Broadcast TV does matter if Apple plans on offering a TV service like the rumors suggest. I know there is 4K content out there now, but it's on a limited amount of devices. I know it will grow over time like 3D, but 4K won't become the standard like 720/1080 has. Another huge factor is bandwidth. People don't have unlimited internet usage at home through companies like Comcast or Time Warner. 4K won't be any different than 3D is now. Yes, it's available but it won't become standard.
I strongly disagree with you, since it perfectly doable with IPTV services right now. Advancement in codec's like H265 combine with advancements in broadband will make it the standard at some point.
Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
4k is also relevant in PC monitors, you get retina on PC's at 4k resolution.
4k is getting available on low price cameras and on high end smartphones, which put it in the hands of consumers.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
I do realize 4K looks better on a big screen TV. 4K on a smartphone is rather pointless. You won't even be able to notice the difference with a 4K phone. You would have to hold the phone like 3 inches away from your face to even notice the pixels. It's pointless on a camera as well too. The majority of consumers don't have a 4K monitor or TV. As for bandwidth, there isn't enough for 4K. HD is already compressed as it is. It will be even worse for 4K. The 4K content now is compressed. That won't be changing anytime soon. Cable does matter because that's what the majority of people have. If the demand is there on cable, more content providers would be inclined to start filming shows in 4K.
I strongly disagree with you, since it perfectly doable with IPTV services right now. Advancement in codec's like H265 combine with advancements in broadband will make it the standard at some point.
Maybe at some point, but for it to become the standard, that's a very long time away from now. The bandwidth isn't there to fully support 4K. It's bad enough now with all the compression needed for HD.
Maybe at some point, but for it to become the standard, that's a very long time away from now. The bandwidth isn't there to fully support 4K. It's bad enough now with all the compression needed for HD.
With classic cable broadcast yes. But with IPTV no, since only the channels you are watching are stream between the hub and the residence, which gives plenty of bandwidth for multiple UHD channels. In Canada, Bell Fibe already confirmed to me they will start offering UHD channels in 2016, it will required a different set-top box.
Other set top boxes don't have Apple's cachet or ecosystem, but to totally own the space (especially if there are tie-ins to HomeKit), it needs to be priced at $99 max.
That 25 Mbps is to ensure a steady stream at 20 Mbps.
20 Mbps for 2 hours is 18 GB, not 30 GB.
As 4K becomes more the norm, the cost of delivering 4k service will be factored into everyone's bill. (My service provider allows up to 500 GB per month without complaint, which is almost 2 hours of 4k video per day.)
In other words, if We the People use it, we'll get it.
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
Other set top boxes don't have Apple's cachet or ecosystem, but to totally own the space (especially if there are tie-ins to HomeKit), it needs to be priced at $99 max.
People said that iPhone was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People said that iPad was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People have said that Apple Watch is WAY too expensive and no one will buy it. (Granted, we don't know on that one yet, but I'm going on simple past experience.)
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
I always ear internet is cheaper in the US than in Canada. Here in Montreal I can get TV with 30 a la carte channels + unlimited internet at 50 mbps + unlimited phone calls in Canada for $150 per month.
I always ear internet is cheaper in the US than in Canada. Here in Montreal I can get TV with 30 a la carte channels + unlimited internet at 50 mbps + unlimited phone calls in Canada for $150 per month.
Do you also get all of the US programming, e.g., Netflix, HBO, all US movies and TV shows via iTunes, etc.?
John Paczkowski, formerly of re/code and WSJ has a very good track record with apple leaks..Its assumed he has an inside source who uses him to "leak" info
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure they do. They had millions and millions of iPad 2 and iPad Mini 1 in backlog inventory. That is way to this day they sell the iPad Mini 1 with now a old A5 chip. Excess inventory.
No, they deliberated kept manufacturing them.
Tim Cook is well known for being a supply chain wizard. Look at Apple's balance sheet. Inventory is low.
Remember, Tim knows how the sales rate for every single Apple product. If he's selling 100,000 units of Widget X a month, he's not going to have the contract manufacturers build a million of them.
