And there you have it. Blu-ray to all Macs- esp the next gen laptops and iMacs. Finally no more discussion on whether there will or why there should not be.
People have always acknowledged that macs would get whatever format won the hd disc war, it was just a matter of time, cost, form factor, DRM issues, etc.
Of course it will happen. It's just a question of how fast, which models first, whether it will be standard on any machine or all BTO (I'd hope BTO until the price comes down significantly). I doubt we'll see it standard for a long long time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a year or more before it's even offered as an option on all macs.
Right now, I think they need to get software (and hardware?) support for playing movies, and make it an option for mac pros. Maybe MBP when there's a drive in the right form factor. iMac? I don't see much reason to be in a hurry for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Netflix is the undisputed leader of through the mail DVD rentals, but they also have slim pickings for video on demand. The bottleneck is the studios. Apple clearly needs to step up and offer to digitize movies for the studios on their dime, otherwise this will stretch out for an eternity.
That's not the holdup, the thing that is making it so slow is the studios getting all the proper rights clearances for digital download release.
I totally agree that aTV should make an effort to support many other streaming solutions, especially the free ones like TV shows with commercials. That would be a huge selling point for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham
In what ways do the rules differ for Apple compared to Tivo or the various ISPs' DVRs? The devices would record the same content, for the same replay purposes.
Tivo doesn't have a movie download store, do they? The studios can't stop Apple from making a DVR...but they CAN offer their sale/rental content conditionally on apple not doing it. "No DVR, or we pull all our content from iTunes."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbene12
Who is going to buy South Park episodes when the same interface can just snag it for free using DVR?
It may be my lack of imagination. But I really don't see what Apple can bring to DVR service that is so much better or a geat deal more covenient than what is already available. That this function will make the ATV a billion dollar device.
For starters, wouldn't they be offering a DVR that's for sale instead of one requiring a monthly fee like Tivo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wzrdjr
The analyst said that adding DVR functions to the ATV could result in perhaps BILLIONS of dollars of new revenue.
Exactly HOW?
The sales of the ATV would go up dramatically? A new subscription model? Making the studios pay for the right for ATV users to record their content (yeah, right).
I assume he's talking pure sales. At $229, selling 440k units would gross a billion dollars. I think that could be possible for a box like this truly done right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
However I believe it won't come cheap as there would have to be a monthly or annual subscription charge like a .Mac account, TIVO/cable subscription, etc.
Why would it have to have a monthly charge?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I guess I need to repeat myself...Apple does NOT need to get permission from studios to make a DVR if they want to. Just like JVC doesn't need their permission to make a VCR and El Gato doesn't need their permission to make EyeTV. I don't get where the notion is coming from that makers of recording devices used to record TV content need permission from the studios to sell them.
You're right, they don't need to get permission. BUT, since they are selling content from the studios, there's a good chance that the studios only offered that content if Apple agreed not to include DVR. Sure, they can't stop apple from doing DVR...but they absolutely CAN threaten to yank their iTunes content if apple does that, and that's a pretty big bargaining chip.
While not a huge expense, it is not cheap to maintain TV listings for the many, many regions, providers, packages etc. DVR without guide and listing is pretty worthless. Apple could just provide the listings for free and eat the cost, but somehow that doesn't seem Apple's way...given what they charge for .Mac.
Tivo doesn't have a movie download store, do they? The studios can't stop Apple from making a DVR...but they CAN offer their sale/rental content conditionally on apple not doing it. "No DVR, or we pull all our content from iTunes."
They support Amazon's Unbox. They have movies and TV shows for rental and purchase, some free titles. Rhapsody for Music purchases.
While not a huge expense, it is not cheap to maintain TV listings for the many, many regions, providers, packages etc. DVR without guide and listing is pretty worthless. Apple could just provide the listings for free and eat the cost, but somehow that doesn't seem Apple's way...given what they charge for .Mac.
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions. Besides that, the tivo monthly fee isn't really just for the schedule, it's a way for tivo to sell the box at a loss but subsidize it with a monthly fee.
Even if Apple did do a monthly charge, they could definitely go far cheaper than the $8-12 that Tivo charges. But I'd be really surprised if they did a monthly charge at all, the money they'd give up would likely be more than offset by the increase in sales - if there was a good alternative to Tivo without the monthly charge, why would anyone want the tivo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
They support Amazon's Unbox. They have movies and TV shows for rental and purchase, some free titles. Rhapsody for Music purchases.
Do they sell their own movies and shows like Apple, or is it all through amazon or another distributor?
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions. Besides that, the tivo monthly fee isn't really just for the schedule, it's a way for tivo to sell the box at a loss but subsidize it with a monthly fee.
Even if Apple did do a monthly charge, they could definitely go far cheaper than the $8-12 that Tivo charges. But I'd be really surprised if they did a monthly charge at all, the money they'd give up would likely be more than offset by the increase in sales - if there was a good alternative to Tivo without the monthly charge, why would anyone want the tivo?
