Steve Jobs was 'excited' about an Apple HDTV, but content deals are needed
Though Steve Jobs said he "cracked" the secret to building an easy-to-use television set, a true Apple HDTV reportedly remains held up by content providers, who are reluctant to allow Apple to offer subscription-based plans to customers.
Citing checks with industry and supply chain sources, analyst Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said there's a belief that Jobs was "very excited" about the prospect of Apple entering the television market. That same enthusiasm was expressed by Jobs to his biographer, when he said that Apple was working on a TV set with "the simplest user interface you could imagine."
While Jobs felt he had solved the issue of confusing user interfaces with TVs, Wu said one problem Apple has yet to resolve are licensing deals with content providers. Those terms, which have yet to be ironed out, are said to be the main roadblock preventing Apple from selling an HDTV.
Wu said sources have told him that Apple "would love" to allow users to choose customized programming for a monthly subscription fee. With this plan, users could choose whatever channels or shows they wanted to subscribe to, offering an "a la carte" option instead of bundles with dozens of channels as currently provided by cable operators.
As far back as 2009, Apple was said to have pitched a $30-per-month iTunes subscription plan to content providers. But that concept never gained any traction.
Another content-related obstacle for Apple is live television. Wu said that Apple could "bypass" this by integrating its TV with existing cable or satellite providers, but he thinks Apple could better differentiate its product if it were able to offer live programming over the Internet.
But as more users look to "cut the cord" and end their cable or satellite TV service, Wu believes content providers may, ironically, need to turn to Apple to bring back subscribers. He compared it to how music publishers turned to Apple and iTunes in the face of rising piracy.
Still, with so much depending on licensing deals for content, he believes that Apple has a lot of work ahead of it before it can bring a full-fledged television set to market.
"Because of the high dependence on content providers," he said, "we believe exact timing of a 'real' Apple TV shipping is difficult to pinpoint."
Citing checks with industry and supply chain sources, analyst Shaw Wu with Sterne Agee said there's a belief that Jobs was "very excited" about the prospect of Apple entering the television market. That same enthusiasm was expressed by Jobs to his biographer, when he said that Apple was working on a TV set with "the simplest user interface you could imagine."
While Jobs felt he had solved the issue of confusing user interfaces with TVs, Wu said one problem Apple has yet to resolve are licensing deals with content providers. Those terms, which have yet to be ironed out, are said to be the main roadblock preventing Apple from selling an HDTV.
Wu said sources have told him that Apple "would love" to allow users to choose customized programming for a monthly subscription fee. With this plan, users could choose whatever channels or shows they wanted to subscribe to, offering an "a la carte" option instead of bundles with dozens of channels as currently provided by cable operators.
As far back as 2009, Apple was said to have pitched a $30-per-month iTunes subscription plan to content providers. But that concept never gained any traction.
Another content-related obstacle for Apple is live television. Wu said that Apple could "bypass" this by integrating its TV with existing cable or satellite providers, but he thinks Apple could better differentiate its product if it were able to offer live programming over the Internet.
But as more users look to "cut the cord" and end their cable or satellite TV service, Wu believes content providers may, ironically, need to turn to Apple to bring back subscribers. He compared it to how music publishers turned to Apple and iTunes in the face of rising piracy.
Still, with so much depending on licensing deals for content, he believes that Apple has a lot of work ahead of it before it can bring a full-fledged television set to market.
"Because of the high dependence on content providers," he said, "we believe exact timing of a 'real' Apple TV shipping is difficult to pinpoint."
Comments
I think the bigger worry to me would be the local cable companies who also control internet service to the home. If I cancel my TV with Comcast, who's to stop them from lowering my monthly bandwidth allowance, only offering a slower speed, and charging more for the "pleasure" of it?
You are correct sir. It all comes down to everyone grabbing for a piece of the pie. I just hope they don't knock the pie off the table and nobody gets any.
An issue that won't easily be solved, but is probably something that Apple alone could force, is the costs that cable operators have to pay to content providers and how they're so tied together right now. If content was more like music, where you pay for just the content you want, prices would probably be much more affordable, but you would then be limited to just what you are paying for.
It makes sense, in a way - you could buy ala carte and get just what you want, or you could purchase a plan that includes a more broad offering - just like you do with the cell phone companies.
Although it goes against what Apple is trying to do and has done with the music industry, they could work deals out with the cable / isp companies making tv more akin to the cell phone industry. This would allow a more expensive Apple television to be subsidized by the cable/isp companies, given we are really talking about a unit that is not a television as we know it today, nor is it really an internet tv - it's everything wrapped into one.
An issue that won't easily be solved, but is probably something that Apple alone could force, is the costs that cable operators have to pay to content providers and how they're so tied together right now. If content was more like music, where you pay for just the content you want, prices would probably be much more affordable, but you would then be limited to just what you are paying for.
It makes sense, in a way - you could buy ala carte and get just what you want, or you could purchase a plan that includes a more broad offering - just like you do with the cell phone companies.
It's interesting to think outside the (cable)box. But the industries are vastly different. In most cases, we only need one carrier, and choose it based on regional coverage, choice of phones and the pricing plans available. Ergo, Apple was able to start the iPhone history with a single carrier on board. In TV delivery, there are many players involved - cable company, TV studios, movie studios, etc. You need more than one party on board to have a compelling solution. For example, even if Disney is on board, they couldn't very much offer the Disney channel without agreement from Comcast, etc.
The TV/movie business is like the American political system. Everyone wants change but, in bumping into each other constantly, ends up staying in status quo.
