The difference will be that with Ihome we'll have the same Macmini format (slightly larger), with a wide array of input and output connections so I can hook up all my entertainment appliances (laserdisc, dvd, vcr, TV, stereo, etc.). This machine would have a DVR and superdrive. It would use Front Row as the primary navigational tool with remote. We would be able to store all my music, photos and videos.
I don't see the Ihome as a Macmini, because I am not interested to do computer work on my TV screen, I don't really care about checking my email or surfing the net on my TV. So for these reasons I don't see why a full Macmini would have all the capabilities hook up to a TV. Maybe it's just me, but I have a computer to do the above without having to go to my Entertainment room to do that. I want to seat on my couch at 10 feet distance from TV and use front row to access the whole library of things I can put on my Ihome. I don't even want to use a mouse, just the remote, that's why Front Row is so great. I can add music or photos and videos from the itunes store from my computer wirelessly(Airport Express capability) to the Ihome without the touch of a mouse. That's insane.
The Macmini INTEL would stay basically with the same capabilities.
...but they are still growing and perhaps not too bad considering they haven't added any new programs and they also just released the video player to play them (though some have surely bought to play on their computers and not iPods).
...I think the big picture here is that Apple would use the internet as a means of television and film distribution, essentially eliminating Comcast, TIme Warner, Dish, Direct TV, and the other cable and dish providers from the equation.
That's a tall order, and a dangerous road to walk down becouse the providers of high speed access, including the phone companies who are preparing methods of "Cable" delivery over land line phone networks, are the competition for content delivery, and in some cases the owners of the content that you would want to deliver if you want to be truely competative.
A cable company cannot require a cable subscriber to purchase anything except the basic tier in order to have access to pay-per-view programming or channels offered on an a la carte basis. For example, if a cable company offers both a basic and expanded basic tier, a subscriber cannot be required to purchase the expanded basic tier in order to access pay-per-view programs. In addition, the tier buy-through provision of the 1992 Cable Act prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged on a per-channel or per-event basis.
The tier buy-through prohibition does not apply if the cable operator is subject to ?effective competition? as that term is defined by law. In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition from the FCC.
Of course Cable Ops don't mention this to consumers who feel like they "must" buy a the "Gold" package to get PPV or other premium features.
A cable company cannot require a cable subscriber to purchase anything except the basic tier in order to have access to pay-per-view programming or channels offered on an a la carte basis. For example, if a cable company offers both a basic and expanded basic tier, a subscriber cannot be required to purchase the expanded basic tier in order to access pay-per-view programs. In addition, the tier buy-through provision of the 1992 Cable Act prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged on a per-channel or per-event basis.
The tier buy-through prohibition does not apply if the cable operator is subject to ?effective competition? as that term is defined by law. In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition from the FCC.
Of course Cable Ops don't mention this to consumers who feel like they "must" buy a the "Gold" package to get PPV or other premium features.
It was my impression that the a la carte model could/might/maybe/they're-thinking-about-it be expanded to all channels...even those in the basic packages.
Nay it is you all that don't seem to get it. You think that people can be led buy a "bull ring" in their nose to downloaded a la carte video? That's folly. When people purchase cable packages they are buying so that they can get a bevvy of channels for one low "all you can eat price"
I agree with you that there's no incompatibility between DVR and video downloads. It's not unlike iTunes being able to both rip your CDs as well as download tunes for 99¢.
But I still don't think Apple will do a DVR. There are simply too many difficulties. With this iTunes-like content distribution model that they're pursuing with video, they control everything. As we all know, that's how Apple likes it. There are too many options to deal with when you start getting into DVRs. Are they going to build a tuner into the mini? A separate box? What type of broadcast is it going to work with - cable, over the air, analog, digital, satellite? Are they going to do support for people's TVs not working properly?
It's simply too messy of a business for Apple. It's good for cable and satellite companies, or a dedicated company like tivo, but it doesn't fit into Apple's direction.
It was my impression that the a la carte model could/might/maybe/they're-thinking-about-it be expanded to all channels...even those in the basic packages.
Just a few days ago the FCC chair came out in favor of a la carte for all cable channels. I bet most people would really like that.
Yeah I think they're expanding the scope which makes sense to me. Let me pay for the channels most important to me. With Cable Ops getting into VOIP and other areas they don't have to rely upon "just" video content now. Let people spread the money around to cover their needs.