One could argue the same with the iPhone. If they allowed ATT to subsidize the iPhone, they might be able to sell more units. Apple consciously chose to go the route of selling it at full price and take in recurring monthly revenue. Apple seems to be very interested in recurring revenue from each device. Occasional additional revenue from selling media/games etc is a given, but the recurring revenue seems to be the sought after stream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
Do they sell their own movies and shows like Apple, or is it all through amazon or another distributor?
From what I know of it, they act as the go between for end users and Unbox and Rhapsody. Probably taking a cut of the profits for the service.
One could argue the same with the iPhone. If they allowed ATT to subsidize the iPhone, they might be able to sell more units. Apple consciously chose to go the route of selling it at full price and take in recurring monthly revenue. Apple seems to be very interested in recurring revenue from each device. Occasional additional revenue from selling media/games etc is a given, but the recurring revenue seems to be the sought after stream.
I think people are OK with subsidizing the cost of a phone since the phone will always have a monthly cost. There are many people (like me) who don't pay any monthly cost for TV and would only want a dvr that is a one time purchase. Not to mention that the DVR market is much more an uphill battle so I think they'd be more willing to forgo monthly charges to gain marketshare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
From what I know of it, they act as the go between for end users and Unbox and Rhapsody. Probably taking a cut of the profits for the service.
If that's the case, it sounds like they're not dealing with the studios directly, putting them in a different situation than apple.
I think people are OK with subsidizing the cost of a phone since the phone will always have a monthly cost. There are many people (like me) who don't pay any monthly cost for TV and would only want a dvr that is a one time purchase. Not to mention that the DVR market is much more an uphill battle so I think they'd be more willing to forgo monthly charges to gain marketshare.
That is the point-No one is subsidizing the iPhone. Customer pay full price and the monthly fee.
If you pay no monthly fee for TV, what do you want a DVR for? By making the DVR a paid functionality, then those, like you (who don't cable/Sat?) would be able to buy the device and not have to pay for the DVR functionality that you may not need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
If that's the case, it sounds like they're not dealing with the studios directly, putting them in a different situation than apple.
True, but in the end, the device is still acting as the conduit for getting the media into your home.
That is the point-No one is subsidizing the iPhone. Customer pay full price and the monthly fee.
Absolutely. And they can get away with that because people have to pay a monthly fee for a phone whether it's subsidized or not. There's no such thing as buying a phone and getting free service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
If you pay no monthly fee for TV, what do you want a DVR for? By making the DVR a paid functionality, then those, like you (who don't cable/Sat?) would be able to buy the device and not have to pay for the DVR functionality that you may not need.
I want it to record TV. Why would someone without cable not be interested in recording broadcast TV? And if they don't have a monthly fee for the DVR scheduling, nobody is paying for that functionality. The scheduling isn't what would increase the price of the box, it's the extra hardware of things like TV tuners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
True, but in the end, the device is still acting as the conduit for getting the media into your home.
Yeah, but the point isn't how it looks to the consumer, it's how the deals are negotiated.
If the studios have a contract with apple, they can threaten to pull content if they do a DVR.
If the studios have a contract with amazon, they can't put the same pressure on TIVO.
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions.
OR... Apple may play the game differently.
I imagine Apple would want to make the experience as easy as possible, while still keeping the studios on side. A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time. Apple may want to restrict ad skipping (just for partner networks??), perhaps they'll let partner networks force 1/4 of ads to be watched, or help the networks pick 1/4 of ads which suit the viewers interests and needs. Or give people the option of paying $1 to skip all the ads (and pay a portion of this to partner networks) and have a 'seamless' viewing experience without having to download it (if you're on a low bandwidth connection). Or maybe some people will want to pay a reduced fee of 50c but still watch 1/8 of the ads (about 1 ad per break).
ie: Lots of questions:
Could Apple get money from the networks for controlling the ads?
Could this SELL more TV shows by catering to people without the required bandwidth? (and save Apple $$$ on bandwidth!?)
Will just adding a DVR qualify the appleTV for the digital transition rebates?
Is this a back door to providing HD TV shows?
I have no idea if Apple will want to charge for a guide, just that they may be looking at it from a different angle. It's certainly possible they'll charge anyway. If so, I hope we don't need Apple's guide but can use the over-the-air guide (or free online guides), so that other countries can still use an Apple DVR.
I imagine Apple would want to make the experience as easy as possible, while still keeping the studios on side. A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time.
I doubt Apple would be able to provide better start and stop times, because they have to get their data from the same sources. Broadcasters seem to rely on keeping the times inaccurate specifically to throw off PVR users.
I am in my mid-30's as well. I have hundreds on CD's. I have ripped maybe a couple dozen over the years. Easier to just download, legal or otherwise, songs I have.
Downloading alone doesn't necessarily give you song lists, lyrics, or cover art. These are easily obtained when you rip the CD. Most everyone I know get their music from both.
