I'd be shocked to see an Apple television. It's a mature market with several strong players and relatively low margins (by Apple standards).
While I would be surprised to see Apple manufacture TVs also, I doubt the first reason will be why. People were saying the EXACT SAME thing about the phone market before Apple released the iPhone.
I think the bigger reason is, as you mention, the low margins, and size. One of Apple's biggest reason for success is their retail stores, where they are already struggling to find room to display their current products. Throwing in a large, low margin product into the mix might be too much for even them to work around.
The licensing might seem to be the best alternative (especially considering that TVs are pretty standard, and there isn't as much differentiation between 2 TVs, as 2 PCs), but Apple's history argues against this (although, history has never been a great guide to judge Apple's future).
There's no money in selling $5,000 TVs. There's nothing wrong with buying a TV from people who've been selling them forever, completely ignoring every single special port on the back except power and HDMI, and plugging in an A5 Apple TV with applications (channels).
I think by now Apple has shown that they can be quite price-competitive in the consumer electronics space. There's no reason to think that an Apple TV would cost anywhere near that much. I'll bet they could compete very aggressively with Sony's mid-high end tv product range while offering an infinitely better user experience, especially when you consider the synergies across Apple's ecosystem.
Some may be content with nothing more than a TV with an Apple box plugged in, but that setup will only appeal to the masses if Apple can provide access to the same selection of programming as the cable companies do at a comparable price. Paying top dollar, a la carte, for a limited selection of iTunes movies and previously broadcast tv shows isn't all that attractive a replacement for cable tv (maybe for some, but certainly not for most.) Also, I'd like control over my tv's settings and options via Apple's interface, not Sony's and certainly not the cable company's remote. One interface, one remote.
I still think Apple will come up with a more satisfying solution than the compromise you describe. Who would have thought five years ago that they would barge into the cell phone market and dominate it?
At least Microsoft gave people free replacements and a 3 year warranty. MS then redesigned the entire device.
Apple would have just told users, you were "holding it wrong".
Considering the XBox had a failure rate of over 50%, I don't think Microsoft had much of a choice, do you?
Two year old Macbook Pro, well out of warranty, no AppleCare. Malfunctioning battery replaced for free on the spot.
Year and a half old iPhone 3Gs, also out of warranty, brought in with malfunctioning audio jack. Replaced for free on the spot.
Friend's wife dropped an iPhone 4 in a bar and smashed the screen. Replaced for free.
Ask around a bit before totally mischaracterizing Apple's level of customer service.
And by the way, "antennagate" was repeatedly proven to be a load of BS, with other leading phones exhibiting the exact same issue depending on where you're located and how you hold the phone. Continuing record sales figures and unmatched customer satisfaction levels for the iPhone 4 despite this supposedly fatal flaw. And still they gave away bumpers for free.
I'd be shocked to see an Apple television. It's a mature market with several strong players and relatively low margins (by Apple standards).
I COULD see Apple licensing the internals of the Apple TV to television manufacturers.
That's a good description of the mobile phone market before 2007.
And befor that year's iPhone launch, Apple partnered with then leader Motorola to release the Rokkr phone. Complete flop, since Motorola obviously had their hands all over its design. Maybe Apple will do the same with Samsung or Sony, before releasing a truly superior TV on their own...
Well out of the 64 quarter results Microsoft posted higher profits than Apple in 63 of them. Is that what you meant?
May I suggest you look at the trends instead of just the raw numbers? I'll bet there were some really profitable buggy makers before the Model T came out.
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
THAT'S the key. Years ago a federal law required cable companies to support cable cards, an open standard so any device manufacturer could replace the cable company's box. As usual, corrupt politicians never enforced the law and the cable companies now completely disregard it.
Well out of the 64 quarter results Microsoft posted higher profits than Apple in 63 of them. Is that what you meant?
That's a stupid argument.
Market cap is the market's determination of what a company is worth. It is based on the analysis of millions of investors and what they're willing to pay for a company.
In 1997, Microsoft's market cap was $130 B while Apple's was $4 B.
Today, Apple's market cap exceeds Microsoft's (both are around $230 .
So Apple's market cap us up 5500% while Microsoft's is up about 80%. What kind of bizarre logic would lead you to conclude that Microsoft has done better than Apple over the past 15 years?
