Most consumers are dumb. Most consumers are also cheap. Adding HD DVR capabilities to AppleTV, and it would HAVE to be HD will also add a few hundred $$$ to the price. And that will make it too expensive for most dumb consumers and would kill the product. It makes much more sense for Apple to raise the cost by ONE hundred dollars by adding an optical drive, replacing everyones DVD (Blu-Ray) players.
To the people who insist his could be an external option, remember, Apple is not interested in ugly things like this. If i'm wrong, our best bet is a couple of external options (DVR box, blu-ray drive) similar to the MacBook Air external superdrive. BTW, when is someone gonna hack that to work on AppleTV?
Adding HD DVR capabilities to AppleT ... will also add a few hundred $$$ to the price. <snip>. It makes much more sense for Apple to raise the cost by ONE hundred dollars by adding an optical drive, replacing everyones DVD (Blu-Ray) players.
I'm not sure where you get your figures from. Shaw Wu estimated $13 extra (iirc). The AppleTV hardware is capable of decoding 720p MPEG4 and is VERY likely to be capable of 1080 in MPEG2. Hard disk size is an issue, but it won't raise the price hundreds.
Unlike BluRay. Where the cheap players are over $500. What makes you think Apple could add bluray and keep the product under $330 (ie $100 extra).
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder
If they restricted ad skipping, it would be very poorly received by customers, and put them at a competitive disadvantage.
I agree. Consumers, myself included, want to watch everything for free and don't want to watch the ads. The DVRs significantly reduce the ability for the networks to make money which worries them. If Apple helps consumers avoid ads the networks will not be pleased and discouraged from working elsewhere with Apple.
There is a middle ground which encourages the networks (as in my post above). There's also a way to make consumers and advertisers happy - and that is far fewer ads but placed far more effectively. eg: A single ad per ad-break that can not be skimmed would keep our attention - especially if that ad was specifically targeted at the viewer, and had links to more web information or a longer infomercial.
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.
While file sharing and downloading are growing. 85% of music is still purchased in physical CD's. There is still a lot of ripping.
Quote:
Music sharing is nearly 10 years old? Maybe for those ripping CDs with iTunes music sharing was new 10 years ago. I guess.
Napster started in 1999.
Quote:
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.
That would leave me to challenge you with the same question. But I don't think that matters.
Creating DVR software is easy enough that Tivo's competitors are good enough to keep Tivo from dominating the market. In the long run Tivo is either going to be bought or go out of business.
While no one has been able to come up with a solution that competes with the iPod+iTunes.
Quote:
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.
What you are calling a fragmented market is a commodity market. The DVR is basically the same as the DVD player or the VCR. All brands of the product basically perform the same function. Their is some room to compete on features, styling, and brand loyalty. But mostly there isn't much difference to pick one over the other. No one is going to dominate the DVR the same way iPod dominates mp3.
The iPod dominating the mp3 market is unusual and does not normally happen. Apple has said it never expected the iPod to become as popular as it has. MP3 will eventually become a commodity market. iPod dominance won't last forever. Apple knows this and is why they made the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The iPod will become one software function within a device that performs many software functions.
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.
The number of people using over the air is so small Apple would not build a product around that.
Quote:
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.
People can make movies and television. I'm saying the average person does not have access to a wide audience or their money.
Studios and networks spend a great deal of money in developing and producing content. The writers, directors, and crew. That are all used to create content with known actors and high production value. They then spend just as much money marketing, promoting, and distributing that content. The common person has access to none of these resources.
Quote:
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.
This is an unrealistic simplification. If it were this easy people would be doing it already.
The number of people using over the air is so small Apple would not build a product around that.
Most people have cable - but are you saying they no longer have any choice since they don't have access to an antenna?
Related to that - and ignoring cable card etc - are digital FTA signals sent over cable networks in the clear, such that the AppleTV could receive them (with minimal extra hardware)? Or do they need to use cable card or whatever? (is FTA transmitted HD at all over cable, or just SD like in Australia?)
Most people have cable - but are you saying they no longer have any choice since they don't have access to an antenna?
Related to that - and ignoring cable card etc - are digital FTA signals sent over cable networks in the clear, such that the AppleTV could receive them (with minimal extra hardware)? Or do they need to use cable card or whatever? (is FTA transmitted HD at all over cable, or just SD like in Australia?)