Quote:
Not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes the files are bigger. That doesn't make them harder to manage, just much more bandwidth and time to deliver....obviously.
Look at how things have worked out. Music file sharing is nearly 10 years old, with billions of files shared. Video file sharing no where near as commonly used. The reason for this is because of their size. They take a long time to download and take up a lot of hard drive space.
Quote:
If you look at just the basic functions, DVR vs Music player, believe me, DVR is more complex. Why? because by definition it needs to play and record video, have schedules, manage tuners, etc.
This isn't complex system. Recording/playing video isn't difficult. The DVR does not make the schedule it obtains the schedule from other sources. DVR generally only have two tuners that isn't anything all that complex. That's why most cable companies simply made their pwn DVR software that works well enough to put Tivo out of business. It would not be very easy to recreate the iPod or iTunes.
Quote:
fragmented market mean can mean a lot of things.
No it doesn't.
Quote:
At that time, if you asked people in their 50s or 60s what a MP3 player was, there was a good chance the would have no idea. Ask them today what an iPod or PMP or Tivo or DVR and which ones do you think they would know?
The difference is that Apple was able to build a brand and a specific service with iPod+iTunes. TIvo has attempted to build a DVR brand but DVR much more easily lends itself to being a commodity service to be packaged with other services. Tivo is the only specifi DVR brand and it will either be bought by a larger company or Their won't really be a specific DVR market.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
I don't quite understand how you by-pass cable using a DVR. They are generally used in tandem.
Quote:
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Music, television, and movies cannot be compared in this way. Its much easier to produce, distribute, and promote music than it is for television/movies. The costs of producing television/ movies are much higher. Distribution and revenue movie and television cannot be obtained by the general citizen.
The reason Tivo exists is because the cable/Sat companies have lousy DVRs and people are looking for something better. With Apple's knack for user interface design, they would mop up the floor with the current crop of DVRs. People are begging for a decent DVR, add a Blu-Ray player and a nice download service (like Apple TV appears to have started) and people will be in line for them.
Where have we heard of people sick of junky hardware standing in line to get something that is more usable, cool, but in a tough market that you'd have to be crazy to enter . . . iPhone anyone?
Apple got around 20% market share in a few months. A DVR that isn't junk that I can use instead of my cable/sat box? It also lets me watch stuff from the net and rent movies online! Possibly with a built-in Blue-ray? I'm there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I used to think that Mr Wu was OK...as far as analysts go. But this article shows a lot of ignorance.
Competing with cable and satellite TV in the DVR market would be VERY difficult. It's not just that other companies aren't doing it very well...they just aren't doing it. TiVo is arguably the best one out there, but even with their subscription fees they lose money EVERY quarter. They are finally resorting to licensing their software to cable providers. And once that becomes more widespread, it would be even more difficult for Apple to play in that market. Apple could undoubtably do a better job of it. They might even be able to be successful at it; but I don't think they'd be the "billions" of dollars successful as Mr Wu predicts.
The $12-15 dollars of incremental cost to make Apple TV a DVR also show much lack of knowledge. First, you'd need a much bigger hard drive. 160 GB is the minimum for any DVR. The larger Apple TV has that, but then you also need room for syncing your iTunes content. You also need better video circuitry. Currently, while Apple TV can output 1080i, it's actually limited internally to 720p (fixable with a firmware update?). You also need to be able to support the MPEG formats the cable company uses, which Apple TV currently does not support. Next you need to add the hardware for the cable hookup, CableCard slots, and tuners (dual-tuner is a must have). And that's just to meet today's standards. By the end of the year, CableCards will be obsolete technology. How will Apple TV support two-way communication for SDV and OCAP? For that they'll need to add a communiations module. And that's just to get it to work with cable not satellite.
And in response to a few of the other posts...there is nothing the studios can do to prevent Apple from building a DVR. So Apple wouldn't need their "permission" or to obtain "rights" as some have suggested. However, it might upset the studios enough to negatively affect Apple when it comes time to negotiate for iTunes content.
I'm not saying Apple won't do it. But I'm very skeptical that DVR functionality is what will make Apple TV mulit-billion dollar market. Most people will continue to get the DRV service from the cable/satellite provider.
I doubt Apple would be able to provide better start and stop times, because they have to get their data from the same sources. Broadcasters seem to rely on keeping the times inaccurate specifically to throw off PVR users.
You're assuming that Apple simply replicates today's PVRs.
Apple wants to reinvent TV - and I think they are well aware that there has to be a viable financial model (ie: in the long term, you can't just watch a show without paying or watching ads in some manner).
The AppleTV is capable of providing a new model, and has to an extent. There have been 3 stumbling blocks
1) The studios want to make EXTRA money, not the same amount of money via a different model. Not offering rental TV shows is one example (when we watch on FTA, the networks make about 25c per viewer via commercials).
2) The bandwidth to people's homes is limited (sometimes too slow, and providers may start quotas soon)
3) The bandwidth costs to Apple (which I think Apple is simply absorbing to try to kick start all this).
