Apple is performing like Microsoft in this area. They better get their act together before it's too late. Sling TV is where it's at.
Sling TV is an app, and it runs on Apple TV. What is your point?
The point is, it's about content, not delivery. First company that can get me $tvchannel at a $lowmonthlyrate, without a cable/satellite subscription will get my money.
Apple is performing like Microsoft in this area. They better get their act together before it's too late. Sling TV is where it's at.
Sling? Who are they? Ok, I'm joking. but, Apple have to think on a global scale not just the USA. Remember the Zune? MS only sold it in the USA. Meanwhile the iPod was cleaning up everywhere else.
Apple is a Global Company. The USA might become a backwater when it comes to their revenue. The likes of Sling may become irrelevant local bit players.
Apple already thinks on a global scale.
However a huge stumbling block is that television and movie rights vary from region to region. They have to be negotiated separately in each region. There is no global license for these rights.
This is why Netflix has to block users who are not allowed to view content in another region. They legally have to do this despite user complaints.
By creating a platform on which all players can participate, then Apple acts as a conduit for all. So if your region doesn't have the content you want, complain to that content provider so that they can create an app for the AppleTV. Amazon is one such recalcitrant provider. It doesn't want to create an Amazon video app for Apple TV.
Sling TV is an app, and it runs on Apple TV. What is your point?
The point is, it's about content, not delivery. First company that can get me $tvchannel at a $lowmonthlyrate, without a cable/satellite subscription will get my money.
Actually, it is about both. Good content with a sh*tty viewing experience & UI isn't solving anything. You could say that this what the current cable/satellite services are - almost all content is available, but have fun with the grid guide and generally sub-par software.
The prices for content are not set in isolation - they are controlled by the content owners/producers, and they are (not so surprisingly) not keen jumping to a model where they automatically make 50% less money. This is why it is taking so long for the models to change. The imminent death of cable was preached over 10 years ago. It is just now starting to take some meaningful subscriber losses.
The point is, it's about content, not delivery. First company that can get me $tvchannel at a $lowmonthlyrate, without a cable/satellite subscription will get my money.
Actually, it is about both. Good content with a sh*tty viewing experience & UI isn't solving anything. You could say that this what the current cable/satellite services are - almost all content is available, but have fun with the grid guide and generally sub-par software.
The prices for content are not set in isolation - they are controlled by the content owners/producers, and they are (not so surprisingly) not keen jumping to a model where they automatically make 50% less money. This is why it is taking so long for the models to change. The imminent death of cable was preached over 10 years ago. It is just now starting to take some meaningful subscriber losses.
Many people have dumped Comcast for pirate bay simply because of access to content. I wonder how much those big companies get from those cord cutters. I don't see it getting any better. The sooner they offer content at a reasonable price, the sooner they will start getting paid for their content again.
Now they can focus on those windmill farms and solar panels for India. I don't have any problem with donating to companies who want to do these things but when I read an artticje about apples next big money maker is making and setting up solarfarms for companies I just about lost it.
Does anyone at Apple innovate any more? Or are we doomed to "we may have been the last company to do it but we did it right" from now on? Geez when I see some of the kickstarter things and all the software APP innovations in the App Store I feel like Apple just wants to be the hardware delivery system for everything - phone too.
Why not retire ole' Eddy"I've run out of ideas"Cue and put someone in that's wants to kick some innovation ass. I hear from other beta testers how Apple is more beaurcratic than Washington regarding listening to new ideas and implementing them. If you're new and have ideas they ask you to please take your seat over in the corner.
Come on guys get back into the game. Be the "we developed it first AND did it right" company not last to the party.
And nothing against Tim Cook personally but this guy is much more into social injustice and saving the polar bears that kicking ass at Apple. It's like "I have really old people in charge so I'll go attend a gay right rally" and after lunch maybe I will Free Willy. Enough all ready with the activist crap. How about you can't do anymore activists things till you reinvent the laptop. That would put a fire under his ass. We've have something new by next week lol
Being a delivery device makes the most sense. Keeping it simple.
Really? Having to download 20 apps, each app having a different interface. Needing to have 20 different subscriptions to see a handful of shows. This is all simple? makes the most sense?
All this crap is broken. If this was so GREAT then why hell isnt apple music 20 different apps, 20 different subscriptions. 20 different interfaces.
This SUCKS
Yeah, DirecTV tried that once and they were hacked. DirecTV *already tried* to create an open platform for multiple manufacturers of DSS satellite receivers. What they found out was that hackers compromised the system; and when there's a flaw in the system, people will get programming for free.
At one point in time, it was estimated that 1/4 of all set-top boxes that were compatible with DirecTV and manufactured by RCA, Sony, Magnavox, Samsung and others were actually receiving service for free. Another the problems were that people in Canada were receiving signals for free in areas where they didn't have a license or broadcast rights.
