2 sets of content contracts.
Apple may have made a deal for the TimeWarner contracts.
This may explain the delay in availability of the content to allow Comcast to close the deal and integrate TWC into its set of contracts.
If the contracts are not transferrable then they can not be transferred to Comcast which does not need them anyway. If the contracts are transferrable them perhaps Apple could buy them outright and be done.
Time will tell.
Actually, I doubt very much whether Apple had a deal with Time-Warner or any other MSO. The reason why is that the cable networks grant very limited web rights to the MSOs and the rights they do grant have to be used directly by them, for instance by offering VOD. They have almost no rights to grant access to another company who then resells the content again. The only content that could have been part of a Time-Warner deal was Time-Warner content, like HBO shows and even that would have been iffy, since Time-Warner spun off Time-Warner Cable into a separate company.
I really don't think Apple has a choice. They're going to have to deal with the cable networks directly or with the content owner (who in many cases is NOT the cable network). In many cases, the cable networks have limited rights as well. That's why every cable show isn't available VOD or on the web, or if it is, it's only available for short periods of time.
I have firsthand knowledge of this as I help develop rights management software that's used by almost all the major cable networks.
While the cable networks are looking for any additional fees they can get and therefore would support a deal with Apple and/or other such device makers, most of their income today is delivered by the MSOs. And while the MSOs haven't shown a lot of guts in negotiating with the cable and broadcast networks (and when they have, they've gotten screwed, like Time-Warner in the recent CBS negotiations), they can threaten to drop a cable network's offerings, especially if it's not "must have" channels. Obviously, a combined Comcast-Time Warner, which would reach 30% of national cable subscribers after dropping the 3 million they claim they'll give up, would have a lot of negotiating power and would do everything they can to stop an Apple-type deal from happening.
Personally, if Comcast gets this almost-monopoly, I think they should have to give up NBC and the cable networks. But I think they're going to get away with doing the deal by promising to drop the few million subscribers to keep them under the 30% hurdle.
As others have posted, this is certainly going to raise consumer prices in many markets (not that cable bills aren't constantly going up anyway). But the Government will permit this, but sue Apple over e-book pricing. Absurd.
Lol, that same thinking is why Apple's competition keeps chasing their own tails. The idea is look to the future, not rehash something already capable. Using your words, let's think _hard_ about a few steps further: set top box... Wires... Now, I'll stop right there because that's all one really needs to consider in this case. Apple doesn't want a set top box nor wires anymore. They're already obsessed with Bluetooth and soon conductive charging. The content deals that are struck with TW & Comcast are too fragile to bet on if you've been paying attention to the last few years. This only makes sense if you're an analyst trying to get a "makes sense" rumor started. But it doesn't truly coincide with Apple's philosophy IMO.
Opinions vary.
you connect to wires when you don't move. TVs don't move. 100Mbps is a minimum requirement for a good HD movie. There will still be a hard line Internet into the house, and likely it will be coax. or fiber.
The content deals may be fragile, and if you play devils advocate, Cable companies have to plan for the future without lock in... and the future will be becoming 100Mb pipes to homes.... and if they don't partner with Apple, then Google and Apple will just bypass them. Even with non-exclusive rights, cable companies are still the future of most content for the next 7 to 10 years.
IANAA. and I'm not a AAPL stockowner anymore (AAPL bought my house;-)
How to pay for it? Float a "small" bond offering, cut the dividend and cut back on the share repurchase - all for just a brief time. Cousin Carl will have a nervous breakdown. I don't get an XFR. And Tim Cook forgoes his bonus. But that's my idea of shared suffering for the greater good.
But however it plays out, if it comes to light that Cook has let the ball go over the middle of plate while he was staring into the distance, I will have lost what little, remaining faith I have in this guy.
Lol, that same thinking is why Apple's competition keeps chasing their own tails. The idea is look to the future, not rehash something already capable. Using your words, let's think _hard_ about a few steps further: set top box... Wires... Now, I'll stop right there because that's all one really needs to consider in this case. Apple doesn't want a set top box nor wires anymore. They're already obsessed with Bluetooth and soon conductive charging. The content deals that are struck with TW & Comcast are too fragile to bet on if you've been paying attention to the last few years. This only makes sense if you're an analyst trying to get a "makes sense" rumor started. But it doesn't truly coincide with Apple's philosophy IMO.
I love the way you guys start off with such promise ( You know Apples plans!!) and then you end up with half baked bollocks which isn't really related to the discussion about content. Bluetooth. A wireless technology designed for low bandwidth and close proximity. That's going to replace cables and HDMI? Why? Apple TV's can airplay already. And not only, in general, can far more information be sent over a physical wire but it's much much less subject to interference. There will be wires. The interesting questions are about content, app stores, hardware and price.