A standard PVR simply records stuff on regular TV. People love it because they can watch when they want, and they can skip the ads.
If the networks can tell the AppleTV how to use embedded timing codes in the signal (or give exact times), the AppleTV could offer a perfectly edited recording (for a small FEE to the network eg 50c/view), or FORCE people to watch ads. ie: an Apple PVR could provide something appealing to the networks - in exchange for their co-operation. It would also remove bandwidth issues and offer HD simultaneously.
And if a network doesn't co-operate all the AppleTV could do would be to record the programs like any regular PVR (but with a nicer interface), quite capable of skipping ads etc..
Not saying this is what Apple would do, just trying to leap outside the box when thinking about Apple's goals.
Downloading alone doesn't necessarily give you song lists, lyrics, or cover art. These are easily obtained when you rip the CD. Most everyone I know get their music from both.
Ok. I have better things to do than spending an evening ripping CD's. Play-Rip-Burn. How 90's novel. Actually, I can't remember the last time I even downloaded a song. If you say people you know are still ripping their CD collections, great, I will take your word for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Look at how things have worked out. Music file sharing is nearly 10 years old, with billions of files shared. Video file sharing no where near as commonly used. The reason for this is because of their size. They take a long time to download and take up a lot of hard drive space.
Yes, video are bigger. Yup, sure are.
Music sharing is nearly 10 years old? Maybe for those ripping CDs with iTunes music sharing was new 10 years ago. I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This isn't complex system. Recording/playing video isn't difficult. The DVR does not make the schedule it obtains the schedule from other sources. DVR generally only have two tuners that isn't anything all that complex. That's why most cable companies simply made their pwn DVR software that works well enough to put Tivo out of business. It would not be very easy to recreate the iPod or iTunes.
Have you written your own video recording software? All things being relative, Video player/recorder is more complex than an audio player. If you belief otherwise, then you are confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
No it doesn't.
If you say so, I guess it is so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The difference is that Apple was able to build a brand and a specific service with iPod+iTunes. TIvo has attempted to build a DVR brand but DVR much more easily lends itself to being a commodity service to be packaged with other services. Tivo is the only specifi DVR brand and it will either be bought by a larger company or Their won't really be a specific DVR market.
DVR lends itself much more to being a commodity than an MP3 player? Really? Really? Saying so, just because Apple was able to be so successful with iPod doesn't now make DVR more commodity oriented than an MP3 player...that's why there were dozens of competitor, model options way before iPod...because it was commodity type item. Apple was simply able to become the defacto standard. Something Tivo has yet to do. Or the cable companies. or the sat companies. Or the hardware companies. or Microsoft. Or anyone else in these fragmented market.
I don't quite understand how you by-pass cable using a DVR. They are generally used in tandem.
A DVR is just a digital recording device with access to guide information to tell it when to start and when to stop. It's VCR+ with an unlimited random-access tape and a nicer interface. All you need is *A* broadcast feed. Cable, dish... or HD OTA. Bazam - free digital signal, ready for saving. No cable company needed.
Will it work everywhere? Nope. But HD antenna with a 30-50mile range are under $100, and /. just had a spiffy link to a *100mile* range antenna you can make yourself for under $20. Go draw a 100 mile radius around the core digital transmitters in the US, and see how much population it covers. (Hint: the majority.)
Will it get you every show? Nope. But go take a look at the iTMS for the non-ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox shows you watch. Most of mine are on there. For those that aren't, there's NetFlix.
Quote:
Music, television, and movies cannot be compared in this way. Its much easier to produce, distribute, and promote music than it is for television/movies. The costs of producing television/ movies are much higher. Distribution and revenue movie and television cannot be obtained by the general citizen.
Last sentence no sense makes.
Are you trying to say that because it costs more to make a television show or movie, that the *average person* can't make one? Well, of course.
But the average person can pay a buck to watch one. Get enough of those, and it pays for the production costs. Shows might have to compete on popularity and merit, instead of whose network boardroom butt they kiss.
It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions.
I'm not sure they're as "free" as you think. You're aware of what happened with Zap2It?
Elgato pays Decisionmark for access to the TitanTV program guide with EyeTV in the US, a "subscription" fee passed on to customers that's reflected in the software price whether or not they (can) actually use that service. And good luck getting support for inaccurate/incomplete guide issues; mine still haven't been fully resolved (e.g. missing channels).
The program guide is a critical component for a properly functioning DVR system that can't be taken for granted.
A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time. Apple may want to restrict ad skipping (just for partner networks??)
If they restricted ad skipping, it would be very poorly received by customers, and put them at a competitive disadvantage. Start and end times can be a pain, but having a DVR pad by a couple minutes on each side seems to cover that.
Comments
And there you have it. Blu-ray to all Macs- esp the next gen laptops and iMacs. Finally no more discussion on whether there will or why there should not be.
People have always acknowledged that macs would get whatever format won the hd disc war, it was just a matter of time, cost, form factor, DRM issues, etc.