Revenue shows the same trend. Even profits (which is what you are arguing) shows a similar trend. Apple was losing money in 1995 while Microsoft was (IIRC) the most profitable company on the planet.
In 1997, Apple LOST $1 B on about $7 B in revenues. In the same year, Microsoft made about $4 B on $14 B in revenues.
In 2010, Apple made $14 B on $65 B in revenues. Microsoft made $19 B on $62 B in sales. That trend has continued so Apple is now making more than Microsoft.
Aside from the trends which tell an overwhelming story, there's the fact that the overwhelming majority of Microsoft's profits come from products that have been around for 20 years. They're doing nothing to get into significant new markets and are simply living on upgrades. Customers are apparently getting tired of that based on recent trends. (Xbox is the sole significant exception - and it only recently started to turn a profit). Apple, OTOH, has launched a number of new products which reshaped entire industries.
No rational person could possibly argue that Microsoft has been doing better than Apple for the past 15 years.
That's a good description of the mobile phone market before 2007.
And befor that year's iPhone launch, Apple partnered with then leader Motorola to release the Rokkr phone. Complete flop, since Motorola obviously had their hands all over its design. Maybe Apple will do the same with Samsung or Sony, before releasing a truly superior TV on their own...
It's not even close to the same.
Smartphones were still a relatively new market with low penetration. Margins were solid and there was enormous room for growth. Not only was smartphone penetration very small, but the majority of users didn't use their smartphone features because of inconvenience or complexity.
For televisions, OTOH, the market may not be saturated, but it's a lot closer than the smart phone market in 2007. Do you know any homes that don't have at least one TV? Even if you limit it to big screen TVs, the penetration is almost certainly well over 50%. And the usage of TVs is not significantly limited by complexity. Most people who have TVs are already watching them for many hours a day.
Frank Shaw, Microsoft's corporate vice president of corporate communications, indicated earlier this week in a company blog post that the company's entertainment strategy centers around the Xbox. "Xbox is the gateway to games, music, movies and TV shows ? in short, it is central to entertainment," he wrote
This is likely to be a response to moves by Sony to turn the PS3/PSN into the nexus of electronic entertainment in the living room. Microsoft loves following their competitors.
... Puh-leeeez! Sports dominate the core population of the demographics this device would be marketed to, 18-40 yr old men. ...
No offence but this is pure BS.
TV's (what you were actually talking about), are primarily marketed to 18-40 year old men? Even if you are talking about X-Box that isn't correct. I found your first remark offensive, and despite the "ha-ha's," this follow up doesn't do anything to ameliorate that.
Input devices and technologies change far faster than do monitor technologies. Unless TV manufacturers start making sets with plug-in, replaceable modules, external inputs will survive just fine.
You going to replace your whole 50" monitor every time there's a speed bump on your CPU?
Why not? Many 50" televisions sell for about what an iPhone does without a contract and people don't seem to have a problem buying one of those every year or two just because "They have to". Just say'in.
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
Nice quote. I'm curious how you (and others) see this as happening. I can't seem to wrap my head around the tv studios not wanting to give up their guaranteed paydays from cable companies for internet-based IP service that still requires the use of the cable company. How does that work with local station programming? Do their affiliates just close up shop? Do the cable companies who were charging for internet and cable for most customers now have to enact even stricter data caps and higher prices because you are no longer getting ABC, BCS, NBC, AMC, TNT. TLC, DISC, etc. from them yet are still using their "series of tubes" to send it to your boobtube?
This nut will crack but I have yet to see a glimmer of anything that shows a fracture worth exploiting. With other products we can see the tides moving. We say the opening a company with resources could take.
On the HW front, some want an Apple branded HDTV which would be nice to remove one single device from the equation, the AppleTV. I can see Apple partnering with TV manufactures to bring the AppleTV to their systems. They've all tried apps on the TV and they all suck.
I could possibly see Apple trying to set the AppleTV between your cable/sat company. Meaning, you still get all your channels from your cable/sat company. This would be a huge undertaking that would just perpetuate the problem, probably not be financially grand for Apple, and would be leaked so fast do to all that involved parties that we know it's coming in two days.
