AT&T to tie iPhones into own Internet television, phone service
AT&T said this week that it plans to eventually integrate the iPhone into its U-verse suite of Internet television and VoIP services, while also adding new features that will allow the handset act as a remote control.
The exclusive US iPhone carrier made the announcement at a conference Monday covering future technologies that will more closely tie mobile handsets with computers and television sets.
"We're looking at the whole landscape, of what people use, and what's out there in the home," said AT&T Chief Technology Officer John Donovan, who added that some of the services may launch later this year.
Instead of offering iPhone users direct access to U-verse, which provides IP-based television and phone services, it appears as if the telecoms company will leverage the Apple handset to drive home-based installations of the service.
U-verse currently requires a set-top-box and ranges in cost from $69 to $124 per month based on the number of television channels customers want to receive. Its supporting network was designed for download speeds of 20-25 megabits (1 to 3 megabits upload), with the majority of the bandwidth devoted to the TV programming.
AT&T said customers will eventually be able to listen to their voice mails on their television, and download shows from their digital video recorders onto their iPhones. A new application for the iPhone will reportedly serve as a television remote that will also allow users to virtually hurl "tomatoes at the TV screen."
The exclusive US iPhone carrier made the announcement at a conference Monday covering future technologies that will more closely tie mobile handsets with computers and television sets.
"We're looking at the whole landscape, of what people use, and what's out there in the home," said AT&T Chief Technology Officer John Donovan, who added that some of the services may launch later this year.
Instead of offering iPhone users direct access to U-verse, which provides IP-based television and phone services, it appears as if the telecoms company will leverage the Apple handset to drive home-based installations of the service.
U-verse currently requires a set-top-box and ranges in cost from $69 to $124 per month based on the number of television channels customers want to receive. Its supporting network was designed for download speeds of 20-25 megabits (1 to 3 megabits upload), with the majority of the bandwidth devoted to the TV programming.
AT&T said customers will eventually be able to listen to their voice mails on their television, and download shows from their digital video recorders onto their iPhones. A new application for the iPhone will reportedly serve as a television remote that will also allow users to virtually hurl "tomatoes at the TV screen."
Comments
U-verse would be great. But I can't get it in my area.
I had it and on occasion it would just get all pixelated and the screen would go out. Of course it was in it's infancy then (about 2 years ago) so maybe they've fixed that. I would like to see non-competing providers come up with apps that would allow you to do something like that. Mainly cable companies, DirecTV and Dish. I know DirecTV's HD is in MPEG-4 so it could theoretically work and with a decent compression ratio to save space on the iPhone/Touch. Of course you'd need to enable something on your DirecTV to store an iPhone/Touch friendly copy of the video and have some USB dongle plugged into the back so it'll hook up to your wireless network but I'd willingly pay $49 for something like that (of course I realize it would likely cost more but here's hopin!)
If this means that slingbox won't be allowed on the iPhone, i'm going to seriously pissed, like get rid of the iphone pissed, why the hell is apple letting att have so much control over the content on the iphone, it's bullshit. Netshare, now Slingbox? Seriously, we're already giving att 30 bucks for UNLIMITED DATA, yet they wanna charge extra for tethering and mobile tv. Why is slingbox allowed on crapberry and not on iphone?
Hey, come in off the ledge so we can talk.
Take a chill pill, nothing in the article says anything about exclusive.
Nothing I know of says one carrier in one country using the handset to do stuff with their services means anything to anything else Apple may do.
If Apple wants slingbox up and running, it will happen.
If slingbox wants to be up and running on the iPhone, it will happen.
If AT&T wants to use the iPhone to throw virtual tomat-s at your TV, it should be fine.
Relax, it's not AT&T's iPhone........ it's an Apple.
A new application for the iPhone will reportedly serve as a television remote that will also allow users to virtually hurl "tomatoes at the TV screen."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Ooo, I LUV this idea!
A new application for the iPhone will reportedly serve as a television remote that will also allow users to virtually hurl "tomatoes at the TV screen."
I'd rather hurl real tomatoes at AT&T.
Aside from that -- sounds cool.