Of course it will happen. It's just a question of how fast, which models first, whether it will be standard on any machine or all BTO (I'd hope BTO until the price comes down significantly). I doubt we'll see it standard for a long long time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a year or more before it's even offered as an option on all macs.
Right now, I think they need to get software (and hardware?) support for playing movies, and make it an option for mac pros. Maybe MBP when there's a drive in the right form factor. iMac? I don't see much reason to be in a hurry for that.
Netflix is the undisputed leader of through the mail DVD rentals, but they also have slim pickings for video on demand. The bottleneck is the studios. Apple clearly needs to step up and offer to digitize movies for the studios on their dime, otherwise this will stretch out for an eternity.
That's not the holdup, the thing that is making it so slow is the studios getting all the proper rights clearances for digital download release.
I totally agree that aTV should make an effort to support many other streaming solutions, especially the free ones like TV shows with commercials. That would be a huge selling point for me.
In what ways do the rules differ for Apple compared to Tivo or the various ISPs' DVRs? The devices would record the same content, for the same replay purposes.
Tivo doesn't have a movie download store, do they? The studios can't stop Apple from making a DVR...but they CAN offer their sale/rental content conditionally on apple not doing it. "No DVR, or we pull all our content from iTunes."
Who is going to buy South Park episodes when the same interface can just snag it for free using DVR?
People without cable.
It may be my lack of imagination. But I really don't see what Apple can bring to DVR service that is so much better or a geat deal more covenient than what is already available. That this function will make the ATV a billion dollar device.
For starters, wouldn't they be offering a DVR that's for sale instead of one requiring a monthly fee like Tivo?
The analyst said that adding DVR functions to the ATV could result in perhaps BILLIONS of dollars of new revenue.
Exactly HOW?
The sales of the ATV would go up dramatically? A new subscription model? Making the studios pay for the right for ATV users to record their content (yeah, right).
I assume he's talking pure sales. At $229, selling 440k units would gross a billion dollars. I think that could be possible for a box like this truly done right.
However I believe it won't come cheap as there would have to be a monthly or annual subscription charge like a .Mac account, TIVO/cable subscription, etc.
Why would it have to have a monthly charge?
I guess I need to repeat myself...Apple does NOT need to get permission from studios to make a DVR if they want to. Just like JVC doesn't need their permission to make a VCR and El Gato doesn't need their permission to make EyeTV. I don't get where the notion is coming from that makers of recording devices used to record TV content need permission from the studios to sell them.
You're right, they don't need to get permission. BUT, since they are selling content from the studios, there's a good chance that the studios only offered that content if Apple agreed not to include DVR. Sure, they can't stop apple from doing DVR...but they absolutely CAN threaten to yank their iTunes content if apple does that, and that's a pretty big bargaining chip.
Why would it have to have a monthly charge?
Listing.
While not a huge expense, it is not cheap to maintain TV listings for the many, many regions, providers, packages etc. DVR without guide and listing is pretty worthless. Apple could just provide the listings for free and eat the cost, but somehow that doesn't seem Apple's way...given what they charge for .Mac.
Tivo doesn't have a movie download store, do they? The studios can't stop Apple from making a DVR...but they CAN offer their sale/rental content conditionally on apple not doing it. "No DVR, or we pull all our content from iTunes."
They support Amazon's Unbox. They have movies and TV shows for rental and purchase, some free titles. Rhapsody for Music purchases.
Listing.
While not a huge expense, it is not cheap to maintain TV listings for the many, many regions, providers, packages etc. DVR without guide and listing is pretty worthless. Apple could just provide the listings for free and eat the cost, but somehow that doesn't seem Apple's way...given what they charge for .Mac.
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions. Besides that, the tivo monthly fee isn't really just for the schedule, it's a way for tivo to sell the box at a loss but subsidize it with a monthly fee.
Even if Apple did do a monthly charge, they could definitely go far cheaper than the $8-12 that Tivo charges. But I'd be really surprised if they did a monthly charge at all, the money they'd give up would likely be more than offset by the increase in sales - if there was a good alternative to Tivo without the monthly charge, why would anyone want the tivo?
They support Amazon's Unbox. They have movies and TV shows for rental and purchase, some free titles. Rhapsody for Music purchases.
Do they sell their own movies and shows like Apple, or is it all through amazon or another distributor?
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions. Besides that, the tivo monthly fee isn't really just for the schedule, it's a way for tivo to sell the box at a loss but subsidize it with a monthly fee.
Even if Apple did do a monthly charge, they could definitely go far cheaper than the $8-12 that Tivo charges. But I'd be really surprised if they did a monthly charge at all, the money they'd give up would likely be more than offset by the increase in sales - if there was a good alternative to Tivo without the monthly charge, why would anyone want the tivo?
One could argue the same with the iPhone. If they allowed ATT to subsidize the iPhone, they might be able to sell more units. Apple consciously chose to go the route of selling it at full price and take in recurring monthly revenue. Apple seems to be very interested in recurring revenue from each device. Occasional additional revenue from selling media/games etc is a given, but the recurring revenue seems to be the sought after stream.
