There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.
If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile. If consumers ditch their cable TV for Internet delivered content they will just raise the price of Internet.
The idea would be to create a publishing platform which works for the content owners.
These owners have always had options about how to best monetize their content.
The iTV would be just another option. They could easily elect to publish nationally or internationally.
What will influence their decision will simply be which of their many options gives them the best return.
With the iTV platform all they need to do is press a button and then sit back to collect the subscription revenue. My guess is that a lot of content owners will be attracted by a business model which allows them to keep the lion's share of the subscription and advertising revenue - rather than sharing it with an inefficient network. They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
If the model works - they will line-up to put content into the platform, just like developers lined up for the iPhone.
There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.
The networks are the content owners and their deals with the cable companies are pretty sweet. Are they going to gamble selling a show for $.99 that gets 2 million viewers when shown with advertising, how many of those 2 million do you think would pay?
They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on.. Who's gonna fund all that then? Fairies?
I forwarded this post to Apple and they have scrapped their Apple TV plans entirely. They said, "Dagamer34, thanks for the keen insight. That is the direction we were going, but have now reconsidered based on this prophetic post. Big ups to you."
If it is that obvious then why hasn't anyone answered this very basic question?
What does an Apple branded HDTV do for apple that the aTV form factor cannot?
If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile.
You can forget about FiOS, Verizon will not build out to any new areas.
If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile. If consumers ditch their cable TV for Internet delivered content they will just raise the price of Internet.
In the UK cable isn't as big as the main phone provider. I get 70mbit broadband thru my phone line.
But your point is well made. The cable companies will eventually have to morph into into companies that just move bits. Same as the mobile networks.
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
I think it will all come down to price. There's got to be some kind of reasonable all-you-can-eat subscription package for the Apple TV... or else people will continue to pay for cable.
As often as people say they don't want to pay for 1000 channels... your cable bill is actually a pretty good value.
For that monthly cable fee... you get EVERY program that airs on TV. If you have a DVR, you can set it to record anything and everything. Plus you get news, sports, all kinds of stuff.
It beats hunting through the various online services hoping they have the show you want to watch. TV shows appear on TV first... but there's no guarantee they will end up on an online streaming service.
You could subscribe to Netflix AND Amazon AND Hulu AND whatever else is out there... but you'd end up paying as much as you would for cable.
Or you can buy TV episodes on iTunes... but I'm of the mindset that TV shows are throwaway. There are very few TV episodes I would want to rewatch... especially when there are new episodes every season. And new series too.
The networks are the content owners and their deals with the cable companies are pretty sweet. Are they going to gamble selling a show for $.99 that gets 2 million viewers when shown with advertising, how many of those 2 million do you think would pay?
Content creators sell their stuff to networks. But if you own the rights to basketball, or Game of Thrones - what is the best way of turning that content into money? You don't have pick just one. You can pick all of them. The secret is not to devalue your products. What will swing the compass is if content owners see 50% more revenue per user from iTV subscriptions versus cable.
My guess is that Apple will get rid of the single show purchase. The product will be subscriptions to channel packages. This includes live TV and advertising subsidised TV.
Quote:
They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
Who's gonna fund all that then? Fairies?
Who cares?
It's last century tech and supporting it all is taking money away from customers and content makers alike. Not only is all that crap expensive, it ends up with a dreadful user experience.
What concerns me is that I have the money and the desire to buy all of Apple's highest end products. However, people who are willing to pay a premium for a TV aren't going to settle for a 50 inch or smaller.
If I am going to buy a new HDTV it is going to be at least 60 and probably 65 inches. My old 50 inch is just too small now that I have seen the 65 inch TVs that my friends have and Costco's has them for just $2500.
I have seen most rumors stating TV sizes much smaller. This will keep most high end videophiles away.
Are you just being a jerk? Why exactly would that be funny?
The Apple TV has an interface specifically designed for iTunes content, with a few other content apps on the side.
That said, it is far from perfect.
For example if I am looking to play a tv show via home sharing it would make sense that I hit TV Shows, but that's the store. I have to go to computer. Having those 'genre' buttons go to my content with a 'store' connection at the top is more logical.
Another example, I can't move things around to suit my needs. I don't watch baseball so why can't I put that at the bottom. Same with my settings since I'll only need to change that in a rare moment.
The reason why those other devices we unveiled so soon before becoming widely available is that Apple needed to apply for FCC approval for such devices well in advance since they employed communications technology requiring FCC approval. Being as the iPhone, for example, would have to have been run past the FCC long before it could go on sale, why conceal details about the product. It was going to be public knowledge well ahead of launch whether or not Apple wanted that to happen.
