At our home there are the following boxes where the u-vers cable enters the family room:
1) Cable Modem
2) Cable STB
The current balkanised TV hardware mess has multiple services being amalgamated at the back of the television itself. This requires numerous external boxes, each with their own UI. All doing pretty much the same thing. Duplicating the hardware, driving up the cost while confounding the user.
The smart place to do this service amalgamation is in a data center.
All the channels, and all the recording are done in one place.
And then a single content stream is sent to each device.
The current balkanised TV hardware mess has multiple services being amalgamated at the back of the television itself. This requires numerous external boxes, each with their own UI. All doing pretty much the same thing. Duplicating the hardware, driving up the cost while confounding the user.
The smart place to do this service amalgamation is in a data center.
All the channels, and all the recording are done in one place.
And then a single content stream is sent to each device.
C.
This approach could solve several issues for cable providers who currently multicast highly-compressed video for multiple channels to each customer. Your approach would allow a single uncompressed stream of much higher quality likely with much lower bandwidth cost.
What would be awesome would be the ability to subscribe to a channel that you actually want and not be tied in and paying for other channels that you don't care. Imagine each subscription per channel is 2 dollars per month. And if the major television companies want to start a new channel, they should offer a free preview and see if people are willing to subscribe for the content that the channel is offering. Like many people have said in this board, this change will make tv companies provide better programming for the viewer. I am really excited in possibilities Apple could change in the television industry.
What would be awesome would be the ability to subscribe to a channel that you actually want and not be tied in and paying for other channels that you don't care. Imagine each subscription per channel is 2 dollars per month.
I've heard that number tossed around recently?
The cost per channel now is already under a dollar. If they're still going to force-feed us ads and all the other shows on the channel that we wouldn't watch, I'd like to see $0.99 a month.
Do you have ANY idea how many people would sign up for individual channels at $0.99 per month?! Even though they're already paying less per channel through traditional means, they'd completely ignore that they're paying more if they could have JUST the channels they wanted (and more if they could have just the SHOWS they wanted, but?).
Quote:
this change will make tv companies provide better programming for the viewer.
Which is why they don't want to do it. Apple's model will force television channels to actually make shows that people want to watch instead of the drivel that exists now. They won't have the luxury of contractual obligations and multi-channel packages.
Quote:
I am really excited in possibilities Apple could change in the television industry.
That's only one county though, Apple are very global now and buying major networks and or cable companies in every country would be a mind boggling and complex mess. Steve always preached that keeping it simple and sticking with what you do works best and so far that seems to be working. They didn't have to buy any music labels to shift the earth under the music industry. However, I agree with others here that the film industry is terrified of losing control and probably see the music industry as a model they don't want for them. I don't really understand that as it is universally accepted the music industry was saved by Apple. Somehow the film industry need to realize they might actually be beter off moving in to a new, 21st century distribution model and Apple are the best company to deliver that.
If the content is supplied through the cloud then surely having Warner would enable all Warner material to be provided in any country?
Having one big one like this along with say, Disney, would be enough to show people want it and money can be made throught this 21st century approach.
I agree with you on keeping things simple; Apple could leave Time Warner to be run as a wholly-owned subsidiary like FileMaker, so Apple does not have to become directly expert in managing this kind of industry but has access to all the content. Or, apple could buy 51% of the stock and simply vote in shareholder arrangements that they should be supplied with all relevant content!
Evidently Sony, having been burned on the Betamax thing by not being able to ensure content was available, moved to buy a studio (although obviously they put their own name on it) in order to ensure content for future ventures.
I think you have a good point. All the cable cos I know of still push MPEG-2. An Apple box that could decode H.264/AAC would be easy for Apple to make and would reduce their bandwidth costs tremendously.
The one caveat might be to encode the content at the source. How does it get sent to the cable cos? What kind of cost is involved for changing out equipment for using a better codec? How long would you need to support both systems at the same time until your entire system is converted? Is this even feasible?
PS: That image is huge. A smaller version for the forum would still clearly show the ratio differences.