As far as I know, if you're a subscriber, you should be able to get over-the-air signals in the clear, though the cable. I think this is often true if you only have cable internet, no video, but it isn't guaranteed. It is coded differently, but tuners aren't a big issue.
While file sharing and downloading are growing. 85% of music is still purchased in physical CD's. There is still a lot of ripping.
If you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Napster started in 1999.
Sharing music was around long before Napster came around. Like I said, I guess for the crowd that still rips CD's Napster was the beginning of music sharing online. Reminds me of comments from AOL users when AOL opened the internet to them. They honestly thought AOL invented the internet and probably thought Napster invented file swapping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That would leave me to challenge you with the same question. But I don't think that matters.
Dabbled, but wasn't my thing. I have been a software developer long enough to know better than to assume things are simple just because they have a simple interface. In fact, I believe a great UI often hides a more complex under-lying system.
But for the sake of clarification: Let's assume audio playback was as complex as video. Then a device that records and plays audio would be more complex than just an audio player by the fact it is doing at least 1 more thing. Now, let's remove the first assumption. Video codecs are simply more complex than audio codecs. From recording to compression to correction and play back, it just is.
Take these two things together, that a recorder/player is more complex than a player and that video is more complex than audio, there really is no arguement that a DVR is a more complicated proposal than an MP3 player. That doesn't mean Apple hasn't designed a more complex device in the iPod than the Tivo is, but that is a matter of individual implementation of the conceptual devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Creating DVR software is easy enough that Tivo's competitors are good enough to keep Tivo from dominating the market. In the long run Tivo is either going to be bought or go out of business.
I would argue that a compelling implementation of DVR is complex enough that TiVo has not yet been able to become a defacto standard. Someone needs to create an implementation that not only makes it compelling but makes it become considered an integral part of the home entertainment system. Just as Apple did with iPod. There where lots of MP3 players before that and lots were sold. But Apple not only grabbed most of the market share and dominated the market, the basically exploded the market to where PMPs have become ubiquitous, dominated by iPod.
I would agree that TiVo will be bought or go under. But that is because they have failed to create a mainstream market demand for DVR in general and for their implementation specifically with the existing market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
While no one has been able to come up with a solution that competes with the iPod+iTunes.
Exactly...it comes down to execution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
What you are calling a fragmented market is a commodity market. The DVR is basically the same as the DVD player or the VCR. All brands of the product basically perform the same function. Their is some room to compete on features, styling, and brand loyalty. But mostly there isn't much difference to pick one over the other. No one is going to dominate the DVR the same way iPod dominates mp3.
The iPod dominating the mp3 market is unusual and does not normally happen. Apple has said it never expected the iPod to become as popular as it has. MP3 will eventually become a commodity market. iPod dominance won't last forever. Apple knows this and is why they made the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The iPod will become one software function within a device that performs many software functions.
Good points, but not givens.
The DVR market has been around a while but is still immature and has yet to have someone enter the market with a device that makes DVRs commonplace and mainstream. Before the iPod, MP3 players were mainly selling to youth and technophiles. iPod made them mainstream. Like I said, now even seniors know iPod, but they might not know MP3, PMP, DVR or Tivo. A company that bring out a compelling device/service/features could do for the DVR market what iPod did for MP3 players/PMP. In that sense, just as the Mp3 player market was fragmented before the iPod, the DVR market is similarly fragmented and undeveloped and untapped.
Maybe Apple won't do a DVR implementation at all. Lots of reasons for them not to, but there are some solid reasons for them to consider it as an add-on feature to Apple TV.
Sharing music was around long before Napster came around. Like I said, I guess for the crowd that still rips CD's Napster was the beginning of music sharing online. Reminds me of comments from AOL users when AOL opened the internet to them. They honestly thought AOL invented the internet and probably thought Napster invented file swapping.
I didn't say Napster invented file sharing. But Napster was the tipping point where file sharing became mainstream.
Quote:
Video codecs are simply more complex than audio codecs. From recording to compression to correction and play back, it just is.
I agree in general that video is more complex to deal with than audio. But from what I've read a DVR does not have to encode. Digital cable is already an encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply records the MPEG signal.
Quote:
I would argue that a compelling implementation of DVR is complex enough that TiVo has not yet been able to become a defacto standard.