I don't imagine the same will be the case for a TV but I could be wrong.
What concerns me is that I have the money and the desire to buy all of Apple's highest end products. However, people who are willing to pay a premium for a TV aren't going to settle for a 50 inch or smaller.
If I am going to buy a new HDTV it is going to be at least 60 and probably 65 inches. My old 50 inch is just too small now that I have seen the 65 inch TVs that my friends have and Costco's has them for just $2500.
I have seen most rumors stating TV sizes much smaller. This will keep most high end videophiles away.
Videophiles are not where the money is made anyways. They are a niche market. The sweetspot for Apple is 55" with a nice design, good picture quality and the to be known features at $2000. It is in the range of 65" sets in price but the extra features make up the difference.
Here's a shot in the dark: You won't sell any in Europe. They're kinda preoccupied at the moment. I'd seriously consider putting this thing on hold until things stabilize. Apple should focus on proven products for now.
Apple is an American company which is why that is their main focus. Thus why American 4G is in the iPads, American sports/news content is the only thing they have put up in those extra apps, American stores always launch new products.
If America will buy it, Apple will sell it. Let everyone else come later
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
The TV market is very, very, broken.
* When I have to pay over one hundred dollars a month for a bazillion channels (in bundles) most of which I never watch, that is a big problem.
* When any given delivery method (like cable, or DirectTV, or DishNetwork) within most market areas (like my part of Tucson AZ) has a virtual monopoly there, that is a big problem. Sure, different delivery methods compete with one another, sort of, but not very effectively. Many people simply don't have enough good choices.
* When I need a bunch of boxes attached to my TV, each with their own remotes, in order to consume all of the content I want (including games, etc) that is a big problem. A universal remote helps, but it doesn't eliminate complexity, especially with the hassles of scheduling, which technology could eliminate in a heartbeat (to the cheers of the masses).
Oh, yeah, and I wouldn't bet my life that Apple has no scare tactics available to cause a change.
Apple is an American company which is why that is their main focus. Thus why American 4G is in the iPads, American sports/news content is the only thing they have put up in those extra apps, American stores always launch new products.
If America will buy it, Apple will sell it. Let everyone else come later
More than half of Apple's revenue is from outside the US as well as almost all of their manufacturing and some of the design work. It's a mistake to think of them solely as a U.S. company.
Just seen the advert for the new Panasonic Viera TV where you can swipe the screen from your iPad to the TV. That's so cool I hope the Apple TV can do that.
* When I have to pay over one hundred dollars a month for a bazillion channels (in bundles) most of which I never watch, that is a big problem.
* When any given delivery method (like cable, or DirectTV, or DishNetwork) within most market areas (like my part of Tucson AZ) has a virtual monopoly there, that is a big problem. Sure, different delivery methods compete with one another, sort of, but not very effectively. Many people simply don't have enough good choices.
* When I need a bunch of boxes attached to my TV, each with their own remotes, in order to consume all of the content I want (including games, etc) that is a big problem. A universal remote helps, but it doesn't eliminate complexity, especially with the hassles of scheduling, which technology could eliminate in a heartbeat (to the cheers of the masses).
Oh, yeah, and I wouldn't bet my life that Apple has no scare tactics available to cause a change.
That makes it broken mainly on your end, most of those bazillion channels belong to a few networks. Those networks are still making there money whether you watch or not. You're right on there being a virtual monopoly in some areas, FiOS and U-verse are slowly changing that. I'd like to know how is Apple going to consolidate all the set top boxes we own. There are 5 fairly new TVs in my house. No way will I buy 5 Apple branded TV sets when I can buy 5 ATVs at $500.
But regardless of the economy any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad. EPIC FAIL on you.
Umm....Get your basics straight. They had to do that for the iPod (which, quite apart from being a first ever of its kind in this arena, was introduced at the time of 2000-01 recession), and with getting carrier agreements around the world for the iPhone/iPad.
In any event, as with all of its major product introductions, Apple will likely introduce it in the US first, test the waters at home, learn, iron out the bugs, get momentum, and only then venture outside the US. My guess is that Europe will probably not see that product until late 2013 (assuming it's announced in the US in late 2012 and sold starting mid-2013).