No way this gets priced at $99. I'll put my reputation on the line. No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ
People said that iPhone was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People said that iPad was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People have said that Apple Watch is WAY too expensive and no one will buy it. (Granted, we don't know on that one yet, but I'm going on simple past experience.)
Naturally, we don't know the specs of this box yet, so we're all guessing at this point.
It's not because no one will buy it at $149 or $199, but that EVERYONE will buy it at $99.
With a Chromecast going for $39, Roku's at $90 and SlingTV $20/mth offerings, Apple can wipe the competition at $99. And we know, their profit margin on it will still be very good.
Recent epiphany: people become cord cutters when they believe there is no value in the cable product. "If I put up a antenna, I get shows for free." Sure. The trick is demonstrating the value you receive for the monthly fee - something cable companies simply can't do.
The market has clearly shifted. People will pay for a service/content they value. Subscription fees, unless very low amounts, are not attractive.
Apple is good at disruption of others by releasing a killing product. Apple Watch makes Swiss watchmakers nervous and jump to android to do smartwatches (Swatch, TAG...). Have you ever thought of one day Swiss watchmaker would do this? Probably not if Apple didn't make the watch. Next Apple Pay, this will put a lot of e-payment out of business. Now Apple TV/HUB or whatever it's called, will put game consoles, streaming boxes and especially cable/satilite TV providers in a shitty position.
Comments
Broadcast TV does matter if Apple plans on offering a TV service like the rumors suggest. I know there is 4K content out there now, but it's on a limited amount of devices. I know it will grow over time like 3D, but 4K won't become the standard like 720/1080 has. Another huge factor is bandwidth. People don't have unlimited internet usage at home through companies like Comcast or Time Warner. 4K won't be any different than 3D is now. Yes, it's available but it won't become standard.
I strongly disagree with you, since it perfectly doable with IPTV services right now. Advancement in codec's like H265 combine with advancements in broadband will make it the standard at some point.
Actually, 4k is available from streaming even if cable doesn't support its. Also, any IP TV distribution system like U-Verse could support 4k right now because channels feeds are stream instead of broadcast, so they have plenty of bandwidth for it.
4k will be adopted because its relevant on screens bigger than 40". Any big screen TV will look better in 4k than HD.
4k is also relevant in PC monitors, you get retina on PC's at 4k resolution.
4k is getting available on low price cameras and on high end smartphones, which put it in the hands of consumers.
Regarding 3D, it will work once they can do it without glasses.
I do realize 4K looks better on a big screen TV. 4K on a smartphone is rather pointless. You won't even be able to notice the difference with a 4K phone. You would have to hold the phone like 3 inches away from your face to even notice the pixels. It's pointless on a camera as well too. The majority of consumers don't have a 4K monitor or TV. As for bandwidth, there isn't enough for 4K. HD is already compressed as it is. It will be even worse for 4K. The 4K content now is compressed. That won't be changing anytime soon. Cable does matter because that's what the majority of people have. If the demand is there on cable, more content providers would be inclined to start filming shows in 4K.
I strongly disagree with you, since it perfectly doable with IPTV services right now. Advancement in codec's like H265 combine with advancements in broadband will make it the standard at some point.
Maybe at some point, but for it to become the standard, that's a very long time away from now. The bandwidth isn't there to fully support 4K. It's bad enough now with all the compression needed for HD.
Maybe at some point, but for it to become the standard, that's a very long time away from now. The bandwidth isn't there to fully support 4K. It's bad enough now with all the compression needed for HD.
With classic cable broadcast yes. But with IPTV no, since only the channels you are watching are stream between the hub and the residence, which gives plenty of bandwidth for multiple UHD channels. In Canada, Bell Fibe already confirmed to me they will start offering UHD channels in 2016, it will required a different set-top box.
That 25 Mbps is to ensure a steady stream at 20 Mbps.
20 Mbps for 2 hours is 18 GB, not 30 GB.
As 4K becomes more the norm, the cost of delivering 4k service will be factored into everyone's bill. (My service provider allows up to 500 GB per month without complaint, which is almost 2 hours of 4k video per day.)
