Apple TV almost ready for launch

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    imo Apple "a la carte" offering would had cost about the same thing. Don't forget no matter what the source is, the studios are always behind pricing.



    Which is why I believe Apple should go directly to the shows themselves.
  • Reply 22 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    I understand you hate Cable and telco but Apple still needs to have a good business model. I don't think selling 1500$ TV sets that required an internet connection for the feeds is a good idea. This is where Google is going anyway, will see how this works.



    If you do a little reading you'll recognize that's not where Google is "going". Rather than depend on the cable co's they're working on their own delivery from their own satellite feeds over their own fiber-optics using their own IP to create it. Ya gotta pay attention, things move fast now.
  • Reply 23 of 32
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    If you do a little reading you'll recognize that's not where Google is "going". Rather than depend on the cable co's they're working on their own delivery from their own satellite feeds over their own fiber-optics using their own IP to create it. Ya gotta pay attention, things move fast now.



    "In the Kansas application, Google said it would use “national and regional video headend facilities” — essentially programming collection points — “to send IPTV” — a television-over-Internet technology like that used in AT&T’s Uverse — “across a private (Internet protocol) network to subscribers.”



    If Google has to build a completely new DSL network they are not out of the woods yet. This will cost a huge amount of cash and this takes time. It will take them years and billions just to cover the US.



    If Google tries to build a WiFi or 4g network, same thing. They will need to put less fiber optics, but they will still need to put up a large amount of towers. I getting tire of all this wireless mess, if this keeps up people are going to be cook alive when going outside... :-)



    imo Google is now actually HELPING Apple striking deals with ISP's. Great. Google thinks it can do better than AT&T by using the same tech? They think they can do better with better pricing in a field they have no experience with. WTF are those guys smoking for crying out loud?



    Tallest: its looks like the one trying to kill cable is Google, not Apple.
  • Reply 24 of 32
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,321member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    Tallest: its looks like the one trying to kill cable is Google, not Apple.



    IMO they're both trying, just going about it in somewhat different ways
  • Reply 25 of 32
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    IMO they're both trying, just going about it in somewhat different ways



    Well google is not really killing the ISP's, its just trying become one. I think they will end up with about the same offering has cable at about the same prices.
  • Reply 26 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    I am being told the upcoming Apple TV is now currently working on some telco networks. One specific telco app is out of alpha testing and going into beta testing. The feeds are integretated with the interface and its possible to change the a la carte programming on the fly from the TV. You need to keep a channel for 30 days before you can change it.



    A la carte channels will be package this way:

    Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$

    15 channels for 15$

    20 channels for 19$

    30 channels for 25$

    40 channels for 30$



    Most of the channels will be available a la carte but there will be some exceptions.

    Movie channels are in separate packages.

    Video on demand will be feed from iTunes, telco will take a cut.

    TV app store.



    The Apple TV will be available starting at 499$ with a 3 years TV + internet plan



    ripped from Canadian cable systems?



    $500 for a box is on the high side but take what the prices are for the DVR's there and a $100-$200 apple markup it is in line.



    and yes then do offer a some la carte channels packs (aka pick x channels) + theme packs on top of that.



    Now in the USA there are some very limited big base pack + themes.



    But on the business side at lest on dish / directv they have a limited la carte channel plans.
  • Reply 27 of 32
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    ...



    A la carte channels will be package this way:

    Mandatory base package with basic local channels and more : 20$

    15 channels for 15$

    20 channels for 19$

    30 channels for 25$

    40 channels for 30$



    ...



    If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.



    According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.



    Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).



    Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.



    To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?
  • Reply 28 of 32
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Guys... why are you feeding another troll thread? That's all this is.
  • Reply 29 of 32
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.



    According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.



    Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).



    Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.



    To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?





    Theme packages will always be cheaper per channels then "a la carte", no matter where you get you're feeds. Also sometimes you get more than 1 channel for one pick in "a la carte". BTW i gave one 1 ISP pricing model, others are going to come up with different packages.



    Canadian "a la carte" line up with Bell:



    http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf
  • Reply 30 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.



    According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.



    Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).



    Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.



    To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?



    the number of channels is off when you take away the PPV channels, EAST / WEST mirrors (U-verse has a lot of them that are non premium) , PPV promo channel, HD ver's of SD channels. Old channels in the old analog range that are mirrored in the higher XXX range on cable. In market RSN's + there over flows. Other of market RSN's (with lots of black outs), help channels, the channels that are just links to different VOD folders, premium multiplex channels, the out of market packs like NHL CI, NBA LP, MLB EI, MLS DK, NFL ST. Also in lot's of cable systems WGN and TBS is part of the limited basic line up.



    Also apple will have to get blackout's right.
  • Reply 31 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    If this is true, then it has to be the very worst deal for television programming in North America. The 15 channel package goes for $1/channel. The 40 channel package goes for $0.75/channel. I assume that residents of Cupertino, CA are more likely to go for this service than anywhere else. So I checked the Cupertino TV Guide for the TV channels available to Apple Headquarters employees at home.



    According to TV Guide, there are 49 over-the-air digital subchannels available in Cupertino. There is some redundancy in the offering primarily because Silicon Valley is in the broadcast footprint of multiple public TV stations. Every single OTA subchannel is free.



    Cupertino is served by two major cable providers--Comcast and AT&T U-verse. Comcast's highest channel number is 990. Not all channel numbers are occupied, but most of them are occupied. My rough estimate of the number of channels on Comcast's Cupertino franchise is tbe between 700 and 800, but closer to the top of this range. The largest channel number on U-verse (San Francisco) is 3954. U-verse's channels are less densely occupied than Comcast's. I estimate that AT&T offers around 3000 channels on U-verse (San Francisco).



    Assuming that the Cupertino resident subscribes to cable and to every channel offered by Comcast, then the resident pays nothing close to the $0.75/channel fee that this rumor claims. When compared to the AT&T offering, it is difficult not to laugh.



    To anyone who is willing to answer the question: If the OP is correct, then who in his or her right mind will pay the Apple fee? Why?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


    Theme packages will always be cheaper per channels then "a la carte", no matter where you get you're feeds. Also sometimes you get more than 1 channel for one pick in "a la carte". BTW i gave one 1 ISP pricing model, others are going to come up with different packages.



    Canadian "a la carte" line up with Bell:



    http://fibetv.bell.ca/global/resourc...e-tv-qc-en.pdf



    Canadian systems also get the better WGN
  • Reply 32 of 32
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon View Post


    the number of channels is off when you take away the PPV channels, EAST / WEST mirrors (U-verse has a lot of them that are non premium) , PPV promo channel, HD ver's of SD channels. ....



    You can slice it, dice it, or purée it. However, you cannot sell programming at $0.75/channel while the competition sells the same programming for about $0.15-$0.20/channel.
Sign In or Register to comment.