Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
Because Apple is a public company that is chartered to make profits, not to throw away cash and tie up with a money losing venture. Thank god some of the people here only make decisions with their own money...
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box
I don't know about that. Comcast is getting $18/month from me for a box they bought nearly 10 years ago for probably around $50. I'd say it's pretty lucrative for them. If it wasn't, they would have put more of an effort into making the CableCard standard work and letting 3d parties handle the boxes.
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box or having to build an the ecosystem. Apple could provide the ecosystem and manage VOD and Cable gets less set-top box to manage and VOD profit is share.
Cable will not lose live TV, but they do face competition from internet VOD.
and then there'is the killer app : a plan.
Free 32" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 40$/month
299$ 42" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 50$/month
399$ 52" Apple TV with 3 years subscription.
Subscription:
20$ mandatory base package.
+20$ for 20 channels of you're choosing. or
+30$ for 35 channels. or
+40$ for 50 channels.
You still are talking about the content and then smooshing of the set top box into the TV as if they have to be done in tandem to work. You have still made a valid argument as to why that is the case.
To restate, I disagree that Apple pushing content through providers requires this to be done in, and only in, a box with a monitor attached. A monitor that is limited to just a few lame sizes. Better to push this through a box that you can get a god profit on instead of one that you can't and will won't even get the benefit of economics of scale because 1) it's considerably more expensive thus lowering the number of people that will buy, 2) not be enough of a pull because TVs work for many years longer than computers we connect to them, and 3) the few sizes are not enough to satisfy the needs of users. 52" maximum? Really?
PS: You talk of IPTV but it's nothing special. It's just content being sent to a TV via an IP network. What's more likely is Apple Hybrid IPTV set-top box and working with cable providers to get their box as the number one option that is connected to TVs. You plug your TV into the box. You control everything from the box (or the A/V receiver). You only ever touch the TV or its remote when you want to switch inputs for a different connected box, but Apple wouldn't care about that hassle because they don't want you switching to a different box. They'll want you to stay on their box connected to the big ass monitor of your choice.
To restate, I disagree that Apple pushing content through providers requires this to be done in, and only in, a box with a monitor attached. A monitor that is limited to just a few lame sizes. Better to push this through a box that you can get a god profit on instead of one that you can't and will won't even get the benefit of economics of scale because 1) it's considerably more expensive thus lowering the number of people that will buy, 2) not be enough of a pull because TVs work for many years longer than computers we connect to them, and 3) the few sizes are not enough to satisfy the needs of users. 52" maximum? Really?
+1
If Apple wants wide-spread acceptance, it needs to have a low cost box. Something inexpensive enough that people will buy it even if the technology/content services are untested and unproven. It has to be a low enough price that people are willing to take a chance on it. Which do you think Apple can built critical mass with more quickly, a $!000+ TV or a $100-$150 box?
My display is fine, the television as an experience is dreadful though. My wife wanted me to find Animal Planet for some reason yesterday - I couldn't find any way to do it other than to page through all the channels until I stumbled upon it. Dismal UI and ripe for improvements.
If people think Apple can improve on it, let them speculate. You can ignore it if you want.
This. I've said it before but imagine if Apple were to partner with (or buy) Dish Network (which is already far better than Direct TV) and create a DVR type device. Only thing is all the content would be maintained on Apple's cloud so you wouldn't need to worry about your hard drive going out and losing all your recorded shows. The UI could be so greatly improved.
Think about it, whatever provider that Apple partners with or buys up, automatically takes a huge chunk out of their competition because of Apple diehards wanting to jump ship.
Cable companies own the consumer Internet. DSL is too slow for TV and satellite has signal in the down direction only. In many neighborhoods there is only one cable provider so there is no competition. The last mile is made out of pure gold. What can Apple offer the cable companies in exchange for access to that last mile? Cable doesn't need Apple.
they can tell apple you have your tv on our system and we will put the POS Iguide on it.
Comments
Dang, you mean my application for "cOCA CoLA: The reaLThinG" will fail?
Yeah.
Why doesn't Apple just go ahead and buy all those crappy cable companies. Or spend a bundle and roll out a parallel system on WiMax or something. (and watch the cableCos customer base wither away to home shopping network masochists).
Apple has always striven to own the "whole widget", and I can think of no better way to screw that up than depend on Comcast or any of the old-school cable providers for the last-mile delivery.
