Apple television not expected to 'break the bundle' from cable

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member


    1. Take a television.


     


    2. Build in an Apple TV.


     


    3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.


     


    4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.


     


    5. Profit!

  • Reply 22 of 35
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    I have a better solution:


     


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    1. Take a television.


     


    2. Buy an Apple TV.


     


    3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.


     


    4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.


     


    5. Profit!


  • Reply 23 of 35
    dfoltzdfoltz Posts: 8member


    Now that TVs are smart they change to fast.  The idea of a tv as one integrated device is stupid.  It will be outdated in 2 - 3 years.  No one is going to pay for a new TV every few years.  Apple needs to change the way smart TVs work.  They should deploy awesome monitors.  They already have some of the best computer monitors.  Make them pretty and bigger and you're done.  Then come out with a smaller AppleTV brain the size of an iPhone that plugs into the monitor.  Let it run apps and it becomes a game console.  The "brain" can cost $100 - $200 and people will buy a new one every 2 - 3 years to have the latest and greatest.  The content will come in time.  Apple doesn't need to push or do anything.  TV is moving toward the internet.  They just need to position themselves as the delivery system.  Some people will want to bundle their tv through cable.  If you watch a lot of tv its a great deal. Others will want to purchase subscriptions to apps.  Look at what MLB has done with their app.  If the NFL and B1G Ten Network did that, I'd be done with cable. In time they'll all move that way.  MLB is the brilliant for doing it first in sports.  


     


    Apple isn't going to release an AppleTV that's just improving on the model that's already out there.  They will do something different.  That's what makes Apple special.  When they do it, they'll make a crazy profit and leave people wondering how they make 72% of the profit on 8% of the devices sold.  

  • Reply 24 of 35
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,221member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dfoltz View Post


    Now that TVs are smart they change to fast.  The idea of a tv as one integrated device is stupid.  It will be outdated in 2 - 3 years.  No one is going to pay for a new TV every few years.  Apple needs to change the way smart TVs work.  They should deploy awesome monitors.  They already have some of the best computer monitors.  Make them pretty and bigger and you're done.  Then come out with a smaller AppleTV brain the size of an iPhone that plugs into the monitor.  Let it run apps and it becomes a game console.  The "brain" can cost $100 - $200 and people will buy a new one every 2 - 3 years to have the latest and greatest.  The content will come in time.  Apple doesn't need to push or do anything.  TV is moving toward the internet.  They just need to position themselves as the delivery system.  Some people will want to bundle their tv through cable.  If you watch a lot of tv its a great deal. Others will want to purchase subscriptions to apps.  Look at what MLB has done with their app.  If the NFL and B1G Ten Network did that, I'd be done with cable. In time they'll all move that way.  MLB is the brilliant for doing it first in sports.  


     


    Apple isn't going to release an AppleTV that's just improving on the model that's already out there.  They will do something different.  That's what makes Apple special.  When they do it, they'll make a crazy profit and leave people wondering how they make 72% of the profit on 8% of the devices sold.  



     


    What you are describing is a violation of US Federal Law as described by pt123 in Post No. 7. To be specific, TV monitors are not allowed on the consumer market. Each TV set sold in the US is required to have an ATSC tuner. I might remind you that cable and satellite delivery are losing customers. IPTV is growing rapidly albeit on a small base. Over-the-air broadcasts account for most of the attrition of the pay TV subscriber base.


     


    I agree with I am a Zither Zather Zuzz in Post No. 2. The problem with TV is not content delivery. Many localities have cable systems with 1000s of channels. In and around large cities, OTA viewers may have more than 50 program streams to choose from. Consider the addition of video game consoles, Blu-ray players, and IP-based steaming devices. Availability of content is simply not the issue for the vast majority of potential customers. Don't forget that Apple is already a content provider with its iTunes Music Store. Apple can add features to the iTMS and to its ?TV STB. If Apple introduces a HDTV with integrated ?TV, then meh. Such a TV would be an advance, but it would not be a revolution--not even close.