So complex that cable companies saw no need to license TIvo but instead create their own DVR software.
Quote:
The DVR market has been around a while but is still immature and has yet to have someone enter the market with a device that makes DVRs commonplace and mainstream.
The cable companies have already won. Currently cable DVR are the largest number of DVR users in the US at around 20 million. It is estimated that by 2010 cable DVR use will grow to around 32 million of the 65 million cable subscribers in the US.
As long as the cable box dominates content entry into the television no other DVR service will have a fair chance at this market.
I didn't say Napster invented file sharing. But Napster was the tipping point where file sharing became mainstream.
You said music sharing was nearly 10 years old and backed it up by saying Napster started in 1999. OK, maybe it is my misunderstanding. In anycase, file sharing is old. Very old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I agree in general that video is more complex to deal with than audio. But from what I've read a DVR does not have to encode. Digital cable is already an encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply records the MPEG signal.
And an MP3 player just has to play MP3s. A DVR also has to record and schedule. simply adding those two requirements makes it more complex by definition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
So complex that cable companies saw no need to license TIvo but instead create their own DVR software.
Keeps the money in their pockets. What does that have to do with how complex a system is? Nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The cable companies have already won. Currently cable DVR are the largest number of DVR users in the US at around 20 million. It is estimated that by 2010 cable DVR use will grow to around 32 million of the 65 million cable subscribers in the US.
Again, you are probably right. They are in the position to sneak their implementation into their customer's STB. But for now, take up is nowhere near mainstream. They charge racketeering level rates to get the convenience of having the DVR build into your STB. They will/can make it mainstream by removing the additional cost, lowering the add-on cost or by actually coming up with a compelling implementation. I am betting on #1 or 2. That makes the market ripe for someone else to enter and dominate the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
As long as the cable box dominates content entry into the television no other DVR service will have a fair chance at this market.
100% agreed. Their legalized monopoly positions makes it incredibly hard for third party devices to suceed. That doesn't mean it is impossible.
You said music sharing was nearly 10 years old and backed it up by saying Napster started in 1999. OK, maybe it is my misunderstanding. In anycase, file sharing is old. Very old.
Its a matter of context. I'm not talking about the first person who ever shared a file. I'm talk about file sharing becoming mainstream and having an impact on the music business. That happened about 10 years ago.
Quote:
Keeps the money in their pockets. What does that have to do with how complex a system is? Nothing.
Yes it does. Most every company licenses software. Most of the time its much easier and cheaper to license some one else's work than recreate it from scratch.
Quote:
Again, you are probably right. They are in the position to sneak their implementation into their customer's STB. But for now, take up is nowhere near mainstream. They charge racketeering level rates to get the convenience of having the DVR build into your STB. They will/can make it mainstream by removing the additional cost, lowering the add-on cost or by actually coming up with a compelling implementation. I am betting on #1 or 2. That makes the market ripe for someone else to enter and dominate the market.
100% of the potential DVR market knows what it is. DVR has been adopted by a third and will soon penetrate half of its potential market. I think its safe to call it mainstream.
Quote:
100% agreed. Their legalized monopoly positions makes it incredibly hard for third party devices to suceed. That doesn't mean it is impossible.
I suppose nothing is absolutely impossible. But at this point the chances are slim.
Yes it does. Most every company licenses software. Most of the time its much easier and cheaper to license some one else's work than recreate it from scratch.
Sometime it is, sometimes it isn't. They could be and probably are licensing it from another company. I am sure TiVo holds their IP pretty dearly and a license from them probably be more expensive than paying someone, internally or externally for another implementation that is cheaper. It would also give the cable company greater control over what is and isn't in the implementation. To say they did not license TiVo's IP because it is a simple device to develop is a utter over-simplification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
100% of the potential DVR market knows what it is. DVR has been adopted by a third and will soon penetrate half of its potential market. I think its safe to call it mainstream.
And on this we will disagree. I don't think DVR's are common place enough to call them mainstream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I suppose nothing is absolutely impossible. But at this point the chances are slim.
Perhaps. But Apple dominating the PMP market out of the blue and now appearing to make similar strides against the smart phone market show that a good implementation and execution can over come slim odd. There are barriers to Apple succeeding if they entered the DVR market, no doubt. There were barriers to the PMP and phone markets too (different barriers, but difficult none the less) and they have not only succeeded but succeeded wildly.