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
That's the thing, it's the same pipe which is CableCo wants you to watch that same content they have already paid handsomely for upfront and why the TV studios want to keep their big CableCo customers happy, not to mention their local channel affiliates which are both customers and a means of revenue.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
Apple is not an ISP and shows no interest in becoming one. You NEED Internet to stream. Unless you are positive that there is chance they are willing to invest in billions in spectrum, infrastructure and additional data centers.
Most Cable Companies ARE ISP's, so they would be relatively fine. In fact they would either raise prices on existing plans to compensate for the loss of their cable sector due to Apple's Anti-Cable stance, or they would cap data usage both of which are very hindering to the idea of streaming.
For those who do less streaming and more downloading, Shows and Movies would Take hours on end and use a large amount of bandwidth in the current state of US broadband.
Apple and Google May HAVE To turn to each other again at some point given Google's rolling out of 1Gb/s internet backbone with specialized fibers to lower bandwidth consumption and apple's need for a competitive, flexible ISP.
Comments
I'd be shocked to see an Apple television. It's a mature market with several strong players and relatively low margins (by Apple standards).
I COULD see Apple licensing the internals of the Apple TV to television manufacturers.
When you think about it...
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
I'd be shocked to see an Apple television. It's a mature market with several strong players and relatively low margins (by Apple standards).
While I would be surprised to see Apple manufacture TVs also, I doubt the first reason will be why. People were saying the EXACT SAME thing about the phone market before Apple released the iPhone.
I think the bigger reason is, as you mention, the low margins, and size. One of Apple's biggest reason for success is their retail stores, where they are already struggling to find room to display their current products. Throwing in a large, low margin product into the mix might be too much for even them to work around.
The licensing might seem to be the best alternative (especially considering that TVs are pretty standard, and there isn't as much differentiation between 2 TVs, as 2 PCs), but Apple's history argues against this (although, history has never been a great guide to judge Apple's future).
There's no money in selling $5,000 TVs. There's nothing wrong with buying a TV from people who've been selling them forever, completely ignoring every single special port on the back except power and HDMI, and plugging in an A5 Apple TV with applications (channels).
I think by now Apple has shown that they can be quite price-competitive in the consumer electronics space. There's no reason to think that an Apple TV would cost anywhere near that much. I'll bet they could compete very aggressively with Sony's mid-high end tv product range while offering an infinitely better user experience, especially when you consider the synergies across Apple's ecosystem.
Some may be content with nothing more than a TV with an Apple box plugged in, but that setup will only appeal to the masses if Apple can provide access to the same selection of programming as the cable companies do at a comparable price. Paying top dollar, a la carte, for a limited selection of iTunes movies and previously broadcast tv shows isn't all that attractive a replacement for cable tv (maybe for some, but certainly not for most.) Also, I'd like control over my tv's settings and options via Apple's interface, not Sony's and certainly not the cable company's remote. One interface, one remote.
I still think Apple will come up with a more satisfying solution than the compromise you describe. Who would have thought five years ago that they would barge into the cell phone market and dominate it?
At least Microsoft gave people free replacements and a 3 year warranty. MS then redesigned the entire device.
Apple would have just told users, you were "holding it wrong".
Considering the XBox had a failure rate of over 50%, I don't think Microsoft had much of a choice, do you?
Two year old Macbook Pro, well out of warranty, no AppleCare. Malfunctioning battery replaced for free on the spot.
Year and a half old iPhone 3Gs, also out of warranty, brought in with malfunctioning audio jack. Replaced for free on the spot.
Friend's wife dropped an iPhone 4 in a bar and smashed the screen. Replaced for free.
Ask around a bit before totally mischaracterizing Apple's level of customer service.
And by the way, "antennagate" was repeatedly proven to be a load of BS, with other leading phones exhibiting the exact same issue depending on where you're located and how you hold the phone. Continuing record sales figures and unmatched customer satisfaction levels for the iPhone 4 despite this supposedly fatal flaw. And still they gave away bumpers for free.
I'd be shocked to see an Apple television. It's a mature market with several strong players and relatively low margins (by Apple standards).
I COULD see Apple licensing the internals of the Apple TV to television manufacturers.
That's a good description of the mobile phone market before 2007.