Do they sell their own movies and shows like Apple, or is it all through amazon or another distributor?
From what I know of it, they act as the go between for end users and Unbox and Rhapsody. Probably taking a cut of the profits for the service.
One could argue the same with the iPhone. If they allowed ATT to subsidize the iPhone, they might be able to sell more units. Apple consciously chose to go the route of selling it at full price and take in recurring monthly revenue. Apple seems to be very interested in recurring revenue from each device. Occasional additional revenue from selling media/games etc is a given, but the recurring revenue seems to be the sought after stream.
I think people are OK with subsidizing the cost of a phone since the phone will always have a monthly cost. There are many people (like me) who don't pay any monthly cost for TV and would only want a dvr that is a one time purchase. Not to mention that the DVR market is much more an uphill battle so I think they'd be more willing to forgo monthly charges to gain marketshare.
From what I know of it, they act as the go between for end users and Unbox and Rhapsody. Probably taking a cut of the profits for the service.
If that's the case, it sounds like they're not dealing with the studios directly, putting them in a different situation than apple.
I think people are OK with subsidizing the cost of a phone since the phone will always have a monthly cost. There are many people (like me) who don't pay any monthly cost for TV and would only want a dvr that is a one time purchase. Not to mention that the DVR market is much more an uphill battle so I think they'd be more willing to forgo monthly charges to gain marketshare.
That is the point-No one is subsidizing the iPhone. Customer pay full price and the monthly fee.
If you pay no monthly fee for TV, what do you want a DVR for? By making the DVR a paid functionality, then those, like you (who don't cable/Sat?) would be able to buy the device and not have to pay for the DVR functionality that you may not need.
If that's the case, it sounds like they're not dealing with the studios directly, putting them in a different situation than apple.
True, but in the end, the device is still acting as the conduit for getting the media into your home.
That is the point-No one is subsidizing the iPhone. Customer pay full price and the monthly fee.
Absolutely. And they can get away with that because people have to pay a monthly fee for a phone whether it's subsidized or not. There's no such thing as buying a phone and getting free service.
If you pay no monthly fee for TV, what do you want a DVR for? By making the DVR a paid functionality, then those, like you (who don't cable/Sat?) would be able to buy the device and not have to pay for the DVR functionality that you may not need.
I want it to record TV. Why would someone without cable not be interested in recording broadcast TV? And if they don't have a monthly fee for the DVR scheduling, nobody is paying for that functionality. The scheduling isn't what would increase the price of the box, it's the extra hardware of things like TV tuners.
True, but in the end, the device is still acting as the conduit for getting the media into your home.
Yeah, but the point isn't how it looks to the consumer, it's how the deals are negotiated.
If the studios have a contract with apple, they can threaten to pull content if they do a DVR.
If the studios have a contract with amazon, they can't put the same pressure on TIVO.
Of course they could charge, but that still isn't a reason they'd have to. Apple provides a huge podcast directory for free, I don't see why they couldn't do the same with tv schedules (which are probably less work). It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions.
OR... Apple may play the game differently.
I imagine Apple would want to make the experience as easy as possible, while still keeping the studios on side. A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time. Apple may want to restrict ad skipping (just for partner networks??), perhaps they'll let partner networks force 1/4 of ads to be watched, or help the networks pick 1/4 of ads which suit the viewers interests and needs. Or give people the option of paying $1 to skip all the ads (and pay a portion of this to partner networks) and have a 'seamless' viewing experience without having to download it (if you're on a low bandwidth connection). Or maybe some people will want to pay a reduced fee of 50c but still watch 1/8 of the ads (about 1 ad per break).
ie: Lots of questions:
Could Apple get money from the networks for controlling the ads?
Could this SELL more TV shows by catering to people without the required bandwidth? (and save Apple $$$ on bandwidth!?)
Will just adding a DVR qualify the appleTV for the digital transition rebates?
Is this a back door to providing HD TV shows?
I have no idea if Apple will want to charge for a guide, just that they may be looking at it from a different angle. It's certainly possible they'll charge anyway. If so, I hope we don't need Apple's guide but can use the over-the-air guide (or free online guides), so that other countries can still use an Apple DVR.
OR... Apple may play the game differently.
I imagine Apple would want to make the experience as easy as possible, while still keeping the studios on side. A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time.
I doubt Apple would be able to provide better start and stop times, because they have to get their data from the same sources. Broadcasters seem to rely on keeping the times inaccurate specifically to throw off PVR users.
I am in my mid-30's as well. I have hundreds on CD's. I have ripped maybe a couple dozen over the years. Easier to just download, legal or otherwise, songs I have.
Downloading alone doesn't necessarily give you song lists, lyrics, or cover art. These are easily obtained when you rip the CD. Most everyone I know get their music from both.