As a result, precedent was set; cable companies and broadcasters have to contain their signal; and they could be held liable for breaches; copyright holders can sue the distributor. As a result, DirecTV ultimately had to reel in satellite set-top receiver business to something they manufacture in-house.
Apple platforms can be hacked; today, there are still jailbroken iPhones, iPads, jailbroken AppleTV set-top boxes, and hackintoshes communities still exist. All these hackers do is compromise Apple platforms. So yeah, I seriously think Apple should get into this business. It will open up legal challenges to the gates of hell where Steve Jobs is sitting to the right-hand of lucifer, waving from his easy-chair, watching TV with a tub of popcorn. After all, Apple's first product, the Apple I computer was priced at $666.
I just don't see how anyone can reasonably think this would work. These days, SmartTVs can do everything that would normally require a set-top box would. Apple is too late and their platforms aren't secure. The other problem is that Apple would need a presence across the globe to enforce US Copyright law and prosecute piracy and signal theft.
First the FTC and FCC has made it a requirement to separate the STB from the cable operators and this has been in place for the last 15 yrs and the Cable guys have been doing everything they can to stop or slow this down, thus why were are in 15 yrs and still do not have it. The technical issues have been solved a long time ago. But the Operators do not want to give up the incoming from the rental of the STB. If the Cable operators wanted to stream content to any IP based streaming box they could without any security issue with content. The issue is the Cable Operators are fighting not to be a fat dumb pipe into you home. I have worked in this industry for a long time and know it all too well.
Your DirecTV example was more about their design then the fact they provide a reference design for other companies to make. DirecTV still provides the reference design today to Pace(ARRIS), Samsung, Technicolor, and Humax show make all their STB. The Hacking you were talking about was the poor design in which a software key was not properly encrypted (I personally new people who would hack the system but is required a PC connect to STB to make it work). At the time Samsung and Sony both made a stand alone STB which you could buy from anyone. However, most of the hacking happen on the Huges STB (RCA -Thomson electronics which is now Technicolor) which if you remember Huges owned DirecTV prior to spinning it out. It was their own Box which had most of the issues. BTW RCA never made the STB it was actually Thomson who made it for RCA who sold it under their name. I work for the Company who design the compression decompression system for Huges and we made the Compression systems on the uplink side and license the decompression system to Huges and Thomson.
Lastly Smart TV are not the answer, because of the cost to upgrade a TV every time something changes. Most people hang on to their TV for 7 to 10 yrs. Upgrading a $99 box that sits behind your TV made by a Company like Apple who continues to develop software feature year over year is a far better solution than have a SmartTV.
As I said ever Cable operator today can stream content to you via IP and provide an App or Apple TV to allow it but they will not. I personally watch DirecTV on my ipad and phone, and On my ATV I can watch live channels which I also subscribe to with DirecTV, by just putting in my DirecTV credentials.
Apple cannot buy Time Warner, when Charter already acquired TWC and completed the deal. If it was a rumor in 2015, why mention it in the article? I don't want to rely on the internet for watching TV. There are times when internet service is down, but I can still watch TV. Or if the internet is having network issues, I don't want to have a degraded picture or a spinning wheel waiting to buffer data.
There is (was) TWC - Time Warner Cable - which was purchased by Charter as you noted. There is also Time Warner Inc (TWX) which is the media conglomerate which owns HBO, CNN, CW, TBS... They are two different companies (but used to be one about 7 years ago).
The rumour was Apple purchasing TWX for access to content.
Yes, the strong rumor at the time was Apple was working a deal which would allow TWC to stream all their content to anyone who own a ATV. TWC only had limited market and could not grow without having to buy other small cable operators. Which would take years and there is all kinds of equipment issue doing this. The deal would allow TWC to stream content to subscribers anywhere someone had an ATV and Broadband network. This would mean that TWC would immediately compete with all the cable operators in the US and use could dump their high price cable TV plan, keep internet and get content from TWC. It also believed that Comcast put in the offer to buy them to put an end to the deal between Apple and TWC. At the same time TWC and Charter were in talks to have TWC to buy Charter.
I could be wrong, but it sounds a lot like every single bundling deal, skinny, fat or attractively buxom, has fallen through.
yeah he is sending a public signal to the Media market that Apple is not the threat they think it is. Apple could be since they have more money than anyone and could buy up what they like.
The quote I read somewhere else was that Apple is not it talks to buy a studio "at this time". So it could be that the message Cue is attempting to send is that Apple is not a threat to content providers "at this time", but that they could quickly become a threat if the providers won't work with Apple to set up a voluptuous bundle.
Sure, Eddy says this now....and then watch Apple buy Viceland, make it exclusive to Apple TV, and gradually port it to the Apple naming and branding ala Apple Music. In the way that Apple releases proprietary apps for their other operating systems, Apple TV will look to differentiate itself from the competition on the software side.