I must admit I'm excited about the possibilities of a Mac mini with Front Row 2.0. Timing is perfect...I'm ready to order.
The more I think about the possibilities of what Apple could do with their various technologies/agreements (Mac mini-like hardware, Front Row software, internet streaming video distribution, etc.)...they could just create a "satellite TV" company without...you know...the satellite.
But I still don't think Apple will do a DVR. There are simply too many difficulties. With this iTunes-like content distribution model that they're pursuing with video, they control everything. As we all know, that's how Apple likes it. There are too many options to deal with when you start getting into DVRs. Are they going to build a tuner into the mini? A separate box? What type of broadcast is it going to work with - cable, over the air, analog, digital, satellite? Are they going to do support for people's TVs not working properly?
Infrastructure
1. Apple uses more bandwidth just hosting SD and HD trailers than guide data would call for. Tivo's download GD for the next few weeks so that your bandwidth usage is low here.
Tuners
Simply support NTSC/ATSC and you neatly cover SD and HD broadcast formats.
DVRs aren't that complicated. There are open source variety, Cable Ops versions and Tivo and ReplayTV. DVRs have a proven effect on TV viewing that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Downloadable content is simply affixing a price tag and DRM to what people are already getting on Bittorrent.
One thing that is also interesting is that the networks ought to be potentially concerned (long-term) with this. Their role could change (significantly) or disappear in the future.
Currently they control the distribution channel...which is limited by time (only so many slots). They decide what goes and what doesn't. Because they (effectively or in actuality) own the distribution mechanism (broadcast spectrum). But if they no longer (talking way in the future here) own the distribution mechanism...what does it mean to be NBC, ABC or CBS?
I'm not saying they are useless, but their role could change quite a lot.
In fact, if I were a network head right now, I'd think seriously about splitting my company into two things:
1. A distribution/broadcast company, who buys/licenses content from...
2. A content aggregation, producing, filtering, packaging company.
This then leaves "NBC content" open to sell their wares to a wide variety of distribution networks (and, conversely, "NBC broadcasting" open to buy from a variety of sources).
When people purchase cable packages they are buying so that they can get a bevvy of channels for one low "all you can eat price"
With Cable Ops producing their own DVR the value of the packages increases greatly.
But Apple doesn't operate a cable or satellite service. The only content delivery service they offer is downloads from iTMS. The only way they could make money on a DVR is.....
Oh boy. Might Apple team up with Dish Network to offer a DVR WITH them? DirecTV already is teamed with TiVo, but DishNetwork uses their own DVR hardware/software. If Apple and Dish Network joined together to offer an HD Media Center with DVR and Front Row built in, that could be slick. From within the Media center you could set up recordings but also download on-demand programming from iTMS to play or keep on your Media Center.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
There is NOTHING that Apple can create in iTMS that's going to beat the efficacy of watching content with a DVR attached. Most of the people yammering about downloads vs DVR probably don't have a DVR at home.
Oh, I have a DVR. I know how wonderful they are, but we have to look at this from Apple's perspective. If they don't make money on the content delivery through the DVR, then why have the DVR at all? The aforementioned idea about teaming with Dish Network could be good for Apple, though.
But Apple doesn't operate a cable or satellite service
Neither does Tivo nor ReplayTV. Operating a CableCo isn't a requirement of making a DVR.
Quote:
The only content delivery service they offer is downloads from iTMS.
Apple.com is one big Content Delivery System. From Trailers, to software downloads. The infrastructure is there in spades for anything Apple wants to do.
Quote:
The only way they could make money on a DVR is
By selling hardware that powers applications and media that people purchase. Hell they could even get into a bit of advertising if they wanted to. The DVR is the sharp hook that Apple needs. Downloads benefit me when I need to source a new piece of media but DVR's show their worth every single day.
Honestly the best choice is to give a choice to consumers. Media is there to be consumed but Apple will fail if they try to herd people into one paradigm.
I think things improve when/if CableCARD 2.0 ever sees the light of day. I really do want both. I want the ability to grab shows that aren't on my cable and I want Apple to develop a decent DVR program that manages the immense amount of programming available.
It should indeed be interesting. I think we'll get more than we're asking to be honest.
Neither does Tivo nor ReplayTV. Operating a CableCo isn't a requirement of making a DVR.
This is true. However it should also be noted that TiVO isn't (and has never made?) making any $...and the cable and satellite companies are beginning to cut them out of the game now that they have realized how easy it is to make a DVR.