What would be the likelihood of being able to program the DVR via iPhone while away from home? To me, this would be a huge selling point and seems reasonable.
What would be the likelihood of being able to program the DVR via iPhone while away from home? To me, this would be a huge selling point and seems reasonable.
Not just iPhone please
How about via a Mac application? Or the regular web? Or iTunes?
And on this we will disagree. I don't think DVR's are common place enough to call them mainstream.
Well 65 million out of 120 million US households at lest have basic analog cable. Of those only 53 million have premium digital cable. Most households with premium cable will soon have a DVR.
At what point would you consider it mainstream?
Quote:
But Apple dominating the PMP market out of the blue and now appearing to make similar strides against the smart phone market show that a good implementation and execution can over come slim odd.
The mp3 market was petty nascent in 2001. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The record labels were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of digital music. DVR is not currently in this situation.
The iPhone is selling well but Apple is no where near dominating the smartphone market. Apple has been able to align with partners who are leaders in mobile communications and are able to provide a stable and nurturing platform for the iPhone. Their are no such partners for a DVR.
Well 65 million out of 120 million US households at lest have basic analog cable. Of those only 53 million have premium digital cable. Most households with premium cable will soon have a DVR.
At what point would you consider it mainstream?
How about when any significant number of those could even tell you what a DVR is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The mp3 market was petty nascent in 2001. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The record labels were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of digital music. DVR is not currently in this situation.
Look, I can also state opinion as fact:
The DVR market was petty nascent in 2008. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The movie companies were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of DVR.
Actually, pretty much any content owners are against DVR.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The iPhone is selling well but Apple is no where near dominating the smartphone market. Apple has been able to align with partners who are leaders in mobile communications and are able to provide a stable and nurturing platform for the iPhone. Their are no such partners for a DVR.
No idea what you are talking about here. What partners are you talking about that Apple has for the iPhone (ATT?) and what partners would they need for a DVR?
Actually, not sure why I even respond to this nonsense anymore. I never said they dominated the smart phone market and here I am being placed in a position of defending that they are..not going to take the bait.
How about when any significant number of those could even tell you what a DVR is?
Admittedly I don't know how things are in Ontario. But in New York if you subscribe to cable the cable company is sending you information trying to encourage you to upgrade your cable package. They fully explain the advantage of the DVR. Cable companies also advertise their packages on television. Where I live most everyone knows what a DVR is, even if they don't have one.
Quote:
Look, I can also state opinion as fact:
The DVR market was petty nascent in 2008. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The movie companies were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of DVR.
I'm not stating my opinion as fact. Its well known and reported that the music industry attempted to fight against digital downloads. Today they are still bitter about being forced to begrudgingly accept the situation.
Sales of digital media devices were extremely small when the iPod was first introduced. Here is a Business Week article that states mp3 sales were 15 to 17 million world wide in 2003. At that time Apple was selling about 800,000 iPods over the Christmas holidays and about 1.5 million iPods a year. This was prior to the iPod mini. After the introduction of the iPod mini, sales took off astronomically.
Now Apple sells 21 million iPods over the Christmas holidays and 73 million iPods a year.
Quote:
Actually, pretty much any content owners are against DVR.
Its really more the broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS) than the movie and television studios who don't like the DVR. But the DVR is not illegal and their is nothing they can do about it.
Learning from the short sighted and blunderous mistakes of the music industry. Instead of fighting technology move/television have taken the wiser choice of using technology to their advantage. Which is why ABC and NBC are offering ad supported content online. Which is why we have Hulu and Joost.
Quote:
No idea what you are talking about here. What partners are you talking about that Apple has for the iPhone (ATT?) and what partners would they need for a DVR?
The mobile phone companies: AT&T, O2, Orange, T-Mobile.
Right now to shoehorn a device between the cable box and the television is more work than just ordering DVR service from the cable company. For any one to create a viable DVR business needs the cooperation of the cable company to make it easy. Tivo licensing its software to Comcast and Direct TV will get Tivo in more homes than selling the stand alone box.
Quote:
Actually, not sure why I even respond to this nonsense anymore. I never said they dominated the smart phone market and here I am being placed in a position of defending that they are..not going to take the bait.