"Customers have been looking to Apple for "a la carte" programming choices — but Cue is not a fan of the concept. He commented that "most people, at the end of the day, end up paying more, not less, for the things they love. With TV content being at an all-time high, why are people asking for less?"
Judging from his response, it sounds more like he doesn't understand the concept rather than simply not liking a la carte. A la carte isn't a question of asking for less...it's the ability to pick and choose and not pay for superfluous unwanted content. For example I once asked Time Warner why they don't offer a la carte because the majority of what they offer in bundles I could care less about (for example all the religious and home shopping channels). Their response was that many people consider these to be premium content. Well, if people think it's premium content (like HBO) I suggested charging a premium price the way they do for movie channels instead. Why should I get stuck subsidizing content I don't want?
If it's all about delivery and not content creation, then a la carte seems to me the best way to deliver content thus allowing people to pay for programming they'll actually use. TV content may be at an all time high but that doesn't mean it's quality content.
I would pay $20-$30 per month to have unlimited access to Apple's vast movie database, instead of having to rent each individual movie. Netflix doesn't have the most up to date content like Apple does. Would love to see a subscription service by Apple
It doesn't work that way. Just because Apple, along with Vudu, PlayStation, Xbox, Google Play and others of the like, has the latest movies for release to rent or buy, doesn't mean they are available for streaming.
There's a progression the movies have to go through most of the time when said movie is first released. Theater, second tier theater, B-DVD/digital, then it's streaming services and HBO/Showtime, then finally places like NBC/CBS/ABC.
It's the profitable way of squeezing out every drop of money from said movie. So just because Apple and others have the newest releases, doesn't mean they all of a sudden can start streaming them for unlimited views without new contracts with the writes holders of the movies.
Shame. I quite liked the idea of Apple creating their own content. With all that cash floating about, it seemed a good place to spend it. I have to wonder if strategically stepping back and being a 'delivery platform' is a good idea. What's to stop a rival company dominating the content wars then producing their own 'delivery platform' but at a massive discount (or free) due to all the lucrative subscriptions they get.
Choice. We're all addicts and even if Apple users need a smaller fix than most, we still need it. I've never seen one network/channel provide all content needs no reason to think that'll happen with a bunch of geeks who know nothing about TV.
Sure I paint a picture that aligns with my argument nicely, but there is a point in there. When smart TVs become good enough and people are buying them they negate the need for an add-on box. I fail to see how Apple can avoid needing to have a TV display product to remain competitive in that market. As it is each Chromecast devices is one less ATV and I see lots of CC sales out there. The logical conclusion is why would Apple wait before launching their TV, even if it means as a full-priced device. And continue to sell the box for those who want another TV or already have a TV. Apple's TV could have perks over the box such larger hard disk and faster processors etc. They could even in an un-Apple manner offer the ability to upgrade some of the innards as part of an investment plan of sorts.
I suppose it depends on whether the consumer can be convinced but Chromecast and SmartTVs are way behind the curve. For iDevice users Chromecast is like AirPlay which only works on specific apps and UX on Android TV is still a mess. It'll be good enough but will it be used? Apple's ATV strategy is a nonsense though. One box double the price of anyone else's will probably leave most not bothering. They need another, lighter box with maybe just AirPlay and 1st party Apps
Does anyone at Apple innovate any more? Or are we doomed to "we may have been the last company to do it but we did it right" from now on? Geez when I see some of the kickstarter things and all the software APP innovations in the App Store I feel like Apple just wants to be the hardware delivery system for everything - phone too.
Why not retire ole' Eddy"I've run out of ideas"Cue and put someone in that's wants to kick some innovation ass. I hear from other beta testers how Apple is more beaurcratic than Washington regarding listening to new ideas and implementing them. If you're new and have ideas they ask you to please take your seat over in the corner.
Come on guys get back into the game. Be the "we developed it first AND did it right" company not last to the party.
And nothing against Tim Cook personally but this guy is much more into social injustice and saving the polar bears that kicking ass at Apple. It's like "I have really old people in charge so I'll go attend a gay right rally" and after lunch maybe I will Free Willy. Enough all ready with the activist crap. How about you can't do anymore activists things till you reinvent the laptop. That would put a fire under his ass. We've have something new by next week lol
By innovation do you mean baseless assumptions from a generation that's not been around long enough to apply anything to real world context and know anything but feel entitled to inflict their naive opinions on all?
If so, you need Google. As an Apple customer I like my products built from knowledge.
Actually, it is about both. Good content with a sh*tty viewing experience & UI isn't solving anything. You could say that this what the current cable/satellite services are - almost all content is available, but have fun with the grid guide and generally sub-par software.