TiVO's problem is that they don't really own/control anything useful in the whole picture:
- hardware is commodity with an open source OS...and they aren't trying to make $ there anyway
- the content (TV shows and the meta-data) is owned by someone else
- the user experience...this is about it and is easily replicated (and even improved).
One thing Steve said in an interview some time back was Apple's desire to own/control some piece of the overall solution.
I'd like to see Apple do DVR + (pay per) streaming content model. Just not sure if they will.
it was definitely a "longshot hack" for apple.com to host movie trailers in quicktime for what, more than 5 years now? finally if this happens, they've really managed to court the movie industry.... may January bring lots of good tidings for the iHome macworld sf2006 is going to RAWK.THE.HOUSE
I need a DVR. I'd like to gather all the programming I'm interested in watching and just watch it all on my day off, commercial free. That would not only save me a couple of commercial hours weekly, but I would have time to be 3/4 more productive in my life, and not worry about the productivity of the work in my life running my entire life. I would be much more dedicated to my work if I had my free time not divided up by nightly programing schedules. And it would give a lot more free time to do the things I want to do. Other than work, and sleep.
That aside. I think Apple should stick with PPC's in this box if it happens. As far as I can tell Sony isn't going to have a major online presence like the X-360 is, and Apple could make a stellar online service similar, but better to a 360's. They could charge $45.00 a year ($5.00 less than the xbox( split it with sony)) for an online subscription service and host PS3 games. They could buy out any other online gaming service (like Game-Ranger, or something) - for the developers, and experienced people for next to nothing. Have the whole living room sewn up, and sony would be thankful. If your going to do a home media center, and put the name Apple on it. It's going to have to out do the competition. iTunes, and and an iPod dock are a gimme. But, they need to do something about the gaming. Microsoft is going to have the home wrapped up, because anything Apple can throw at them they can do to. Apple has to get up to, and surpass their gaming user base to compete with the 360, and having iTunes, a DVR, and a PS3 gaming compatible service would not only keep Microsoft from surpassing Apple in the music, and movie service. It would keep them from surpassing Sony as the #1 gaming platform. They both need an Alliance weather they want to admit it or not.
Comments
Originally posted by hmurchison
When people purchase cable packages they are buying so that they can get a bevvy of channels for one low "all you can eat price"
Actually this is difficult to say for sure since people have never really been offered anything but packages. Only recently has the FCC started to consider letting cable TV service providers offer a la carte channel selection.
MacMini with Intel
Ihome or whatever name.
The difference will be that with Ihome we'll have the same Macmini format (slightly larger), with a wide array of input and output connections so I can hook up all my entertainment appliances (laserdisc, dvd, vcr, TV, stereo, etc.). This machine would have a DVR and superdrive. It would use Front Row as the primary navigational tool with remote. We would be able to store all my music, photos and videos.
I don't see the Ihome as a Macmini, because I am not interested to do computer work on my TV screen, I don't really care about checking my email or surfing the net on my TV. So for these reasons I don't see why a full Macmini would have all the capabilities hook up to a TV. Maybe it's just me, but I have a computer to do the above without having to go to my Entertainment room to do that. I want to seat on my couch at 10 feet distance from TV and use front row to access the whole library of things I can put on my Ihome. I don't even want to use a mouse, just the remote, that's why Front Row is so great. I can add music or photos and videos from the itunes store from my computer wirelessly(Airport Express capability) to the Ihome without the touch of a mouse. That's insane.
The Macmini INTEL would stay basically with the same capabilities.
My 2 cents
Seems the rate of sales is slowing...
10/12-10/31 (20 days) 1 million sold
11/1-12/1 (31 days) 1 millions sold
...but they are still growing and perhaps not too bad considering they haven't added any new programs and they also just released the video player to play them (though some have surely bought to play on their computers and not iPods).
Originally posted by gugy
with a wide array of input and output connections so I can hook up all my entertainment appliances (laserdisc, dvd, vcr, TV, stereo, etc.)
That probably won't happen. I actually would expect fewer ports:
- power
- no network (probably wireless built-in)
- TV out (probably something good and something really common)
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
...I think the big picture here is that Apple would use the internet as a means of television and film distribution, essentially eliminating Comcast, TIme Warner, Dish, Direct TV, and the other cable and dish providers from the equation.