Because Apple is a public company that is chartered to make profits, not to throw away cash and tie up with a money losing venture. Thank god some of the people here only make decisions with their own money...
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box
I don't know about that. Comcast is getting $18/month from me for a box they bought nearly 10 years ago for probably around $50. I'd say it's pretty lucrative for them. If it wasn't, they would have put more of an effort into making the CableCard standard work and letting 3d parties handle the boxes.
Let me tell you that ISP's don't like managing there set-top box or having to build an the ecosystem. Apple could provide the ecosystem and manage VOD and Cable gets less set-top box to manage and VOD profit is share.
Cable will not lose live TV, but they do face competition from internet VOD.
and then there'is the killer app : a plan.
Free 32" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 40$/month
299$ 42" Apple TV with 3 years subscription. Min 50$/month
399$ 52" Apple TV with 3 years subscription.
Subscription:
20$ mandatory base package.
+20$ for 20 channels of you're choosing. or
+30$ for 35 channels. or
+40$ for 50 channels.
You still are talking about the content and then smooshing of the set top box into the TV as if they have to be done in tandem to work. You have still made a valid argument as to why that is the case.
To restate, I disagree that Apple pushing content through providers requires this to be done in, and only in, a box with a monitor attached. A monitor that is limited to just a few lame sizes. Better to push this through a box that you can get a god profit on instead of one that you can't and will won't even get the benefit of economics of scale because 1) it's considerably more expensive thus lowering the number of people that will buy, 2) not be enough of a pull because TVs work for many years longer than computers we connect to them, and 3) the few sizes are not enough to satisfy the needs of users. 52" maximum? Really?
PS: You talk of IPTV but it's nothing special. It's just content being sent to a TV via an IP network. What's more likely is Apple Hybrid IPTV set-top box and working with cable providers to get their box as the number one option that is connected to TVs. You plug your TV into the box. You control everything from the box (or the A/V receiver). You only ever touch the TV or its remote when you want to switch inputs for a different connected box, but Apple wouldn't care about that hassle because they don't want you switching to a different box. They'll want you to stay on their box connected to the big ass monitor of your choice.
They will use it.
It will be called iBoard.
To restate, I disagree that Apple pushing content through providers requires this to be done in, and only in, a box with a monitor attached. A monitor that is limited to just a few lame sizes. Better to push this through a box that you can get a god profit on instead of one that you can't and will won't even get the benefit of economics of scale because 1) it's considerably more expensive thus lowering the number of people that will buy, 2) not be enough of a pull because TVs work for many years longer than computers we connect to them, and 3) the few sizes are not enough to satisfy the needs of users. 52" maximum? Really?
+1
If Apple wants wide-spread acceptance, it needs to have a low cost box. Something inexpensive enough that people will buy it even if the technology/content services are untested and unproven. It has to be a low enough price that people are willing to take a chance on it. Which do you think Apple can built critical mass with more quickly, a $!000+ TV or a $100-$150 box?
My display is fine, the television as an experience is dreadful though. My wife wanted me to find Animal Planet for some reason yesterday - I couldn't find any way to do it other than to page through all the channels until I stumbled upon it. Dismal UI and ripe for improvements.
If people think Apple can improve on it, let them speculate. You can ignore it if you want.
This. I've said it before but imagine if Apple were to partner with (or buy) Dish Network (which is already far better than Direct TV) and create a DVR type device. Only thing is all the content would be maintained on Apple's cloud so you wouldn't need to worry about your hard drive going out and losing all your recorded shows. The UI could be so greatly improved.
Think about it, whatever provider that Apple partners with or buys up, automatically takes a huge chunk out of their competition because of Apple diehards wanting to jump ship.
Would cable companies really toss Motorola set top boxes in the trash for AppleTV's?
Is it true that Apple has enough cash to purchase Samsung outright?
Just asking.
Cable companies own the consumer Internet. DSL is too slow for TV and satellite has signal in the down direction only. In many neighborhoods there is only one cable provider so there is no competition. The last mile is made out of pure gold. What can Apple offer the cable companies in exchange for access to that last mile? Cable doesn't need Apple.
they can tell apple you have your tv on our system and we will put the POS Iguide on it.
What cable content will Kansas City residents be able to watch on their GoogleTV's?
likely the same stuff as fios or U-Verse
likely the same stuff as fios or U-Verse
When did Google acquire licensing from the major media companies permiting GoogleTV to offer the content that FIOS and U-Verse offer?