An apple television doesn't make sense, nor does a DVR or live programming in the form we currently get from cable.
What makes sense is Apple TV getting apps, and possibly USB or a dock connector to connect accesories.
Once you add apps, you provide the opportunity to distribute live programming (as well as more on demand streaming).
Apps with external device support can be used for things like TV tuners and DVRs.
The need for live streaming is basically limited to news and sports, we don't need 100's of channels with live streams available all the time. On demand streaming works better for virtually anything else. You don't need a DVR if you can open up an app and play episodes of your favorite TV show.
What is currently done with 100's of channels could be done with just a couple apps, with greater flexibility. A full out Apple Televison with a progamming guide and DVR makes no sense to me at all. A TV with a built in Apple TV could happen, but I don't think Apple really has much interest in that market.
something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.
after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters
Apple will integrate this software into AppleTV, iPad and iPhone - NO WAY they are going to make a TV.
While most diehard Apple fans would pay a premium for a phone or tablet, they would never pay a premium for an LCD TV from Apple.
Example: the 27" Apple Cinema Display is very nice but not for $1000 when I can get a similar Samsung 27" for $320. Also, it would have to integrate with your Cable or Satellite provider. Consumers are not ready for a switch.
Remember that billion $ data center is nearing completion and I suspect all these small deals and acquisitions will play a major part in its function. I also believe that sometime before Thanksgiving (ie: iOS 4.2 release time) Apple will announce the mission of the data center, along with some apps that will forever tie a big bow around the iPad, iPhone and the data center. Perhaps integrating facetime and airplay technology into the equation.
something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.
after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters
It would be a better service. No sitting down 5 minutes late for your favorite show, it starts when you say so. If you want to quickly check back episodes, you can (and you aren't limited by the hard drive size of your DVR). No need to remember to set the DVR for a show you are going to miss. You can stream it whenever you are free.
Not only that, you can get stuff you can't get on cable, or stuff that has very limited availability: anime, foreign news/shows/movies, podcasts, internet only shows, etc.
Internet streaming hasn't taken off for two reasons:
1. Cable providers are deathly afraid of it (for good reason)
2. No one has presented it in a package that rivals the convenience of cable (an app enabled Apple TV would do that easily).
ISP bandwidth is an issue for some as well, but there are many areas that can support it now. It will be interesting to see what cable providers do to their internet prices once they start losing significant cable revenue. I'm hoping the independent ISPs will keep them in check.
It's not a question of if this transition will take place, it's a question of when.
There are many aspects that would make it a poor choice for Apple.
1) Apple likes to operate as if it?s boutique shop. What I mean by that is they like to offer a very limited product line that are designed to profit from the top end of the market. This is how Apple can be the industry leader in profits in both PC and phone (all phone sales) worldwide despite having such a low marketshare. There are just too many different types and sizes of TVs they?d have to contend with, in a market that is already making razor thin margins. Does Apple go with 2D or 3D TVs? Do they make any smaller TVs for bedrooms and dens so those can be connected as well? Do they make a 50? TV or a 52? TV (Note: TV and PC buying are vastly different. People looking for a large HDTV will often buy the largest that will fit in a space, which isn?t how PC sales tend to go).
2) Like optical drives, it?s less than ideal for most uses to have your DVD/Blu-ray player built into your TV. Granted, there are genuine uses why these are great options for people, but I don?t see any of these reasons falling into Apple?s scope.
3) This regulates Apple?s UI to their TVs, which won?t be cheap. In my next post in this thread I stated what I think is the best way for Apple to get ?inside? TVs.
Remember that billion $ data center is nearing completion and I suspect all these small deals and acquisitions will play a major part in its function. I also believe that sometime before Thanksgiving (ie: iOS 4.2 release time) Apple will announce the mission of the data center, along with some apps that will forever tie a big bow around the iPad, iPhone and the data center. Perhaps integrating facetime and airplay technology into the equation.