While Jobs felt he had solved the issue of confusing user interfaces with TVs, Wu said one problem Apple has yet to resolve are licensing deals with content providers. Those terms, which have yet to be ironed out, are said to be the main roadblock preventing Apple from selling an HDTV.
These guys. If they give Apple most of their profits, they MIGHT survive. If not, then not.
Apple single handedly saved the Music industry. Apple single-handedly saved the Magazine industry. Apple single-handedly saved the movie industry.
But TV is Doomed without Apple.
The fools. They need to do a Sprint-like deal with Apple, betting their very survival on Apple, because if they don't they are Doomed.
These guys. If they give Apple most of their profits, they MIGHT survive. If not, then not.
Apple single handedly saved the Music industry. Apple single-handedly saved the Magazine industry. Apple single-handedly saved the movie industry.
But TV is Doomed without Apple.
The fools. They need to do a Sprint-like deal with Apple, betting their very survival on Apple, because if they don't they are Doomed.
Apple single-handedly saved the Magazine industry? Apple single-handedly saved the movie industry?
Lay off the juice.
A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.
Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.
Maybe it is finally time for Apple to buy their own network.
A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.
Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.
To upend everything they will certainly need a network of their own which means they have to purchase spectrum across the world or be held hostage by the gatekeepers with the existing licenses. Also, many existing networks have relationships with producers for the production of exclusive content.
Regulators would never let them buy all 5 major broad cast networks, and the same goes for major cable networks carrying that exclusive broadcast content. Therefore your LTE advanced-based system would have to petition the government for fair license to broadcast signals that are under the purview of the FCC.
I'd love to see it though. It would put them in a strong position when bargaining for content.
Finally, a sane article in this TV business, but it doesn't go far enough. There are still going to be plenty of people who are perfectly happy with the current HDTV they have (whether they recently bought it or brand loyalty) so I'm wondering why these content deals wouldnt be for the current AppleTV as well, a far more mass market device than a $1000+ TV.
The bottom line is that nothing will become cheaper. Whatever the business model, whatever the method of program distribution, the end user will pay pretty much the same. What we are talking about is a better 'experience' and a better way of selecting content.
Maybe it is finally time for Apple to buy their own network.
A true 4G network has to meet a 1Gbit/s download speed for stationary receivers. That is more than enough bandwidth to feed a home internet feed for TV. It seems to me that could be a good usage of the $80 billion and would put them a huge step ahead of any of their competition in the serving of media over IP since all others (except possibly Google) would be at the mercy of the existing ISPs, who by the way all have a vested interest in making sure that cable stays just the way it is.
Also, Google is another reason that they need to seriously consider this, because Google is basically moving down this path themselves as they fund the building out of high speed fiber networks.
Lightsquared is selling wholesale access to their upcoming LTE network. so far they have sold billions of $$$ worth of bandwidth.
Your cable provider will NOT be able to aggressively retaliate against subscribers for cutting the cord and choosing an over-the-top solution like iTunes. Yes, they will probably have to increase the average cost of broadband access since they're losing the content revenue, but it will only be a moderate increase. The FCC is all over them.
Alternatively, 4G makes things a lot more interesting. 4G is plenty fast for broadband access at the home. Comcast/Time-Warner/Cox will be forced to stay competitive with Verizon/ATT/Sprint 4G a viable alternative
The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.
If they're waiting for the cable companies to agree to ala carte pricing, everyone might as well forget it. The cable companies WANT to charge me for 700 channels when I only watch 10. And even if they'd agree to let me choose only 10 channels, the cost per channel would be 70 times as high - so they'd make the same amount of money.
Yup, you nailed it. The only thing I can see is if apple starts their own channel (they have plenty of cash). In other words, buy up some popular shows from cable channels, or sponsor up and coming shows to get the ball rolling.
Than let the networks come in and be able to show their shows on apple TV as well. They all will come just like with music.
Now the cable charges you more than for internet alone, but less than internet + TV, gives you unlimited data cap and calls it the Apple TV package.
With apple TV you can watch shows in any language, from any country that wishes to give a certain cut to apple for letting them on. Anything from amateur stuff to high end expensive stuff.
This is clearly the future, the only question is who will take us there. Apple seems like the one to do this.
I think the issue really is the content guys more than the pipe guys. Comcast will get its money one way or another.
The only thing that enabled Steve Jobs to pry the heads of the music guys out of their a$$es was rampant piracy. The video content guys have not yet experienced piracy on the same scale. If you want to help change the TV business, my advice is to cancel your cable subscription and fire up your bit torrent client.
will never happen
$85B in cash will make these negotiations go much easier. Netflix doesn't have this luxury. Apple doesn't need to make money on the content as long as they get to sell $2000 TVs.
Your cable provider will NOT be able to aggressively retaliate against subscribers for cutting the cord and choosing an over-the-top solution like iTunes. Yes, they will probably have to increase the average cost of broadband access since they're losing the content revenue, but it will only be a moderate increase. The FCC is all over them.
Alternatively, 4G makes things a lot more interesting. 4G is plenty fast for broadband access at the home. Comcast/Time-Warner/Cox will be forced to stay competitive with Verizon/ATT/Sprint 4G a viable alternative
wouldn't surprise me if the cable companies want to get rid of the TV business. the reason to sell TV services is to pay for the wires.
time warner charges me $130 or so for cable, unlimited internet and phone. plus DVR. $30 of that goes to the content people to pay for the rights to transmit the shows. the phone part is essentially free money since that takes almost no bandwidth.
what if i only paid $50 for internet and phone but they didn't have to pay the content people? they might actually keep more cash in the end