     


    The problem with TV is that we are still navigating and managing content pretty much the way we did the job 30-40 years ago. We need a new paradigm for a 1000-channel multi-device world. I can imagine Siri's being an important option for controlling the TV. However, it makes no sense as the primary method of navigation. Neither does a simple remote control. How on Earth can a couch potato navigate 1000 channels with a one-button remote? I propose that the revolution will lay not in the HDTV per se, but the remote control. As of this writing, you may download any number of iOS remote control emulators for a plethora of devices including the Google TV. An iOS-based remote control offers the possibility of essentially perfect emulation of the stock remote controls for each device in your entertainment center. Many of those stock remotes have terrible button layouts. This is, in fact, by design. Because an iOS-based remote has virtual buttons, it is not restricted to the terrible layout of the stock remotes. To the contrary, iOS offers the possibility of a plug-in universal remote architecture that seamlessly integrates all components of your entertainment system. During a spate of rumors earlier this year, I recall that it was rumored that the Apple HDTV universal remote control would offer auto-discovery. 


     


    Auto-discovery is not possible with one-way communication between the remote and the components being controlled. An Apple HDTV, however, creates the possibility of two-way communication between the Apple HDTV set and its iOS-based remote control. The TV could be paired with one or more specific iOS devices which prevents authorized control of the TV. Consider thumbnail preview icons on the remote of each available program irrespective of source. Switch to a new program by touching its thumbnail on the remote.

  • Reply 25 of 35
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,761member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Actually the arguments were correct, Apple made a bad phone, it was highly prone to dropping calls...


    Simply - garbage! (Well, in my opinion.)

  • Reply 26 of 35
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


     


     


    Apple customers don't care about picture quality.   Picture and sound quality have never been big sellers.


     


    Its the UX, Stupid.  The UX.


     


    And if anybody has cracked the UX it is Apple.   


     


     


    I don't think that reliance on picture quality could possibly make up for the headache induced by most people's current setups. Mom can't figure out the dozen buttons that you need to push to get the sound of a DVD to actually come out of the Home Theater System.  Nobody knows which remote control to use to adjust the volume.


     


    Better picture quality don't fix it.  Its the UX, and there's no room for complex input choices.


     


    Apple will make it as simple to watch TV as they make it to buy a song on iTunes.


     



     


    You really have a low opinion of the general public. Admittedly most are not exactly shining lights as far as IQ goes, believing in all sorts of rubbish, from UFOs to gods, psychics, and "alternative" medicine, but I think even those people know how to turn the volume up or down.

  • Reply 27 of 35
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by iansilv View Post


    1. Take a television.


     


    2. Build in an Apple TV.


     


    3. Allow content producers, providers, or anyone to sell, give away, or sell with a monthly subscription an app that delivers video content that downloads and does whatever the App producer wants with it at the existing 30/70 revenue split.


     


    4. Require App producers to agree to a pricing model where any advertising revenue is divided 30/70 and is done through an expanded iAds platform that allows for video advertising to be delivered in-app.


     


    5. Profit!



     


    How would that be any different from a TV from Samsung, Panasonic, or anyone else? All TVs have apps now, in fact they have a lot more apps than an Apple TV does. The ATV interface isn't anything special, I'd say it was a rather ugly bare bones affair, so what would make it stand out?


     


    In terms of case design, some of the new wafer thin Samsungs are striking, and I can't see much room for improvement there either.


     


    I'd say Apple's best bet would be to make the ATV into a fully fledged iOS device and give it an app store. Further down the road, next year perhaps when the Power VR Rogue and Cortex A15 are ready, it could be re-positioned as a competitor to the Wii U.