A new application for the iPhone will reportedly serve as a television remote that will also allow users to virtually hurl "tomatoes at the TV screen."
Great. I can see the AI headline now:
"New lawsuit filed against Apple & AT&T for damaged caused to T.V.s while using the new 'iH8 this show' iPhone app. Plaintiff's seeking class-action status..."
I already get digital TV, which my Mac+EyeTV DVR already loads automatically onto my phone, and I pay zero dollars a month, thanks to a cheap pair of HD rabbit ears. I supplement that with Hulu, and as a last resort, buying shows from iTunes. Think how many iTunes season passes you could buy before you came anywhere NEAR the annual cost of cable TV or satellite!
I'm already legally watching my favorite OTA, cable shows and movies for free, and occasionally for cheap. (If I miss a bunch of Battlestar Galactica on Hulu and they expire, I can buy them from iTunes.)
As for hurling tomatoes... OK, that's fun... but when one your first-touted features is an admission that most TV content sucks, you're not making me want to pay more for it!
I'm also pretty certain that my voicemails are already visual enough, without needing them on my TV
That said, if these coming options sound good to someone else, I won't begrudge them signing up.
Ummmm.....is this some expression that I am not aware of or was this meant literally?
More money to AT&T? I think not! (I don't get cable either.) I could buy a lot of new Macs with that kind of money!
I already get digital TV, which my Mac+EyeTV DVR already loads automatically onto my phone, and I pay zero dollars a month, thanks to a cheap pair of HD rabbit ears. I supplement that with Hulu, and as a last resort, buying shows from iTunes. Think how many iTunes season passes you could buy before you came anywhere NEAR the annual cost of cable TV or satellite!
I'm already legally watching my favorite OTA, cable shows and movies for free, and occasionally for cheap. (If I miss a bunch of Battlestar Galactica on Hulu and they expire, I can buy them from iTunes.)
As for hurling tomatoes... OK, that's fun... but when one your first-touted features is an admission that most TV content sucks, you're not making me want to pay more for it!
I'm also pretty certain that my voicemails are already visual enough, without needing them on my TV
That said, if these coming options sound good to someone else, I won't begrudge them signing up.
I do not know if you realize this but February 2009 your antenna will be obsulete. By law if you want television in your home you are required to pay for a service provider. Maybe you could go with u-verse?
I do not know if you realize this but February 2009 your antenna will be obsulete. By law if you want television in your home you are required to pay for a service provider. Maybe you could go with u-verse?
Not true. Your antenna will be fine. You just need a tuner, which all new TV's have built in. TV will still be free for local stations, and in HD.
Not true. Your antenna will be fine. You just need a tuner, which all new TV's have built in. TV will still be free for local stations, and in HD...
...if you live in an urban area close enough to the signal...
As for hurling tomatoes... OK, that's fun... but when one your first-touted features is an admission that most TV content sucks, you're not making me want to pay more for it!
Good point!
I have a very bad feeling about this.
Y'know, this was my first impression as I was reading the article. It seems like it is not being set up to be easy and transparent, but to require extra hardware intermediaries. The fact that it is tied to AT&T doesn't impress either.
They better have some salespitch if this is how it is going to work:
Instead of offering iPhone users direct access to U-verse, which provides IP-based television and phone services, it appears as if the telecoms company will leverage the Apple handset to drive home-based installations of the service.
U-verse currently requires a set-top-box and ranges in cost from $69 to $124 per month based on the number of television channels customers want to receive. Its supporting network was designed for download speeds of 20-25 megabits (1 to 3 megabits upload), with the majority of the bandwidth devoted to the TV programming.
But as wbrasington said, there is no indication of exclusivity so there may be more appealing options on the rise.
For God's sake, AT&T! Where are your priorities?
Uh, yeah, maybe in a decade or so, I'll be able to get fiber here. Great, more ads from AT&T for something I can't get, thus don't want. Just like Verizon (and Comcast for that matter) trying to sell me their crappy "triple play" (TV, landline, Internet) services even though I already have a mobile phone, DSL is slow, and no, I really don't want DirecTV from Verizon.
AT&T really know hows to crap up the iPhone.