I can see Ireland coming up with an image showing Steve Jobs as the Emperor stating “The Data Center is fully operational”.
There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I can?t locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.
Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that aren?t watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether it?s a network show or not and that is all streaming.
There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I can’t locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.
Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that aren’t watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether it’s a network show or not and that is all streaming.
I won't contest those points. I was referring to a mass exodus from cable to internet based sources. It looks like a lot of people that use Netflix find it to be an adequate cable replacement, I'll find out when it arrives here in Canada.
Be careful what you ask for. Chances are you’ll still be getting your internet through Comcast with this alternative method to Comcast’s TV coming over your Comcast internet. If Comcast loses too many TV subscribers they won’t be jacking up prices of their “loyal” TV subscribers as it will make them lose even more to these internet-based methods, they’ll be jacking up your internet costs. Either way, Comcast will be make their money.
I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.
The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.
At this point, I don't see the cable networks agreeing to a business model that isn't centered around the local cable subscription. I could see Apple doing for cable what it did for mobile phones -- taking what comes down the pipe, junking the handset/cable box, and rebuilding and rebranding the interface as Apple TV.
Similarly to how you don't get the full experience of an iPhone without a connection to AT&T's network (otherwise it's just an iPod touch), you wouldn't get the full experience of an Apple-branded cable experience without a connection to the cable network (otherwise it's just an Apple TV).
A TV package that does NOT require you to subscribe to Comcast, TWC, Charter, etc., would be better for consumers -- since you would be able in some markets to choose between competing broadband providers -- but it's probably the only way the cable networks are going to agree to provide their shows to a subscription package.
I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.
The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.
ThatÂ?s how I see it, too. WeÂ?re talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they canÂ?t have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and theyÂ?ll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies wonÂ?t have the users to warrant the price they are paying.
I donÂ?t even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue IÂ?ve come across and I donÂ?t think itÂ?s going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.
I think Apple would be better off and safer for them to just license AppleTV software to the TV manufacturers.. That way they can expand iOS and iAd to more devices.
Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.
Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.
I think Apple has to look at producing TVs, simply because TV manufacturers are looking at integrating web entertainment (AppleTV-like devices) into their big screens... so Apple needs to decide how it will respond to that. Besides the big screens, small TVs are integrating with computers already.
Apple might decide they want TVs to support AirPlay. But I do think TVs will either be partners or competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
We’re talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they can’t have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and they’ll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies won’t have the users to warrant the price they are paying.
I don’t even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue I’ve come across and I don’t think it’s going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.
It's a good summary of the problem. Also, ultimately (theoretically) we shouldn't be paying more in the new system, but companies want to double dip and see this as a chance of making more money.
I do think this problem has been what's stopped Apple so far. And I can only see 2 responses (both not too interesting, but which can then expand into a decent system).
1) use the existing systems but make them look better.
Basically build a REALLY GOOD PVR. Record what's already transmitted FTA or on cable and then sort it into something far more usable. That's TiVo's model.
2) simulate the existing systems (but in reality be downloading shows and ads over the internet)
Example 1 - pay for a comcast plan but don't get a cable box. Instead you can watch anything that was on cable in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip/skim the ads.
Example 2 - FTA - watch anything that was on FTA in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip ads.
The idea of the above is to give people a taste of what "on-demand" can bring, while not scaring the content providers. Then add new options - for example if you discover a new show on Fox you might rent earlier episodes, or if you watch a movie on Showtime you might get a PPV option to rent the sequel.
... And start offering advertisers the option to remove their ads if you're not their target - we could conceivably remove 2 ads (a tampon & baby powder ad) and replace with a single ad (pizza) and everyone will be better off.
Would be Epic of true, but somehow I don't think it is. I think this will just be integrated into TV somehow, and we may never see an actual TV with TV inside of it. But as I said it would be very cool.
Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.
Wake up, people. It's just a question of time.
Tee hee. A thread about an Apple TV is pretty much the Bat Signal for Ireland.