And befor that year's iPhone launch, Apple partnered with then leader Motorola to release the Rokkr phone. Complete flop, since Motorola obviously had their hands all over its design. Maybe Apple will do the same with Samsung or Sony, before releasing a truly superior TV on their own...
Well out of the 64 quarter results Microsoft posted higher profits than Apple in 63 of them. Is that what you meant?
May I suggest you look at the trends instead of just the raw numbers? I'll bet there were some really profitable buggy makers before the Model T came out.
On closer reading -- the MS offering appears to be an infrastructure in search of an ecosystem.
Ya'know, this is truly funny, and true besides.
When you think about it...
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
THAT'S the key. Years ago a federal law required cable companies to support cable cards, an open standard so any device manufacturer could replace the cable company's box. As usual, corrupt politicians never enforced the law and the cable companies now completely disregard it.
... Apple continues to grow in every tacit of it's business....
"Every facet of its business." Free correction worth every penny charged.
At last years E3, Microsoft launched the fastest-selling consumer device in history which is Guinness record holder.
Last year, Apple launched Ping.
So, I wouldn't be too overconfident, Apple fans.
Besides, iCloud is probably just a rip off of Spotify, Amazon and Google services.
Hey, look! We have a new troll. Aren't filters wonderful?
Well out of the 64 quarter results Microsoft posted higher profits than Apple in 63 of them. Is that what you meant?
That's a stupid argument.
Market cap is the market's determination of what a company is worth. It is based on the analysis of millions of investors and what they're willing to pay for a company.
In 1997, Microsoft's market cap was $130 B while Apple's was $4 B.
Today, Apple's market cap exceeds Microsoft's (both are around $230
So Apple's market cap us up 5500% while Microsoft's is up about 80%. What kind of bizarre logic would lead you to conclude that Microsoft has done better than Apple over the past 15 years?
Revenue shows the same trend. Even profits (which is what you are arguing) shows a similar trend. Apple was losing money in 1995 while Microsoft was (IIRC) the most profitable company on the planet.
In 1997, Apple LOST $1 B on about $7 B in revenues. In the same year, Microsoft made about $4 B on $14 B in revenues.
In 2010, Apple made $14 B on $65 B in revenues. Microsoft made $19 B on $62 B in sales. That trend has continued so Apple is now making more than Microsoft.
Aside from the trends which tell an overwhelming story, there's the fact that the overwhelming majority of Microsoft's profits come from products that have been around for 20 years. They're doing nothing to get into significant new markets and are simply living on upgrades. Customers are apparently getting tired of that based on recent trends. (Xbox is the sole significant exception - and it only recently started to turn a profit). Apple, OTOH, has launched a number of new products which reshaped entire industries.
No rational person could possibly argue that Microsoft has been doing better than Apple for the past 15 years.
That's a good description of the mobile phone market before 2007.
And befor that year's iPhone launch, Apple partnered with then leader Motorola to release the Rokkr phone. Complete flop, since Motorola obviously had their hands all over its design. Maybe Apple will do the same with Samsung or Sony, before releasing a truly superior TV on their own...
It's not even close to the same.
Smartphones were still a relatively new market with low penetration. Margins were solid and there was enormous room for growth. Not only was smartphone penetration very small, but the majority of users didn't use their smartphone features because of inconvenience or complexity.
For televisions, OTOH, the market may not be saturated, but it's a lot closer than the smart phone market in 2007. Do you know any homes that don't have at least one TV? Even if you limit it to big screen TVs, the penetration is almost certainly well over 50%. And the usage of TVs is not significantly limited by complexity. Most people who have TVs are already watching them for many hours a day.
Frank Shaw, Microsoft's corporate vice president of corporate communications, indicated earlier this week in a company blog post that the company's entertainment strategy centers around the Xbox. "Xbox is the gateway to games, music, movies and TV shows ? in short, it is central to entertainment," he wrote
This is likely to be a response to moves by Sony to turn the PS3/PSN into the nexus of electronic entertainment in the living room. Microsoft loves following their competitors.
... Puh-leeeez! Sports dominate the core population of the demographics this device would be marketed to, 18-40 yr old men. ...
No offence but this is pure BS.