Considering how many are still broadcasting HD recorded shows in SD, I have my doubts this will ever happen. Cable is especially bad, but then they'd benefit most from a changed approach to the content delivery. Not holding my breath.
Comments
As to the STBs...
At our home there are the following boxes where the u-vers cable enters the family room:
1) Cable Modem
2) Cable STB
The current balkanised TV hardware mess has multiple services being amalgamated at the back of the television itself. This requires numerous external boxes, each with their own UI. All doing pretty much the same thing. Duplicating the hardware, driving up the cost while confounding the user.
The smart place to do this service amalgamation is in a data center.
All the channels, and all the recording are done in one place.
And then a single content stream is sent to each device.
C.
The current balkanised TV hardware mess has multiple services being amalgamated at the back of the television itself. This requires numerous external boxes, each with their own UI. All doing pretty much the same thing. Duplicating the hardware, driving up the cost while confounding the user.
The smart place to do this service amalgamation is in a data center.
All the channels, and all the recording are done in one place.
And then a single content stream is sent to each device.
C.
This approach could solve several issues for cable providers who currently multicast highly-compressed video for multiple channels to each customer. Your approach would allow a single uncompressed stream of much higher quality likely with much lower bandwidth cost.
What would be awesome would be the ability to subscribe to a channel that you actually want and not be tied in and paying for other channels that you don't care. Imagine each subscription per channel is 2 dollars per month.
I've heard that number tossed around recently?
The cost per channel now is already under a dollar. If they're still going to force-feed us ads and all the other shows on the channel that we wouldn't watch, I'd like to see $0.99 a month.
Do you have ANY idea how many people would sign up for individual channels at $0.99 per month?! Even though they're already paying less per channel through traditional means, they'd completely ignore that they're paying more if they could have JUST the channels they wanted (and more if they could have just the SHOWS they wanted, but?).
this change will make tv companies provide better programming for the viewer.
Which is why they don't want to do it. Apple's model will force television channels to actually make shows that people want to watch instead of the drivel that exists now. They won't have the luxury of contractual obligations and multi-channel packages.
I am really excited in possibilities Apple could change in the television industry.
And they're the only ones who can.
That's only one county though, Apple are very global now and buying major networks and or cable companies in every country would be a mind boggling and complex mess. Steve always preached that keeping it simple and sticking with what you do works best and so far that seems to be working. They didn't have to buy any music labels to shift the earth under the music industry. However, I agree with others here that the film industry is terrified of losing control and probably see the music industry as a model they don't want for them. I don't really understand that as it is universally accepted the music industry was saved by Apple. Somehow the film industry need to realize they might actually be beter off moving in to a new, 21st century distribution model and Apple are the best company to deliver that.
If the content is supplied through the cloud then surely having Warner would enable all Warner material to be provided in any country?
Having one big one like this along with say, Disney, would be enough to show people want it and money can be made throught this 21st century approach.
I agree with you on keeping things simple; Apple could leave Time Warner to be run as a wholly-owned subsidiary like FileMaker, so Apple does not have to become directly expert in managing this kind of industry but has access to all the content. Or, apple could buy 51% of the stock and simply vote in shareholder arrangements that they should be supplied with all relevant content!
Evidently Sony, having been burned on the Betamax thing by not being able to ensure content was available, moved to buy a studio (although obviously they put their own name on it) in order to ensure content for future ventures.
I think you have a good point. All the cable cos I know of still push MPEG-2. An Apple box that could decode H.264/AAC would be easy for Apple to make and would reduce their bandwidth costs tremendously.
The one caveat might be to encode the content at the source. How does it get sent to the cable cos? What kind of cost is involved for changing out equipment for using a better codec? How long would you need to support both systems at the same time until your entire system is converted? Is this even feasible?
PS: That image is huge. A smaller version for the forum would still clearly show the ratio differences.
Considering how many are still broadcasting HD recorded shows in SD, I have my doubts this will ever happen. Cable is especially bad, but then they'd benefit most from a changed approach to the content delivery. Not holding my breath.