I can't see Apple getting into the TV screen business, the margins on TVs are already extremely thin. Apple has never been involved in markets that have little to no real potential of being high profit margin markets. I can see Apple really developing and greatly expanding the just announced Apple TV. I see Apple TV as being from the seed that Apple planted years ago with original 'hobby' version. Apple has leaned a lot from that hobby and also from the iPod and the iPhone as well. By cross pollinating all three the Apple TV hybrid was created.
I believe you will see a rapid evolution of software and applications for Apple TV that will change the way we watch TV. When a company like Apple has a 'hobby' that 'hobby' either dies or is given a priority to become profitable and possibly the next big success story. I believe Apple has big plans for Apple TV and that you see frequent SW (quarterly or quicker) updates that will continually add capabilities to the existing box.
I may be all wrong on this but I can't see Apple releasing a $99 product without having a well thought out plan to start making big money with it within a year. It will never get the typical Apple media backing like the 'i' products do as this will take more time. Apple won't want Wall Street or the industry to track this one too closely until it is ready for prime time exposure with typical Apple marketing.
Well, we know it would be a thing of beauty...an elegant solution to a cluttered world of media. But will it happen? I have no freakin clue. Just when I think I know what Cupertino is up to they have a way of proving me wrong.
In a perfect world it would be nice to have an Apple conceived TV, but as long as they provide a better solution in the living room in some form or another, then I can live without it being an all-in-one.
Comments
An apple television doesn't make sense, nor does a DVR or live programming in the form we currently get from cable.
What makes sense is Apple TV getting apps, and possibly USB or a dock connector to connect accesories.
Once you add apps, you provide the opportunity to distribute live programming (as well as more on demand streaming).
Apps with external device support can be used for things like TV tuners and DVRs.
The need for live streaming is basically limited to news and sports, we don't need 100's of channels with live streams available all the time. On demand streaming works better for virtually anything else. You don't need a DVR if you can open up an app and play episodes of your favorite TV show.
What is currently done with 100's of channels could be done with just a couple apps, with greater flexibility. A full out Apple Televison with a progamming guide and DVR makes no sense to me at all. A TV with a built in Apple TV could happen, but I don't think Apple really has much interest in that market.
something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.
after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters
I?m all in for Apple finding new ways interact with the home entertainment center and the ?TV?, but I don?t see them actually creating an HDTV.
Why? Can you elaborate?
Apple will integrate this software into AppleTV, iPad and iPhone - NO WAY they are going to make a TV.
While most diehard Apple fans would pay a premium for a phone or tablet, they would never pay a premium for an LCD TV from Apple.
Example: the 27" Apple Cinema Display is very nice but not for $1000 when I can get a similar Samsung 27" for $320. Also, it would have to integrate with your Cable or Satellite provider. Consumers are not ready for a switch.
You can't get a similar Samsung for $320.
something like $30 of my cable bill goes to the content producers.
after you pay for a la carte internet access you aren't saving any money or not enough to make it worthwhile to switch. the only people that will switch are the cable company haters
It would be a better service. No sitting down 5 minutes late for your favorite show, it starts when you say so. If you want to quickly check back episodes, you can (and you aren't limited by the hard drive size of your DVR). No need to remember to set the DVR for a show you are going to miss. You can stream it whenever you are free.
Not only that, you can get stuff you can't get on cable, or stuff that has very limited availability: anime, foreign news/shows/movies, podcasts, internet only shows, etc.
Internet streaming hasn't taken off for two reasons:
1. Cable providers are deathly afraid of it (for good reason)
2. No one has presented it in a package that rivals the convenience of cable (an app enabled Apple TV would do that easily).
ISP bandwidth is an issue for some as well, but there are many areas that can support it now. It will be interesting to see what cable providers do to their internet prices once they start losing significant cable revenue. I'm hoping the independent ISPs will keep them in check.
It's not a question of if this transition will take place, it's a question of when.
Why? Can you elaborate?