The context of your sentence clearly sounded as if you thought the iPhone is going to be in the same position as the iPod. And that Apple could also do that in the DVR market.
Comments
To the people who insist his could be an external option, remember, Apple is not interested in ugly things like this. If i'm wrong, our best bet is a couple of external options (DVR box, blu-ray drive) similar to the MacBook Air external superdrive. BTW, when is someone gonna hack that to work on AppleTV?
Adding HD DVR capabilities to AppleT ... will also add a few hundred $$$ to the price. <snip>. It makes much more sense for Apple to raise the cost by ONE hundred dollars by adding an optical drive, replacing everyones DVD (Blu-Ray) players.
I'm not sure where you get your figures from. Shaw Wu estimated $13 extra (iirc). The AppleTV hardware is capable of decoding 720p MPEG4 and is VERY likely to be capable of 1080 in MPEG2. Hard disk size is an issue, but it won't raise the price hundreds.
Unlike BluRay. Where the cheap players are over $500. What makes you think Apple could add bluray and keep the product under $330 (ie $100 extra).
If they restricted ad skipping, it would be very poorly received by customers, and put them at a competitive disadvantage.
I agree. Consumers, myself included, want to watch everything for free and don't want to watch the ads. The DVRs significantly reduce the ability for the networks to make money which worries them. If Apple helps consumers avoid ads the networks will not be pleased and discouraged from working elsewhere with Apple.
There is a middle ground which encourages the networks (as in my post above). There's also a way to make consumers and advertisers happy - and that is far fewer ads but placed far more effectively. eg: A single ad per ad-break that can not be skimmed would keep our attention - especially if that ad was specifically targeted at the viewer, and had links to more web information or a longer infomercial.
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.
While file sharing and downloading are growing. 85% of music is still purchased in physical CD's. There is still a lot of ripping.
Music sharing is nearly 10 years old? Maybe for those ripping CDs with iTunes music sharing was new 10 years ago. I guess.
Napster started in 1999.
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.
That would leave me to challenge you with the same question. But I don't think that matters.
Creating DVR software is easy enough that Tivo's competitors are good enough to keep Tivo from dominating the market. In the long run Tivo is either going to be bought or go out of business.
While no one has been able to come up with a solution that competes with the iPod+iTunes.
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.
What you are calling a fragmented market is a commodity market. The DVR is basically the same as the DVD player or the VCR. All brands of the product basically perform the same function. Their is some room to compete on features, styling, and brand loyalty. But mostly there isn't much difference to pick one over the other. No one is going to dominate the DVR the same way iPod dominates mp3.
The iPod dominating the mp3 market is unusual and does not normally happen. Apple has said it never expected the iPod to become as popular as it has. MP3 will eventually become a commodity market. iPod dominance won't last forever. Apple knows this and is why they made the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The iPod will become one software function within a device that performs many software functions.
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.
The number of people using over the air is so small Apple would not build a product around that.
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.
People can make movies and television. I'm saying the average person does not have access to a wide audience or their money.
Studios and networks spend a great deal of money in developing and producing content. The writers, directors, and crew. That are all used to create content with known actors and high production value. They then spend just as much money marketing, promoting, and distributing that content. The common person has access to none of these resources.
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.
This is an unrealistic simplification. If it were this easy people would be doing it already.
The number of people using over the air is so small Apple would not build a product around that.
Most people have cable - but are you saying they no longer have any choice since they don't have access to an antenna?
Related to that - and ignoring cable card etc - are digital FTA signals sent over cable networks in the clear, such that the AppleTV could receive them (with minimal extra hardware)? Or do they need to use cable card or whatever? (is FTA transmitted HD at all over cable, or just SD like in Australia?)
Most people have cable - but are you saying they no longer have any choice since they don't have access to an antenna?
Related to that - and ignoring cable card etc - are digital FTA signals sent over cable networks in the clear, such that the AppleTV could receive them (with minimal extra hardware)? Or do they need to use cable card or whatever? (is FTA transmitted HD at all over cable, or just SD like in Australia?)
As far as I know, if you're a subscriber, you should be able to get over-the-air signals in the clear, though the cable. I think this is often true if you only have cable internet, no video, but it isn't guaranteed. It is coded differently, but tuners aren't a big issue.