That's a tall order, and a dangerous road to walk down becouse the providers of high speed access, including the phone companies who are preparing methods of "Cable" delivery over land line phone networks, are the competition for content delivery, and in some cases the owners of the content that you would want to deliver if you want to be truely competative.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually this is difficult to say for sure since people have never really been offered anything but packages. Only recently has the FCC started to consider letting cable TV service providers offer a la carte channel selection.
Most people don't know that you can request premium channels on an a la carte basis .
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html
Tier Buy-Through Prohibition
A cable company cannot require a cable subscriber to purchase anything except the basic tier in order to have access to pay-per-view programming or channels offered on an a la carte basis. For example, if a cable company offers both a basic and expanded basic tier, a subscriber cannot be required to purchase the expanded basic tier in order to access pay-per-view programs. In addition, the tier buy-through provision of the 1992 Cable Act prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged on a per-channel or per-event basis.
The tier buy-through prohibition does not apply if the cable operator is subject to ?effective competition? as that term is defined by law. In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition from the FCC.
Of course Cable Ops don't mention this to consumers who feel like they "must" buy a the "Gold" package to get PPV or other premium features.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Most people don't know that you can request premium channels on an a la carte basis .
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html
Tier Buy-Through Prohibition
A cable company cannot require a cable subscriber to purchase anything except the basic tier in order to have access to pay-per-view programming or channels offered on an a la carte basis. For example, if a cable company offers both a basic and expanded basic tier, a subscriber cannot be required to purchase the expanded basic tier in order to access pay-per-view programs. In addition, the tier buy-through provision of the 1992 Cable Act prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged on a per-channel or per-event basis.
The tier buy-through prohibition does not apply if the cable operator is subject to ?effective competition? as that term is defined by law. In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition from the FCC.
Of course Cable Ops don't mention this to consumers who feel like they "must" buy a the "Gold" package to get PPV or other premium features.
It was my impression that the a la carte model could/might/maybe/they're-thinking-about-it be expanded to all channels...even those in the basic packages.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Nay it is you all that don't seem to get it. You think that people can be led buy a "bull ring" in their nose to downloaded a la carte video? That's folly. When people purchase cable packages they are buying so that they can get a bevvy of channels for one low "all you can eat price"
I agree with you that there's no incompatibility between DVR and video downloads. It's not unlike iTunes being able to both rip your CDs as well as download tunes for 99¢.
But I still don't think Apple will do a DVR. There are simply too many difficulties. With this iTunes-like content distribution model that they're pursuing with video, they control everything. As we all know, that's how Apple likes it. There are too many options to deal with when you start getting into DVRs. Are they going to build a tuner into the mini? A separate box? What type of broadcast is it going to work with - cable, over the air, analog, digital, satellite? Are they going to do support for people's TVs not working properly?
It's simply too messy of a business for Apple. It's good for cable and satellite companies, or a dedicated company like tivo, but it doesn't fit into Apple's direction.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It was my impression that the a la carte model could/might/maybe/they're-thinking-about-it be expanded to all channels...even those in the basic packages.
Just a few days ago the FCC chair came out in favor of a la carte for all cable channels. I bet most people would really like that.
I must admit I'm excited about the possibilities of a Mac mini with Front Row 2.0. Timing is perfect...I'm ready to order.
But I still don't think Apple will do a DVR. There are simply too many difficulties. With this iTunes-like content distribution model that they're pursuing with video, they control everything. As we all know, that's how Apple likes it. There are too many options to deal with when you start getting into DVRs. Are they going to build a tuner into the mini? A separate box? What type of broadcast is it going to work with - cable, over the air, analog, digital, satellite? Are they going to do support for people's TVs not working properly?
Infrastructure
1. Apple uses more bandwidth just hosting SD and HD trailers than guide data would call for. Tivo's download GD for the next few weeks so that your bandwidth usage is low here.
Tuners
Simply support NTSC/ATSC and you neatly cover SD and HD broadcast formats.
DVRs aren't that complicated. There are open source variety, Cable Ops versions and Tivo and ReplayTV. DVRs have a proven effect on TV viewing that cannot be duplicated elsewhere. Downloadable content is simply affixing a price tag and DRM to what people are already getting on Bittorrent.
Currently they control the distribution channel...which is limited by time (only so many slots). They decide what goes and what doesn't. Because they (effectively or in actuality) own the distribution mechanism (broadcast spectrum). But if they no longer (talking way in the future here) own the distribution mechanism...what does it mean to be NBC, ABC or CBS?