There are many aspects that would make it a poor choice for Apple.
1) Apple likes to operate as if it?s boutique shop. What I mean by that is they like to offer a very limited product line that are designed to profit from the top end of the market. This is how Apple can be the industry leader in profits in both PC and phone (all phone sales) worldwide despite having such a low marketshare. There are just too many different types and sizes of TVs they?d have to contend with, in a market that is already making razor thin margins. Does Apple go with 2D or 3D TVs? Do they make any smaller TVs for bedrooms and dens so those can be connected as well? Do they make a 50? TV or a 52? TV (Note: TV and PC buying are vastly different. People looking for a large HDTV will often buy the largest that will fit in a space, which isn?t how PC sales tend to go).
2) Like optical drives, it?s less than ideal for most uses to have your DVD/Blu-ray player built into your TV. Granted, there are genuine uses why these are great options for people, but I don?t see any of these reasons falling into Apple?s scope.
3) This regulates Apple?s UI to their TVs, which won?t be cheap. In my next post in this thread I stated what I think is the best way for Apple to get ?inside? TVs.
Remember that billion $ data center is nearing completion and I suspect all these small deals and acquisitions will play a major part in its function. I also believe that sometime before Thanksgiving (ie: iOS 4.2 release time) Apple will announce the mission of the data center, along with some apps that will forever tie a big bow around the iPad, iPhone and the data center. Perhaps integrating facetime and airplay technology into the equation.
I can see Ireland coming up with an image showing Steve Jobs as the Emperor stating “The Data Center is fully operational”.
Internet streaming hasn't taken off for two reasons
Internet streaming is much more popular than people realize.There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I can?t locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.
Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that aren?t watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether it?s a network show or not and that is all streaming.
Internet streaming is much more popular than people realize.There is an article from BusinessWeek (which I can’t locate) showing the low cost and huge rise in Netflix streaming over the mailed media. Or that Hulu, BBC, Comedy Central and many other networks are streaming their content.
Or that YouTube was only founded in 2005 with Google buying it in 2006 for $1.65 billion. These sites may not be streaming full TV shows (as the norm), but they are attracting an excessive number of eyeballs that aren’t watching other content. That is a big deal regardless of whether it’s a network show or not and that is all streaming.
I won't contest those points. I was referring to a mass exodus from cable to internet based sources. It looks like a lot of people that use Netflix find it to be an adequate cable replacement, I'll find out when it arrives here in Canada.
Be careful what you ask for. Chances are you’ll still be getting your internet through Comcast with this alternative method to Comcast’s TV coming over your Comcast internet. If Comcast loses too many TV subscribers they won’t be jacking up prices of their “loyal” TV subscribers as it will make them lose even more to these internet-based methods, they’ll be jacking up your internet costs. Either way, Comcast will be make their money.
I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.
The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.
At this point, I don't see the cable networks agreeing to a business model that isn't centered around the local cable subscription. I could see Apple doing for cable what it did for mobile phones -- taking what comes down the pipe, junking the handset/cable box, and rebuilding and rebranding the interface as Apple TV.
Similarly to how you don't get the full experience of an iPhone without a connection to AT&T's network (otherwise it's just an iPod touch), you wouldn't get the full experience of an Apple-branded cable experience without a connection to the cable network (otherwise it's just an Apple TV).
A TV package that does NOT require you to subscribe to Comcast, TWC, Charter, etc., would be better for consumers -- since you would be able in some markets to choose between competing broadband providers -- but it's probably the only way the cable networks are going to agree to provide their shows to a subscription package.
I think something like the wireless handset/carrier model is more likely.
The reason Apple, Netflix, Amazon, etc., have not been able to deliver a subscription-based, internet-delivered TV package yet is almost entirely because the content providers do not want to license their content to a cable-killer that will challenge their local cable retransmission fees.
ThatÂ?s how I see it, too. WeÂ?re talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they canÂ?t have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and theyÂ?ll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies wonÂ?t have the users to warrant the price they are paying.