  • Reply 28 of 35
    waybacmacwaybacmac Posts: 309member


    IMHO all comparisons between the introduction of the iPhone and the possible introduction of an Apple-branded TV are meaningless. Think about it. The iPhone was not revolutionary per se. There were some cell phones before iPhone that did play music, did have games, and did (in a way) access the internet. But the iPhone was a quantum leap in all these areas. For those few old cell phones, music/games/internet were minor add-ons, poorly implemented. In introducing the iPhone, Jobs made it clear that the iPhone was three co-equal devices: a widescreen iPod; a cell phone (which he called revolutionary); and an internet device. In that order--media, communication, information. Also keep in mind that the app and app-store universe we have today wasn't really part of the mix yet. The cell phone world was caught completely flat-footed. (see )


     


    This is not the case, again IMHO, with the world of television. What possible quantum leap could ANY manufacturer make either in hardware or content in the next, say, five years? Holographic displays? There's room for many great improvements, yes; quantum leaps, no. And the TV industry (both hardware and content) is now forewarned. For example, more TVs now have internet access. Still lousy but fixable without any new radical technology. 


     


    I agree with some of the other posters in this thread. Too many issues, too few solutions, too little innovation. Apple may "crack" the secret to a "simple and elegant" television interface, but does that mean actually building a TV? I don't think so.

  • Reply 29 of 35
    axualaxual Posts: 244member


    I will pay Discovery Networks $15 a month for their channels (far more than they get from me now through Comcast), and I'll pay Comcast $40 bucks for the pipe (including broadband).


     


    I don't care about any other channels, or Comcast.


     


    I consider Comcast the plumber in all this, not the content provider.


     


    And indeed, I am willing to cancel my Cable TV at this point because I am sick of paying $95 a month for a scant few channels I actually watch.


     


    Something has to change ... if a channel can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.


     


    Ala carte channel pricing is where we need to get to ... Apple has the best chance to make that (force that) to happen.  Bundled channels are for the birds and a patently unfair practice.

  • Reply 30 of 35
    alexmitalexmit Posts: 112member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by axual View Post


    I will pay Discovery Networks $15 a month for their channels (far more than they get from me now through Comcast), and I'll pay Comcast $40 bucks for the pipe (including broadband).


     


    I don't care about any other channels, or Comcast.


     


    I consider Comcast the plumber in all this, not the content provider.


     


    And indeed, I am willing to cancel my Cable TV at this point because I am sick of paying $95 a month for a scant few channels I actually watch.


     


    Something has to change ... if a channel can't stand on it's own, then it should fail.


     


    Ala carte channel pricing is where we need to get to ... Apple has the best chance to make that (force that) to happen.  Bundled channels are for the birds and a patently unfair practice.



    I have to agree with your sentiments. I'm tired of paying for crap channels because they are part of a package. Comcast does not want to offer channels separately. I will drop their content delivery and use them for internet only.

  • Reply 31 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    The problem with TV is not content delivery. Many localities have cable systems with 1000s of channels...The problem with TV is that we are still navigating and managing content pretty much the way we did the job 30-40 years ago. We need a new paradigm for a 1000-channel multi-device world.



     


    The problem is content delivery - the specific problem being the increasingly untenable cost of the content bundle.  Paying Comcast $85/month  (yep, that's what the long-term post-teaser rate is in my locale) just to watch Comedy Central and Discovery Channel is a complete ripoff, especially when I know $20 of it's going to ESPN, who I could give a FF about.   An Apple TV that managed to package its programming with an a la carte subscription model would indeed be a category-killing product.



    As for content management in a 1000-channel world?  First of all nobody, watches 1000 channels; they only need to search through them, a process that any number of UI paradigms might support.  As for keeping track of them, subscribing to them, etc., we've got a host of paradigms that already support that as well.



    An Apple TV that allows the aggregation - not simply discovery - of the small, interesting subset of those 1000 channels at a reasonable cost will be a successful product.

  • Reply 32 of 35
    bregaladbregalad Posts: 816member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by audioinside View Post


     


    The problem is content delivery - the specific problem being the increasingly untenable cost of the content bundle.  Paying Comcast $85/month  (yep, that's what the long-term post-teaser rate is in my locale) just to watch Comedy Central and Discovery Channel is a complete ripoff, especially when I know $20 of it's going to ESPN, who I could give a FF about.   An Apple TV that managed to package its programming with an a la carte subscription model would indeed be a category-killing product.