While file sharing and downloading are growing. 85% of music is still purchased in physical CD's. There is still a lot of ripping.
If you say so.
Napster started in 1999.
Sharing music was around long before Napster came around. Like I said, I guess for the crowd that still rips CD's Napster was the beginning of music sharing online. Reminds me of comments from AOL users when AOL opened the internet to them. They honestly thought AOL invented the internet and probably thought Napster invented file swapping.
That would leave me to challenge you with the same question. But I don't think that matters.
Dabbled, but wasn't my thing. I have been a software developer long enough to know better than to assume things are simple just because they have a simple interface. In fact, I believe a great UI often hides a more complex under-lying system.
But for the sake of clarification: Let's assume audio playback was as complex as video. Then a device that records and plays audio would be more complex than just an audio player by the fact it is doing at least 1 more thing. Now, let's remove the first assumption. Video codecs are simply more complex than audio codecs. From recording to compression to correction and play back, it just is.
Take these two things together, that a recorder/player is more complex than a player and that video is more complex than audio, there really is no arguement that a DVR is a more complicated proposal than an MP3 player. That doesn't mean Apple hasn't designed a more complex device in the iPod than the Tivo is, but that is a matter of individual implementation of the conceptual devices.
Creating DVR software is easy enough that Tivo's competitors are good enough to keep Tivo from dominating the market. In the long run Tivo is either going to be bought or go out of business.
I would argue that a compelling implementation of DVR is complex enough that TiVo has not yet been able to become a defacto standard. Someone needs to create an implementation that not only makes it compelling but makes it become considered an integral part of the home entertainment system. Just as Apple did with iPod. There where lots of MP3 players before that and lots were sold. But Apple not only grabbed most of the market share and dominated the market, the basically exploded the market to where PMPs have become ubiquitous, dominated by iPod.
I would agree that TiVo will be bought or go under. But that is because they have failed to create a mainstream market demand for DVR in general and for their implementation specifically with the existing market.
While no one has been able to come up with a solution that competes with the iPod+iTunes.
Exactly...it comes down to execution.
What you are calling a fragmented market is a commodity market. The DVR is basically the same as the DVD player or the VCR. All brands of the product basically perform the same function. Their is some room to compete on features, styling, and brand loyalty. But mostly there isn't much difference to pick one over the other. No one is going to dominate the DVR the same way iPod dominates mp3.
The iPod dominating the mp3 market is unusual and does not normally happen. Apple has said it never expected the iPod to become as popular as it has. MP3 will eventually become a commodity market. iPod dominance won't last forever. Apple knows this and is why they made the iPhone and the iPod Touch. The iPod will become one software function within a device that performs many software functions.
Good points, but not givens.
The DVR market has been around a while but is still immature and has yet to have someone enter the market with a device that makes DVRs commonplace and mainstream. Before the iPod, MP3 players were mainly selling to youth and technophiles. iPod made them mainstream. Like I said, now even seniors know iPod, but they might not know MP3, PMP, DVR or Tivo. A company that bring out a compelling device/service/features could do for the DVR market what iPod did for MP3 players/PMP. In that sense, just as the Mp3 player market was fragmented before the iPod, the DVR market is similarly fragmented and undeveloped and untapped.
Maybe Apple won't do a DVR implementation at all. Lots of reasons for them not to, but there are some solid reasons for them to consider it as an add-on feature to Apple TV.
Most people have cable - but are you saying they no longer have any choice since they don't have access to an antenna?
People have a choice. I don't see many people choosing OTA just to use an Apple TV has a DVR.
Sharing music was around long before Napster came around. Like I said, I guess for the crowd that still rips CD's Napster was the beginning of music sharing online. Reminds me of comments from AOL users when AOL opened the internet to them. They honestly thought AOL invented the internet and probably thought Napster invented file swapping.
I didn't say Napster invented file sharing. But Napster was the tipping point where file sharing became mainstream.
Video codecs are simply more complex than audio codecs. From recording to compression to correction and play back, it just is.
I agree in general that video is more complex to deal with than audio. But from what I've read a DVR does not have to encode. Digital cable is already an encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply records the MPEG signal.
I would argue that a compelling implementation of DVR is complex enough that TiVo has not yet been able to become a defacto standard.
So complex that cable companies saw no need to license TIvo but instead create their own DVR software.