Not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes the files are bigger. That doesn't make them harder to manage, just much more bandwidth and time to deliver....obviously.
Look at how things have worked out. Music file sharing is nearly 10 years old, with billions of files shared. Video file sharing no where near as commonly used. The reason for this is because of their size. They take a long time to download and take up a lot of hard drive space.
If you look at just the basic functions, DVR vs Music player, believe me, DVR is more complex. Why? because by definition it needs to play and record video, have schedules, manage tuners, etc.
This isn't complex system. Recording/playing video isn't difficult. The DVR does not make the schedule it obtains the schedule from other sources. DVR generally only have two tuners that isn't anything all that complex. That's why most cable companies simply made their pwn DVR software that works well enough to put Tivo out of business. It would not be very easy to recreate the iPod or iTunes.
fragmented market mean can mean a lot of things.
No it doesn't.
At that time, if you asked people in their 50s or 60s what a MP3 player was, there was a good chance the would have no idea. Ask them today what an iPod or PMP or Tivo or DVR and which ones do you think they would know?
The difference is that Apple was able to build a brand and a specific service with iPod+iTunes. TIvo has attempted to build a DVR brand but DVR much more easily lends itself to being a commodity service to be packaged with other services. Tivo is the only specifi DVR brand and it will either be bought by a larger company or Their won't really be a specific DVR market.
The next battle isn't Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, it isn't cable vs. dish... it's online on-demand of a huge catalog of shows from a wide variety of producers, *bypassing* cable, dish, and so on. The first company that can organize that in a simple to use way, wins big. DVR is where the puck is. This is where the puck will be.
I don't quite understand how you by-pass cable using a DVR. They are generally used in tandem.
The situation with the cable companies and networks is the same RIAA-centric business model, and just as the iTunes Music Store is letting indies bypass the labels, I predict the TV section will start to court producers directly. "The networks didn't like your show? We'll host it."
Music, television, and movies cannot be compared in this way. Its much easier to produce, distribute, and promote music than it is for television/movies. The costs of producing television/ movies are much higher. Distribution and revenue movie and television cannot be obtained by the general citizen.
Where have we heard of people sick of junky hardware standing in line to get something that is more usable, cool, but in a tough market that you'd have to be crazy to enter . . . iPhone anyone?
Apple got around 20% market share in a few months. A DVR that isn't junk that I can use instead of my cable/sat box? It also lets me watch stuff from the net and rent movies online! Possibly with a built-in Blue-ray? I'm there!
I used to think that Mr Wu was OK...as far as analysts go. But this article shows a lot of ignorance.
Competing with cable and satellite TV in the DVR market would be VERY difficult. It's not just that other companies aren't doing it very well...they just aren't doing it. TiVo is arguably the best one out there, but even with their subscription fees they lose money EVERY quarter. They are finally resorting to licensing their software to cable providers. And once that becomes more widespread, it would be even more difficult for Apple to play in that market. Apple could undoubtably do a better job of it. They might even be able to be successful at it; but I don't think they'd be the "billions" of dollars successful as Mr Wu predicts.
The $12-15 dollars of incremental cost to make Apple TV a DVR also show much lack of knowledge. First, you'd need a much bigger hard drive. 160 GB is the minimum for any DVR. The larger Apple TV has that, but then you also need room for syncing your iTunes content. You also need better video circuitry. Currently, while Apple TV can output 1080i, it's actually limited internally to 720p (fixable with a firmware update?). You also need to be able to support the MPEG formats the cable company uses, which Apple TV currently does not support. Next you need to add the hardware for the cable hookup, CableCard slots, and tuners (dual-tuner is a must have). And that's just to meet today's standards. By the end of the year, CableCards will be obsolete technology. How will Apple TV support two-way communication for SDV and OCAP? For that they'll need to add a communiations module. And that's just to get it to work with cable not satellite.
And in response to a few of the other posts...there is nothing the studios can do to prevent Apple from building a DVR. So Apple wouldn't need their "permission" or to obtain "rights" as some have suggested. However, it might upset the studios enough to negatively affect Apple when it comes time to negotiate for iTunes content.
I'm not saying Apple won't do it. But I'm very skeptical that DVR functionality is what will make Apple TV mulit-billion dollar market. Most people will continue to get the DRV service from the cable/satellite provider.
I doubt Apple would be able to provide better start and stop times, because they have to get their data from the same sources. Broadcasters seem to rely on keeping the times inaccurate specifically to throw off PVR users.
You're assuming that Apple simply replicates today's PVRs.
Apple wants to reinvent TV - and I think they are well aware that there has to be a viable financial model (ie: in the long term, you can't just watch a show without paying or watching ads in some manner).
The AppleTV is capable of providing a new model, and has to an extent. There have been 3 stumbling blocks
1) The studios want to make EXTRA money, not the same amount of money via a different model. Not offering rental TV shows is one example (when we watch on FTA, the networks make about 25c per viewer via commercials).