    As for content management in a 1000-channel world?  First of all nobody, watches 1000 channels; they only need to search through them, a process that any number of UI paradigms might support.  As for keeping track of them, subscribing to them, etc., we've got a host of paradigms that already support that as well.



    An Apple TV that allows the aggregation - not simply discovery - of the small, interesting subset of those 1000 channels at a reasonable cost will be a successful product.



    I just don't see the economic benefits for most consumers. Look at what Apple charges through iTunes for a season pass for a popular show. One show I enjoy is $65/season. Some other shows are less so I'm going to round it off and say that a show worth watching is $60/season. I only watch 5 series regularly. That's $300/year.


     


    My wife also watches TV. She watches 7 series that I don't watch. So now we're at an estimated cost of 12 x $60 = $720/year.


     


    I buy a bundle of services from my cable company: internet, telephone and TV. Including channel packages I pay extra for the television portion of my bill is $58/mo or $696/year.


     


    So cable TV is cheaper on an annual basis than buying the same content from iTunes.


     


    But wait, there's more. I watch some live sports too and local news from time to time and Jeopardy! and my wife watches stuff I don't even know about outside of prime time series. Then there's all the stuff our two kids sit in front of. Admittedly we wouldn't pay for some of that stuff if there was a separate bill for it, but it's essentially free.


     


    You see the marginal cost of adding one more show to my viewing schedule via iTunes is $60. The marginal cost of adding another show via cable is zero. We could have television sets running 24/7 in every room in the house and it wouldn't cost us another penny for content. (the electricity bill would be scary though!)


     


     


    Bottom line: unless Apple can find a way to significantly lower prices then there's zero chance that I'll be cutting the cable in the next 20 years.

  • Reply 33 of 35
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

    One show I enjoy is $65/season.


     


    What kind of season costs SIXTY-FIVE BUCKS?!


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

    The marginal cost of adding another show via cable is zero.


     


    Unless it's on a channel you don't get.


     


    Quote:


     We could have television sets running 24/7 in every room in the house and it wouldn't cost us another penny for content. (the electricity bill would be scary though!)



     


    And you'd need to, which brings me to my next point.


     


     


    Quote:



    Bottom line: unless Apple can find a way to significantly lower prices then there's zero chance that I'll be cutting the cable in the next 20 years



     


     


    iTunes is the ability to watch what you want any time you want. Not so with cable/satellite. Season Pass is the equivalent of a digital DVD box set, months before it's actually released.

  • Reply 34 of 35
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member

    Oh I totally agree- I think the apple tv will be as simple as an AppleTV merged in to a TV and Apple will introduce a new App model specifically to include video when it is introduced.
  • Reply 35 of 35
    iansilviansilv Posts: 283member
    kotatsu wrote: »
    How would that be any different from a TV from Samsung, Panasonic, or anyone else? All TVs have apps now, in fact they have a lot more apps than an Apple TV does. The ATV interface isn't anything special, I'd say it was a rather ugly bare bones affair, so what would make it stand out?

    In terms of case design, some of the new wafer thin Samsungs are striking, and I can't see much room for improvement there either.

    I'd say Apple's best bet would be to make the ATV into a fully fledged iOS device and give it an app store. Further down the road, next year perhaps when the Power VR Rogue and Cortex A15 are ready, it could be re-positioned as a competitor to the Wii U.

    An apple app system that focused on broadcast video would be different because all these tv manufacturers have incompatible apps that no one really cares about. Apple has the market penetration and name recognition to bring the broadcast industry's attention. I'm talking about an NBC App that shows their broadcast in realtime, or a Modern Family app that collets all episodes but also allows for realtime watching when new episodes are broadcast.
Sign In or Register to comment.