TV's (what you were actually talking about), are primarily marketed to 18-40 year old men? Even if you are talking about X-Box that isn't correct. I found your first remark offensive, and despite the "ha-ha's," this follow up doesn't do anything to ameliorate that.
"Xbox is the gateway to games, music, movies and TV shows ? in short, it is central to entertainment"
What Mr. Shaw thought:
"Please God! Don't let iCloud take over the world!"
Input devices and technologies change far faster than do monitor technologies. Unless TV manufacturers start making sets with plug-in, replaceable modules, external inputs will survive just fine.
You going to replace your whole 50" monitor every time there's a speed bump on your CPU?
Why not? Many 50" televisions sell for about what an iPhone does without a contract and people don't seem to have a problem buying one of those every year or two just because "They have to". Just say'in.
When you think about it...
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
Nice quote. I'm curious how you (and others) see this as happening. I can't seem to wrap my head around the tv studios not wanting to give up their guaranteed paydays from cable companies for internet-based IP service that still requires the use of the cable company. How does that work with local station programming? Do their affiliates just close up shop? Do the cable companies who were charging for internet and cable for most customers now have to enact even stricter data caps and higher prices because you are no longer getting ABC, BCS, NBC, AMC, TNT. TLC, DISC, etc. from them yet are still using their "series of tubes" to send it to your boobtube?
This nut will crack but I have yet to see a glimmer of anything that shows a fracture worth exploiting. With other products we can see the tides moving. We say the opening a company with resources could take.
On the HW front, some want an Apple branded HDTV which would be nice to remove one single device from the equation, the AppleTV. I can see Apple partnering with TV manufactures to bring the AppleTV to their systems. They've all tried apps on the TV and they all suck.
I could possibly see Apple trying to set the AppleTV between your cable/sat company. Meaning, you still get all your channels from your cable/sat company. This would be a huge undertaking that would just perpetuate the problem, probably not be financially grand for Apple, and would be leaked so fast do to all that involved parties that we know it's coming in two days.
When you think about it...
It makes no difference if ATV, GTV, or MSTV gets built into the set -- the content (which is what we're after) comes through the CableCo's STB.
That's the thing, it's the same pipe which is CableCo wants you to watch that same content they have already paid handsomely for upfront and why the TV studios want to keep their big CableCo customers happy, not to mention their local channel affiliates which are both customers and a means of revenue.
This just might be why Steve Jobs said this, back in 2007, about the stagnant cable TV + set top box market:
"The only way this is going to change is if you start from scratch, tear up the box, redesign and get it to the consumer in a way that they want to buy it."
iCloud will be the foundation for whatever Steve and Apple do to innovatively disrupt the stagnant TV market. They're going to do more than just tear up the box.
How about this as an example:
1. Apple does deals with record labels, TV and movie studios for streamed content through iCloud.
2. Apple releases iOS-powered Time Capsule that acts as a home entertainment server.
Boom. Apple leapfrogs legacy cable companies and their set top boxes. Cable companies and TV networks suddenly become dumb pipes much sooner than expected. Apple establishes themselves as the world's premier internet entertainment infrastructure company.
So how would consumers use this technology? Family members would stream content from iCloud through the Time Capsule to any iDevice or Apple TV in the house through AirPlay. If you want to buy a movie and keep it, it would stay on the Time Capsule.
Those are two very simple steps (conceptually anyway). Seemingly inevitable and obvious. And yet the Googles of the world seem to have absolutely no clue.
Apple is not an ISP and shows no interest in becoming one. You NEED Internet to stream. Unless you are positive that there is chance they are willing to invest in billions in spectrum, infrastructure and additional data centers.
Most Cable Companies ARE ISP's, so they would be relatively fine. In fact they would either raise prices on existing plans to compensate for the loss of their cable sector due to Apple's Anti-Cable stance, or they would cap data usage both of which are very hindering to the idea of streaming.
For those who do less streaming and more downloading, Shows and Movies would Take hours on end and use a large amount of bandwidth in the current state of US broadband.
Apple and Google May HAVE To turn to each other again at some point given Google's rolling out of 1Gb/s internet backbone with specialized fibers to lower bandwidth consumption and apple's need for a competitive, flexible ISP.
My personal thoughts though. Maybe, maybe not.