I donÂ?t even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue IÂ?ve come across and I donÂ?t think itÂ?s going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.
Let's hope Apple makes 3D TV's that don't require glasses. THAT would be amazing.
3D is a gimmick.
Instead of staring at tea leaves until he goes cross-eyed, Munster would be better served in this instance to just look at Apple's existing products. Airplay is real and does 100% of the things a manufactured "apple-branded" TV would do, with the added benefit that a 3rd party carries all the risk of manufacturing and selling the physical tv.
Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.
Wake up, people. It's just a question of time.
I think Apple has to look at producing TVs, simply because TV manufacturers are looking at integrating web entertainment (AppleTV-like devices) into their big screens... so Apple needs to decide how it will respond to that. Besides the big screens, small TVs are integrating with computers already.
Apple might decide they want TVs to support AirPlay. But I do think TVs will either be partners or competitors.
We’re talking about large, guaranteed lump sums from cable companies to the networks and their affiliates versus the Ã* la carte profits from an unsure market. And they can’t have both because there is a tipping point when the entire model of cable and satellite television breaks down and they’ll have to lower their asking price because the cable/satellite companies won’t have the users to warrant the price they are paying.
I don’t even know where to begin on factoring in the affiliates, much less the local and national advertisers. This is probably the most complex technology issue I’ve come across and I don’t think it’s going to be very pretty when it comes to a head.
It's a good summary of the problem. Also, ultimately (theoretically) we shouldn't be paying more in the new system, but companies want to double dip and see this as a chance of making more money.
I do think this problem has been what's stopped Apple so far. And I can only see 2 responses (both not too interesting, but which can then expand into a decent system).
1) use the existing systems but make them look better.
Basically build a REALLY GOOD PVR. Record what's already transmitted FTA or on cable and then sort it into something far more usable. That's TiVo's model.
2) simulate the existing systems (but in reality be downloading shows and ads over the internet)
Example 1 - pay for a comcast plan but don't get a cable box. Instead you can watch anything that was on cable in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip/skim the ads.
Example 2 - FTA - watch anything that was on FTA in the last 4 weeks, with the same ads, and the same PVR options to skip ads.
The idea of the above is to give people a taste of what "on-demand" can bring, while not scaring the content providers. Then add new options - for example if you discover a new show on Fox you might rent earlier episodes, or if you watch a movie on Showtime you might get a PPV option to rent the sequel.
... And start offering advertisers the option to remove their ads if you're not their target - we could conceivably remove 2 ads (a tampon & baby powder ad) and replace with a single ad (pizza) and everyone will be better off.
Apple making an HDTV means your "WHOLE" entertainment setup can have 1 power cable, 1 screen and 1 remote, and super-slick well built hardware. That's different than the current Apple TV.
Wake up, people. It's just a question of time.
Tee hee. A thread about an Apple TV is pretty much the Bat Signal for Ireland.
I believe you will see a rapid evolution of software and applications for Apple TV that will change the way we watch TV. When a company like Apple has a 'hobby' that 'hobby' either dies or is given a priority to become profitable and possibly the next big success story. I believe Apple has big plans for Apple TV and that you see frequent SW (quarterly or quicker) updates that will continually add capabilities to the existing box.
I may be all wrong on this but I can't see Apple releasing a $99 product without having a well thought out plan to start making big money with it within a year. It will never get the typical Apple media backing like the 'i' products do as this will take more time. Apple won't want Wall Street or the industry to track this one too closely until it is ready for prime time exposure with typical Apple marketing.
3D is a gimmick.
Agreed. Hopefully it will disappear in 18 months or so.
Well, we know it would be a thing of beauty...an elegant solution to a cluttered world of media. But will it happen? I have no freakin clue. Just when I think I know what Cupertino is up to they have a way of proving me wrong.
In a perfect world it would be nice to have an Apple conceived TV, but as long as they provide a better solution in the living room in some form or another, then I can live without it being an all-in-one.