The DVR market has been around a while but is still immature and has yet to have someone enter the market with a device that makes DVRs commonplace and mainstream.
The cable companies have already won. Currently cable DVR are the largest number of DVR users in the US at around 20 million. It is estimated that by 2010 cable DVR use will grow to around 32 million of the 65 million cable subscribers in the US.
As long as the cable box dominates content entry into the television no other DVR service will have a fair chance at this market.
I didn't say Napster invented file sharing. But Napster was the tipping point where file sharing became mainstream.
You said music sharing was nearly 10 years old and backed it up by saying Napster started in 1999. OK, maybe it is my misunderstanding. In anycase, file sharing is old. Very old.
I agree in general that video is more complex to deal with than audio. But from what I've read a DVR does not have to encode. Digital cable is already an encoded MPEG stream. The DVR simply records the MPEG signal.
And an MP3 player just has to play MP3s. A DVR also has to record and schedule. simply adding those two requirements makes it more complex by definition.
So complex that cable companies saw no need to license TIvo but instead create their own DVR software.
Keeps the money in their pockets. What does that have to do with how complex a system is? Nothing.
The cable companies have already won. Currently cable DVR are the largest number of DVR users in the US at around 20 million. It is estimated that by 2010 cable DVR use will grow to around 32 million of the 65 million cable subscribers in the US.
Again, you are probably right. They are in the position to sneak their implementation into their customer's STB. But for now, take up is nowhere near mainstream. They charge racketeering level rates to get the convenience of having the DVR build into your STB. They will/can make it mainstream by removing the additional cost, lowering the add-on cost or by actually coming up with a compelling implementation. I am betting on #1 or 2. That makes the market ripe for someone else to enter and dominate the market.
As long as the cable box dominates content entry into the television no other DVR service will have a fair chance at this market.
100% agreed. Their legalized monopoly positions makes it incredibly hard for third party devices to suceed. That doesn't mean it is impossible.
You said music sharing was nearly 10 years old and backed it up by saying Napster started in 1999. OK, maybe it is my misunderstanding. In anycase, file sharing is old. Very old.
Its a matter of context. I'm not talking about the first person who ever shared a file. I'm talk about file sharing becoming mainstream and having an impact on the music business. That happened about 10 years ago.
Keeps the money in their pockets. What does that have to do with how complex a system is? Nothing.
Yes it does. Most every company licenses software. Most of the time its much easier and cheaper to license some one else's work than recreate it from scratch.
Again, you are probably right. They are in the position to sneak their implementation into their customer's STB. But for now, take up is nowhere near mainstream. They charge racketeering level rates to get the convenience of having the DVR build into your STB. They will/can make it mainstream by removing the additional cost, lowering the add-on cost or by actually coming up with a compelling implementation. I am betting on #1 or 2. That makes the market ripe for someone else to enter and dominate the market.
100% of the potential DVR market knows what it is. DVR has been adopted by a third and will soon penetrate half of its potential market. I think its safe to call it mainstream.
100% agreed. Their legalized monopoly positions makes it incredibly hard for third party devices to suceed. That doesn't mean it is impossible.
I suppose nothing is absolutely impossible. But at this point the chances are slim.
Yes it does. Most every company licenses software. Most of the time its much easier and cheaper to license some one else's work than recreate it from scratch.
Sometime it is, sometimes it isn't. They could be and probably are licensing it from another company. I am sure TiVo holds their IP pretty dearly and a license from them probably be more expensive than paying someone, internally or externally for another implementation that is cheaper. It would also give the cable company greater control over what is and isn't in the implementation. To say they did not license TiVo's IP because it is a simple device to develop is a utter over-simplification.
100% of the potential DVR market knows what it is. DVR has been adopted by a third and will soon penetrate half of its potential market. I think its safe to call it mainstream.
And on this we will disagree. I don't think DVR's are common place enough to call them mainstream.
I suppose nothing is absolutely impossible. But at this point the chances are slim.
Perhaps. But Apple dominating the PMP market out of the blue and now appearing to make similar strides against the smart phone market show that a good implementation and execution can over come slim odd. There are barriers to Apple succeeding if they entered the DVR market, no doubt. There were barriers to the PMP and phone markets too (different barriers, but difficult none the less) and they have not only succeeded but succeeded wildly.