I'm not saying they are useless, but their role could change quite a lot.
In fact, if I were a network head right now, I'd think seriously about splitting my company into two things:
1. A distribution/broadcast company, who buys/licenses content from...
2. A content aggregation, producing, filtering, packaging company.
This then leaves "NBC content" open to sell their wares to a wide variety of distribution networks (and, conversely, "NBC broadcasting" open to buy from a variety of sources).
Originally posted by hmurchison
When people purchase cable packages they are buying so that they can get a bevvy of channels for one low "all you can eat price"
With Cable Ops producing their own DVR the value of the packages increases greatly.
But Apple doesn't operate a cable or satellite service. The only content delivery service they offer is downloads from iTMS. The only way they could make money on a DVR is.....
Oh boy. Might Apple team up with Dish Network to offer a DVR WITH them? DirecTV already is teamed with TiVo, but DishNetwork uses their own DVR hardware/software. If Apple and Dish Network joined together to offer an HD Media Center with DVR and Front Row built in, that could be slick. From within the Media center you could set up recordings but also download on-demand programming from iTMS to play or keep on your Media Center.
Originally posted by hmurchison
There is NOTHING that Apple can create in iTMS that's going to beat the efficacy of watching content with a DVR attached. Most of the people yammering about downloads vs DVR probably don't have a DVR at home.
Oh, I have a DVR. I know how wonderful they are, but we have to look at this from Apple's perspective. If they don't make money on the content delivery through the DVR, then why have the DVR at all? The aforementioned idea about teaming with Dish Network could be good for Apple, though.
This could get interesting in January.
But Apple doesn't operate a cable or satellite service
Neither does Tivo nor ReplayTV. Operating a CableCo isn't a requirement of making a DVR.
The only content delivery service they offer is downloads from iTMS.
Apple.com is one big Content Delivery System. From Trailers, to software downloads. The infrastructure is there in spades for anything Apple wants to do.
The only way they could make money on a DVR is
By selling hardware that powers applications and media that people purchase. Hell they could even get into a bit of advertising if they wanted to. The DVR is the sharp hook that Apple needs. Downloads benefit me when I need to source a new piece of media but DVR's show their worth every single day.
Honestly the best choice is to give a choice to consumers. Media is there to be consumed but Apple will fail if they try to herd people into one paradigm.
I think things improve when/if CableCARD 2.0 ever sees the light of day. I really do want both. I want the ability to grab shows that aren't on my cable and I want Apple to develop a decent DVR program that manages the immense amount of programming available.
It should indeed be interesting. I think we'll get more than we're asking to be honest.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Neither does Tivo nor ReplayTV. Operating a CableCo isn't a requirement of making a DVR.
This is true. However it should also be noted that TiVO isn't (and has never made?) making any $...and the cable and satellite companies are beginning to cut them out of the game now that they have realized how easy it is to make a DVR.
TiVO's problem is that they don't really own/control anything useful in the whole picture:
- hardware is commodity with an open source OS...and they aren't trying to make $ there anyway
- the content (TV shows and the meta-data) is owned by someone else
- the user experience...this is about it and is easily replicated (and even improved).
One thing Steve said in an interview some time back was Apple's desire to own/control some piece of the overall solution.
I'd like to see Apple do DVR + (pay per) streaming content model. Just not sure if they will.
That aside. I think Apple should stick with PPC's in this box if it happens. As far as I can tell Sony isn't going to have a major online presence like the X-360 is, and Apple could make a stellar online service similar, but better to a 360's. They could charge $45.00 a year ($5.00 less than the xbox( split it with sony)) for an online subscription service and host PS3 games. They could buy out any other online gaming service (like Game-Ranger, or something) - for the developers, and experienced people for next to nothing. Have the whole living room sewn up, and sony would be thankful. If your going to do a home media center, and put the name Apple on it. It's going to have to out do the competition. iTunes, and and an iPod dock are a gimme. But, they need to do something about the gaming. Microsoft is going to have the home wrapped up, because anything Apple can throw at them they can do to. Apple has to get up to, and surpass their gaming user base to compete with the 360, and having iTunes, a DVR, and a PS3 gaming compatible service would not only keep Microsoft from surpassing Apple in the music, and movie service. It would keep them from surpassing Sony as the #1 gaming platform. They both need an Alliance weather they want to admit it or not.
Check out the new ThinkSecret story.
Apple's New Media Experience