The prices for content are not set in isolation - they are controlled by the content owners/producers, and they are (not so surprisingly) not keen jumping to a model where they automatically make 50% less money. This is why it is taking so long for the models to change. The imminent death of cable was preached over 10 years ago. It is just now starting to take some meaningful subscriber losses.
Many people have dumped Comcast for pirate bay simply because of access to content. I wonder how much those big companies get from those cord cutters. I don't see it getting any better. The sooner they offer content at a reasonable price, the sooner they will start getting paid for their content again.
Sure, if you support piracy and feel entitled to free content, there is nothing further to discuss. No legitimate service will address that.
I would pay $20-$30 per month to have unlimited access to Apple's vast movie database, instead of having to rent each individual movie. Netflix doesn't have the most up to date content like Apple does. Would love to see a subscription service by Apple
Well you have nailed the reason why Netflix doesn't have the most up-to-date content, like apple does.
Comments
Apple already thinks on a global scale.
However a huge stumbling block is that television and movie rights vary from region to region. They have to be negotiated separately in each region. There is no global license for these rights.
This is why Netflix has to block users who are not allowed to view content in another region. They legally have to do this despite user complaints.
By creating a platform on which all players can participate, then Apple acts as a conduit for all. So if your region doesn't have the content you want, complain to that content provider so that they can create an app for the AppleTV. Amazon is one such recalcitrant provider. It doesn't want to create an Amazon video app for Apple TV.
First the FTC and FCC has made it a requirement to separate the STB from the cable operators and this has been in place for the last 15 yrs and the Cable guys have been doing everything they can to stop or slow this down, thus why were are in 15 yrs and still do not have it. The technical issues have been solved a long time ago. But the Operators do not want to give up the incoming from the rental of the STB. If the Cable operators wanted to stream content to any IP based streaming box they could without any security issue with content. The issue is the Cable Operators are fighting not to be a fat dumb pipe into you home. I have worked in this industry for a long time and know it all too well.
Your DirecTV example was more about their design then the fact they provide a reference design for other companies to make. DirecTV still provides the reference design today to Pace(ARRIS), Samsung, Technicolor, and Humax show make all their STB. The Hacking you were talking about was the poor design in which a software key was not properly encrypted (I personally new people who would hack the system but is required a PC connect to STB to make it work). At the time Samsung and Sony both made a stand alone STB which you could buy from anyone. However, most of the hacking happen on the Huges STB (RCA -Thomson electronics which is now Technicolor) which if you remember Huges owned DirecTV prior to spinning it out. It was their own Box which had most of the issues. BTW RCA never made the STB it was actually Thomson who made it for RCA who sold it under their name. I work for the Company who design the compression decompression system for Huges and we made the Compression systems on the uplink side and license the decompression system to Huges and Thomson.
Lastly Smart TV are not the answer, because of the cost to upgrade a TV every time something changes. Most people hang on to their TV for 7 to 10 yrs. Upgrading a $99 box that sits behind your TV made by a Company like Apple who continues to develop software feature year over year is a far better solution than have a SmartTV.
As I said ever Cable operator today can stream content to you via IP and provide an App or Apple TV to allow it but they will not. I personally watch DirecTV on my ipad and phone, and On my ATV I can watch live channels which I also subscribe to with DirecTV, by just putting in my DirecTV credentials.
Yes, the strong rumor at the time was Apple was working a deal which would allow TWC to stream all their content to anyone who own a ATV. TWC only had limited market and could not grow without having to buy other small cable operators. Which would take years and there is all kinds of equipment issue doing this. The deal would allow TWC to stream content to subscribers anywhere someone had an ATV and Broadband network. This would mean that TWC would immediately compete with all the cable operators in the US and use could dump their high price cable TV plan, keep internet and get content from TWC. It also believed that Comcast put in the offer to buy them to put an end to the deal between Apple and TWC. At the same time TWC and Charter were in talks to have TWC to buy Charter.
is not a threat to content providers "at this time", but that they could quickly become a threat if the providers won't work with Apple to set up a voluptuous bundle.
There's a progression the movies have to go through most of the time when said movie is first released. Theater, second tier theater, B-DVD/digital, then it's streaming services and HBO/Showtime, then finally places like NBC/CBS/ABC.
It's the profitable way of squeezing out every drop of money from said movie. So just because Apple and others have the newest releases, doesn't mean they all of a sudden can start streaming them for unlimited views without new contracts with the writes holders of the movies.
Apple's ATV strategy is a nonsense though. One box double the price of anyone else's will probably leave most not bothering. They need another, lighter box with maybe just AirPlay and 1st party Apps
If so, you need Google. As an Apple customer I like my products built from knowledge.
what's to stop all the other copycats?
Upgrade Siri and the whole box. I'm tired of people suggesting it be a cheap piece of sh** for it to be successful.
Let it be a hardcore gaming machine(A10x or faster) with the Lightning port open to developers Wii style.