ISPs which in many cases is the cable company won't allow it. I'll use this example again, would you build an apartment complex and allow someone else to rent out those apartments and collect the rent and expect you to pay for the upkeep and any repairs? No you wouldn't so why are you expecting the cable companies to allow essentially the same?
Google circumvented the cable companies by building their own network. The agreements Google has only benefit those on it's network, not everyone using a Google TV outside of it.
What we really need is more competition in devices connected to cable -- it needs to become more like cellular is with many different companies, operating systems and devices with various features. This will be mature when you can have a device like Apple TV be a complete replacement for a cable company provided set top box. A precursor to making this all happen efficiently is a wholesale transition to all IP by the cable companies...
Cable companies, much like cellular companies, should be more of the "dumb pipes", as opposed to providers of content. But who am I to say how they should run their companies?!
What we really need is more competition in devices connected to cable -- it needs to become more like cellular is with many different companies, operating systems and devices with various features. This will be mature when you can have a device like Apple TV be a complete replacement for a cable company provided set top box. A precursor to making this all happen efficiently is a wholesale transition to all IP by the cable companies...
Cable companies, much like cellular companies, should be more of the "dumb pipes", as opposed to providers of content. But who am I to say how they should run their companies?!
You can't compare cellular to cable, every cell company built their network by leasing lines from the local telecom. Unless forced by the government cable companies are not going to allow another company onto their network.
Comments
Why on Earth would Apple even partner up with a cable co? Hulu I could see but hard line? Nah, everything will be cellular soon enough- cable companies will die out in a decade (including remote cities once LTEA goes live).
why did apple partner with ATT?
Think about it. Think hard. What is an iPhone but a device that sells Data Plans?
What is a cable box but a box that sells cable content.
Then think about the content that a cable co has That's there value... They've locked up delivery of content... often with exclusive rights to geopgraphies. Apple couldn't get the content
now think about and how bad the cable box interface is. Most of the interface is a bad remote. How do you DVR? How do you Video on Demand? Hard.
replace that cable box with an AppleTV with a 75Ohm connector. Add AppleID (or Passbook), and Apple's Remote.
Think of the possibilities. I mean _REALLY_ think about the possibilities.
Apple doesn't want to compete with Cable Companies... they want Cable companies to give them all their content and customers. The end game world is that Apple evolves to 'frontend' all cable companies.... Sort of like the iPhone fronting ATT's wireless data pipe market, then verizons, then the world.
Bottom line... Apple is a about smart delivery of dumb content on amazing hardware. They want big dumb pipes of content, developers who can write apps to tap that content where Apple doesn't see a global market, so that they can charge 3-30% for the content that comes down the pipe from the content licensees at the back end.
As for Hulu... think about how dumb that is. Basically Hulu and iOS occupy the same customer base.
These cable pipes that come into our homes are owned by the people. Just like when AT&T was broken up, so should Comcast. These pipes should be open to all ISP competitors who wish to compete. This AppleTV app will mean nothing because you will have to subscribe to Comcast and also to their ISP to receive this content.
Change will come, but it will come slow. Blame your municipalities [selling your right to choose content providers to the highest bidder], not the content creators or the cable companies, and the FCC.
Exactly, cellular is only wireless from the device to the cell site. It's so funny when people proclaim 'everything will be wireless soon', they have no concept of how much bandwidth that would take, the telecoms are struggling to keep up with demand now so what's going to change? For the foreseeable future there will always be a need for the hardline.
AT&T was a monopoly, Comcast is not. Those pipes were not built with public money so they're not owned by the public. While opening up the network sounds like a good idea it's akin to your building a apartment complex and then having to allow someone else rent out the apartments and collect the rent. You wouldn't do that so why do you expect a cable company to allow what's essentially the same?
Lol, that same thinking is why Apple's competition keeps chasing their own tails. The idea is look to the future, not rehash something already capable. Using your words, let's think _hard_ about a few steps further: set top box... Wires... Now, I'll stop right there because that's all one really needs to consider in this case. Apple doesn't want a set top box nor wires anymore. They're already obsessed with Bluetooth and soon conductive charging. The content deals that are struck with TW & Comcast are too fragile to bet on if you've been paying attention to the last few years. This only makes sense if you're an analyst trying to get a "makes sense" rumor started. But it doesn't truly coincide with Apple's philosophy IMO.
OK. Comcast bought Time Warner for $45.2 Billion.
It would appear that Comcast will now have 2 sets of content contracts.
Apple may have made a deal for the TimeWarner contracts.
This may explain the delay in availability of the content to allow Comcast to close the deal and integrate TWC into its set of contracts.
If the contracts are not transferrable then they can not be transferred to Comcast which does not need them anyway. If the contracts are transferrable them perhaps Apple could buy them outright and be done.
Time will tell.