Think Different, indeed.
What would be the likelihood of being able to program the DVR via iPhone while away from home? To me, this would be a huge selling point and seems reasonable.
Not just iPhone please
How about via a Mac application? Or the regular web? Or iTunes?
And on this we will disagree. I don't think DVR's are common place enough to call them mainstream.
Well 65 million out of 120 million US households at lest have basic analog cable. Of those only 53 million have premium digital cable. Most households with premium cable will soon have a DVR.
At what point would you consider it mainstream?
But Apple dominating the PMP market out of the blue and now appearing to make similar strides against the smart phone market show that a good implementation and execution can over come slim odd.
The mp3 market was petty nascent in 2001. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The record labels were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of digital music. DVR is not currently in this situation.
The iPhone is selling well but Apple is no where near dominating the smartphone market. Apple has been able to align with partners who are leaders in mobile communications and are able to provide a stable and nurturing platform for the iPhone. Their are no such partners for a DVR.
Well 65 million out of 120 million US households at lest have basic analog cable. Of those only 53 million have premium digital cable. Most households with premium cable will soon have a DVR.
At what point would you consider it mainstream?
How about when any significant number of those could even tell you what a DVR is?
The mp3 market was petty nascent in 2001. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The record labels were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of digital music. DVR is not currently in this situation.
Look, I can also state opinion as fact:
The DVR market was petty nascent in 2008. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The movie companies were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of DVR.
Actually, pretty much any content owners are against DVR.
The iPhone is selling well but Apple is no where near dominating the smartphone market. Apple has been able to align with partners who are leaders in mobile communications and are able to provide a stable and nurturing platform for the iPhone. Their are no such partners for a DVR.
No idea what you are talking about here. What partners are you talking about that Apple has for the iPhone (ATT?) and what partners would they need for a DVR?
Actually, not sure why I even respond to this nonsense anymore. I never said they dominated the smart phone market and here I am being placed in a position of defending that they are..not going to take the bait.
How about when any significant number of those could even tell you what a DVR is?
Admittedly I don't know how things are in Ontario. But in New York if you subscribe to cable the cable company is sending you information trying to encourage you to upgrade your cable package. They fully explain the advantage of the DVR. Cable companies also advertise their packages on television. Where I live most everyone knows what a DVR is, even if they don't have one.
Look, I can also state opinion as fact:
The DVR market was petty nascent in 2008. No one dominated and was up for grabs by anyone. The movie companies were actively fighting against it. That was the perfect environment for someone to come in with a cohesive vision to quell the chaos of DVR.
I'm not stating my opinion as fact. Its well known and reported that the music industry attempted to fight against digital downloads. Today they are still bitter about being forced to begrudgingly accept the situation.
Sales of digital media devices were extremely small when the iPod was first introduced. Here is a Business Week article that states mp3 sales were 15 to 17 million world wide in 2003. At that time Apple was selling about 800,000 iPods over the Christmas holidays and about 1.5 million iPods a year. This was prior to the iPod mini. After the introduction of the iPod mini, sales took off astronomically.
Now Apple sells 21 million iPods over the Christmas holidays and 73 million iPods a year.
Actually, pretty much any content owners are against DVR.
Its really more the broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS) than the movie and television studios who don't like the DVR. But the DVR is not illegal and their is nothing they can do about it.
Learning from the short sighted and blunderous mistakes of the music industry. Instead of fighting technology move/television have taken the wiser choice of using technology to their advantage. Which is why ABC and NBC are offering ad supported content online. Which is why we have Hulu and Joost.
No idea what you are talking about here. What partners are you talking about that Apple has for the iPhone (ATT?) and what partners would they need for a DVR?
The mobile phone companies: AT&T, O2, Orange, T-Mobile.
Right now to shoehorn a device between the cable box and the television is more work than just ordering DVR service from the cable company. For any one to create a viable DVR business needs the cooperation of the cable company to make it easy. Tivo licensing its software to Comcast and Direct TV will get Tivo in more homes than selling the stand alone box.
Actually, not sure why I even respond to this nonsense anymore. I never said they dominated the smart phone market and here I am being placed in a position of defending that they are..not going to take the bait.
The context of your sentence clearly sounded as if you thought the iPhone is going to be in the same position as the iPod. And that Apple could also do that in the DVR market.