In other words, if We the People use it, we'll get it.
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
Other set top boxes don't have Apple's cachet or ecosystem, but to totally own the space (especially if there are tie-ins to HomeKit), it needs to be priced at $99 max.
People said that iPhone was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People said that iPad was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People have said that Apple Watch is WAY too expensive and no one will buy it. (Granted, we don't know on that one yet, but I'm going on simple past experience.)
Yeah, because that's the way it's worked so far, right? "We the people" do or want something, and Comcast or ATT or TW just cave, and say, "Oh, OK! If you want it, you can have it at the same price!"
And you do realize that you just said that you can watch 1 movie per day, right? I watched 5 episodes of "True Detective" streaming from HBOGO yesterday, so I would be screwed, even under your (completely non-typical) plan. Oooh! I'm excited about that!
I always ear internet is cheaper in the US than in Canada. Here in Montreal I can get TV with 30 a la carte channels + unlimited internet at 50 mbps + unlimited phone calls in Canada for $150 per month.
I always ear internet is cheaper in the US than in Canada. Here in Montreal I can get TV with 30 a la carte channels + unlimited internet at 50 mbps + unlimited phone calls in Canada for $150 per month.
Do you also get all of the US programming, e.g., Netflix, HBO, all US movies and TV shows via iTunes, etc.?
Are you sure? I'm pretty sure they do. They had millions and millions of iPad 2 and iPad Mini 1 in backlog inventory. That is way to this day they sell the iPad Mini 1 with now a old A5 chip. Excess inventory.
No, they deliberated kept manufacturing them.
Tim Cook is well known for being a supply chain wizard. Look at Apple's balance sheet. Inventory is low.
Remember, Tim knows how the sales rate for every single Apple product. If he's selling 100,000 units of Widget X a month, he's not going to have the contract manufacturers build a million of them.
No way this gets priced at $99. I'll put my reputation on the line. No way.
People said that iPhone was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People said that iPad was WAY too expensive and no one would buy it.
People have said that Apple Watch is WAY too expensive and no one will buy it. (Granted, we don't know on that one yet, but I'm going on simple past experience.)
Naturally, we don't know the specs of this box yet, so we're all guessing at this point.
It's not because no one will buy it at $149 or $199, but that EVERYONE will buy it at $99.
With a Chromecast going for $39, Roku's at $90 and SlingTV $20/mth offerings, Apple can wipe the competition at $99. And we know, their profit margin on it will still be very good.
Like tthat's worth much.
Recent epiphany: people become cord cutters when they believe there is no value in the cable product. "If I put up a antenna, I get shows for free." Sure. The trick is demonstrating the value you receive for the monthly fee - something cable companies simply can't do.
The market has clearly shifted. People will pay for a service/content they value. Subscription fees, unless very low amounts, are not attractive.
..... Apple can wipe the competition at $99. And we know, their profit margin on it will still be very good.
'Will still' be very good? Really? Care to share the data with us?
I think AppleCenter would be a nice name for this new device.
AppleHub
AppleHome
AppleCenter
AppleHomeCenter
AppleHomeHub
I think AppleCenter will work. Not sure about the word Hub. Sounds too IT-centric.
The center of your home entertainment.
The Center of your home.
The Center of your entertainment.
Sounds like a Microsoft device.
Chromcast/Roku won't even be in the same class as the new AppleTV.
Chromcast/Roku is in the same class with Fire Stick which all are POS.
Rofl. ???? Question, how do you post pics? I haven't been able to. Cant be done on the iphone?
4. Not selling well.
Maybe 'quite well' isn't good enough for Apple.
New nickname. No more Mr. Happy, you've officially become "wet diaper man".
Apple is good at disruption of others by releasing a killing product. Apple Watch makes Swiss watchmakers nervous and jump to android to do smartwatches (Swatch, TAG...). Have you ever thought of one day Swiss watchmaker would do this? Probably not if Apple didn't make the watch. Next Apple Pay, this will put a lot of e-payment out of business. Now Apple TV/HUB or whatever it's called, will put game consoles, streaming boxes and especially cable/satilite TV providers in a shitty position.