Actually, I doubt very much whether Apple had a deal with Time-Warner or any other MSO. The reason why is that the cable networks grant very limited web rights to the MSOs and the rights they do grant have to be used directly by them, for instance by offering VOD. They have almost no rights to grant access to another company who then resells the content again. The only content that could have been part of a Time-Warner deal was Time-Warner content, like HBO shows and even that would have been iffy, since Time-Warner spun off Time-Warner Cable into a separate company.
I really don't think Apple has a choice. They're going to have to deal with the cable networks directly or with the content owner (who in many cases is NOT the cable network). In many cases, the cable networks have limited rights as well. That's why every cable show isn't available VOD or on the web, or if it is, it's only available for short periods of time.
I have firsthand knowledge of this as I help develop rights management software that's used by almost all the major cable networks.
While the cable networks are looking for any additional fees they can get and therefore would support a deal with Apple and/or other such device makers, most of their income today is delivered by the MSOs. And while the MSOs haven't shown a lot of guts in negotiating with the cable and broadcast networks (and when they have, they've gotten screwed, like Time-Warner in the recent CBS negotiations), they can threaten to drop a cable network's offerings, especially if it's not "must have" channels. Obviously, a combined Comcast-Time Warner, which would reach 30% of national cable subscribers after dropping the 3 million they claim they'll give up, would have a lot of negotiating power and would do everything they can to stop an Apple-type deal from happening.
Personally, if Comcast gets this almost-monopoly, I think they should have to give up NBC and the cable networks. But I think they're going to get away with doing the deal by promising to drop the few million subscribers to keep them under the 30% hurdle.
As others have posted, this is certainly going to raise consumer prices in many markets (not that cable bills aren't constantly going up anyway). But the Government will permit this, but sue Apple over e-book pricing. Absurd.
Lol, that same thinking is why Apple's competition keeps chasing their own tails. The idea is look to the future, not rehash something already capable. Using your words, let's think _hard_ about a few steps further: set top box... Wires... Now, I'll stop right there because that's all one really needs to consider in this case. Apple doesn't want a set top box nor wires anymore. They're already obsessed with Bluetooth and soon conductive charging. The content deals that are struck with TW & Comcast are too fragile to bet on if you've been paying attention to the last few years. This only makes sense if you're an analyst trying to get a "makes sense" rumor started. But it doesn't truly coincide with Apple's philosophy IMO.
Opinions vary.
you connect to wires when you don't move. TVs don't move. 100Mbps is a minimum requirement for a good HD movie. There will still be a hard line Internet into the house, and likely it will be coax. or fiber.
The content deals may be fragile, and if you play devils advocate, Cable companies have to plan for the future without lock in... and the future will be becoming 100Mb pipes to homes.... and if they don't partner with Apple, then Google and Apple will just bypass them. Even with non-exclusive rights, cable companies are still the future of most content for the next 7 to 10 years.
IANAA. and I'm not a AAPL stockowner anymore (AAPL bought my house;-)
Apple should bid for TWC.
IMO, Apple should should make a bid for TWX.
$65 billion +/- should take it.
How to pay for it? Float a "small" bond offering, cut the dividend and cut back on the share repurchase - all for just a brief time. Cousin Carl will have a nervous breakdown. I don't get an XFR. And Tim Cook forgoes his bonus. But that's my idea of shared suffering for the greater good.
But however it plays out, if it comes to light that Cook has let the ball go over the middle of plate while he was staring into the distance, I will have lost what little, remaining faith I have in this guy.
I love the way you guys start off with such promise ( You know Apples plans!!) and then you end up with half baked bollocks which isn't really related to the discussion about content. Bluetooth. A wireless technology designed for low bandwidth and close proximity. That's going to replace cables and HDMI? Why? Apple TV's can airplay already. And not only, in general, can far more information be sent over a physical wire but it's much much less subject to interference. There will be wires. The interesting questions are about content, app stores, hardware and price.
Google is building a network, Apple isn't.
Heck, be your own carrier.
Not the kind of business they want to be in, evidently (and who could blame them).
ISPs which in many cases is the cable company won't allow it. I'll use this example again, would you build an apartment complex and allow someone else to rent out those apartments and collect the rent and expect you to pay for the upkeep and any repairs? No you wouldn't so why are you expecting the cable companies to allow essentially the same?
Google circumvented the cable companies by building their own network. The agreements Google has only benefit those on it's network, not everyone using a Google TV outside of it.
Funny how one race to the bottom gets ridiculed and another one gets applauded.
Cable companies, much like cellular companies, should be more of the "dumb pipes", as opposed to providers of content. But who am I to say how they should run their companies?!
You can't compare cellular to cable, every cell company built their network by leasing lines from the local telecom. Unless forced by the government cable companies are not going to allow another company onto their network.