2) The bandwidth to people's homes is limited (sometimes too slow, and providers may start quotas soon)
3) The bandwidth costs to Apple (which I think Apple is simply absorbing to try to kick start all this).
A standard PVR simply records stuff on regular TV. People love it because they can watch when they want, and they can skip the ads.
If the networks can tell the AppleTV how to use embedded timing codes in the signal (or give exact times), the AppleTV could offer a perfectly edited recording (for a small FEE to the network eg 50c/view), or FORCE people to watch ads. ie: an Apple PVR could provide something appealing to the networks - in exchange for their co-operation. It would also remove bandwidth issues and offer HD simultaneously.
And if a network doesn't co-operate all the AppleTV could do would be to record the programs like any regular PVR (but with a nicer interface), quite capable of skipping ads etc..
Not saying this is what Apple would do, just trying to leap outside the box when thinking about Apple's goals.
Downloading alone doesn't necessarily give you song lists, lyrics, or cover art. These are easily obtained when you rip the CD. Most everyone I know get their music from both.
Ok. I have better things to do than spending an evening ripping CD's. Play-Rip-Burn. How 90's novel. Actually, I can't remember the last time I even downloaded a song. If you say people you know are still ripping their CD collections, great, I will take your word for it.
Look at how things have worked out. Music file sharing is nearly 10 years old, with billions of files shared. Video file sharing no where near as commonly used. The reason for this is because of their size. They take a long time to download and take up a lot of hard drive space.
Yes, video are bigger. Yup, sure are.
Music sharing is nearly 10 years old? Maybe for those ripping CDs with iTunes music sharing was new 10 years ago. I guess.
This isn't complex system. Recording/playing video isn't difficult. The DVR does not make the schedule it obtains the schedule from other sources. DVR generally only have two tuners that isn't anything all that complex. That's why most cable companies simply made their pwn DVR software that works well enough to put Tivo out of business. It would not be very easy to recreate the iPod or iTunes.
Have you written your own video recording software? All things being relative, Video player/recorder is more complex than an audio player. If you belief otherwise, then you are confused.
No it doesn't.
If you say so, I guess it is so.
The difference is that Apple was able to build a brand and a specific service with iPod+iTunes. TIvo has attempted to build a DVR brand but DVR much more easily lends itself to being a commodity service to be packaged with other services. Tivo is the only specifi DVR brand and it will either be bought by a larger company or Their won't really be a specific DVR market.
DVR lends itself much more to being a commodity than an MP3 player? Really? Really? Saying so, just because Apple was able to be so successful with iPod doesn't now make DVR more commodity oriented than an MP3 player...that's why there were dozens of competitor, model options way before iPod...because it was commodity type item. Apple was simply able to become the defacto standard. Something Tivo has yet to do. Or the cable companies. or the sat companies. Or the hardware companies. or Microsoft. Or anyone else in these fragmented market.
I don't quite understand how you by-pass cable using a DVR. They are generally used in tandem.
A DVR is just a digital recording device with access to guide information to tell it when to start and when to stop. It's VCR+ with an unlimited random-access tape and a nicer interface. All you need is *A* broadcast feed. Cable, dish... or HD OTA. Bazam - free digital signal, ready for saving. No cable company needed.
Will it work everywhere? Nope. But HD antenna with a 30-50mile range are under $100, and /. just had a spiffy link to a *100mile* range antenna you can make yourself for under $20. Go draw a 100 mile radius around the core digital transmitters in the US, and see how much population it covers. (Hint: the majority.)
Will it get you every show? Nope. But go take a look at the iTMS for the non-ABC/NBC/CBS/Fox shows you watch. Most of mine are on there. For those that aren't, there's NetFlix.
Music, television, and movies cannot be compared in this way. Its much easier to produce, distribute, and promote music than it is for television/movies. The costs of producing television/ movies are much higher. Distribution and revenue movie and television cannot be obtained by the general citizen.
Last sentence no sense makes.
Are you trying to say that because it costs more to make a television show or movie, that the *average person* can't make one? Well, of course.
But the average person can pay a buck to watch one. Get enough of those, and it pays for the production costs. Shows might have to compete on popularity and merit, instead of whose network boardroom butt they kiss.
It can't be that bad to create TV schedule data considering there are already multiple free versions.
I'm not sure they're as "free" as you think. You're aware of what happened with Zap2It?
Elgato pays Decisionmark for access to the TitanTV program guide with EyeTV in the US, a "subscription" fee passed on to customers that's reflected in the software price whether or not they (can) actually use that service. And good luck getting support for inaccurate/incomplete guide issues; mine still haven't been fully resolved (e.g. missing channels).
The program guide is a critical component for a properly functioning DVR system that can't be taken for granted.
A guide from Apple might mark EXACT start and end times, as well as advertising time. Apple may want to restrict ad skipping (just for partner networks??)
If they restricted ad skipping, it would be very poorly received by customers, and put them at a competitive disadvantage. Start and end times can be a pain, but having a DVR pad by a couple minutes on each side seems to cover that.