That makes it broken mainly on your end, most of those bazillion channels belong to a few networks. Those networks are still making there money whether you watch or not. You're right on there being a virtual monopoly in some areas, FiOS and U-verse are slowly changing that. I'd like to know how is Apple going to consolidate all the set top boxes we own. There are 5 fairly new TVs in my house. No way will I buy 5 Apple branded TV sets when I can buy 5 ATVs at $500.
Exactly. I just don't see how Apple can eliminate the boxes and provide us with their user experience without controling the content and its distribution. Unless it can work out a cable card deal with the cable companies. But I see no chance of them playing ball and letting Apple control the box.
The Cable Companies are not going to give up any revenue like VOD or even advertising revenue that gets put on the Cable Box UI.
Apple could go a Tivo like model but you still have to deal with the cable box.
No doubt the TV will be slick and I'll want one, but there is zero chance it replaces any current boxes.
In my Dream World, Apple buys Dish Network. Content issue resolved. Apple then utilizes Dish's 4G LTE Spectrum for piggy backed content delivery as well as the obvious satellite subscribers. Then they have a true walled garden.
Just seen the advert for the new Panasonic Viera TV where you can swipe the screen from your iPad to the TV. That's so cool I hope the Apple TV can do that.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
There's likely to be legal battles, because the networks will see the end of their business model coming up fast.
If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile. If consumers ditch their cable TV for Internet delivered content they will just raise the price of Internet.
The networks are the content owners and their deals with the cable companies are pretty sweet. Are they going to gamble selling a show for $.99 that gets 2 million viewers when shown with advertising, how many of those 2 million do you think would pay?
They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
Who's gonna fund all that then? Fairies?
Quote: Tallest said
Won't it be hilarious when this thing comes with the current Apple TV's interface?
And then Apple's left to wonder just why it's not selling and why the few people who do buy it hate it so much.
Oh I don't know. I'm sure to buy one. I doubt I'd hate it though. I don't watch cable TV at all. So there's plenty to like for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
I forwarded this post to Apple and they have scrapped their Apple TV plans entirely. They said, "Dagamer34, thanks for the keen insight. That is the direction we were going, but have now reconsidered based on this prophetic post. Big ups to you."
If it is that obvious then why hasn't anyone answered this very basic question?
What does an Apple branded HDTV do for apple that the aTV form factor cannot?
You can forget about FiOS, Verizon will not build out to any new areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
If that were the case do you suppose U-verse and Fios would be able to build out their infrastructure quickly enough to replace the cable providers who provide the bulk of all broadband Internet to homes in the US. I'm not sure how broadband is delivered in other countries but in the US, cable owns the last mile. If consumers ditch their cable TV for Internet delivered content they will just raise the price of Internet.
In the UK cable isn't as big as the main phone provider. I get 70mbit broadband thru my phone line.
But your point is well made. The cable companies will eventually have to morph into into companies that just move bits. Same as the mobile networks.
I think it will all come down to price. There's got to be some kind of reasonable all-you-can-eat subscription package for the Apple TV... or else people will continue to pay for cable.
As often as people say they don't want to pay for 1000 channels... your cable bill is actually a pretty good value.
For that monthly cable fee... you get EVERY program that airs on TV. If you have a DVR, you can set it to record anything and everything. Plus you get news, sports, all kinds of stuff.
It beats hunting through the various online services hoping they have the show you want to watch. TV shows appear on TV first... but there's no guarantee they will end up on an online streaming service.
You could subscribe to Netflix AND Amazon AND Hulu AND whatever else is out there... but you'd end up paying as much as you would for cable.
Or you can buy TV episodes on iTunes... but I'm of the mindset that TV shows are throwaway. There are very few TV episodes I would want to rewatch... especially when there are new episodes every season. And new series too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The networks are the content owners and their deals with the cable companies are pretty sweet. Are they going to gamble selling a show for $.99 that gets 2 million viewers when shown with advertising, how many of those 2 million do you think would pay?
Content creators sell their stuff to networks. But if you own the rights to basketball, or Game of Thrones - what is the best way of turning that content into money? You don't have pick just one. You can pick all of them. The secret is not to devalue your products. What will swing the compass is if content owners see 50% more revenue per user from iTV subscriptions versus cable.
My guess is that Apple will get rid of the single show purchase. The product will be subscriptions to channel packages. This includes live TV and advertising subsidised TV.
Quote:
They might appreciate a publishing model that did not require the funding of call centres / installation engineers / space satellites / DVRs boxes / dishes / cables and so on..
Who's gonna fund all that then? Fairies?
Who cares?
It's last century tech and supporting it all is taking money away from customers and content makers alike. Not only is all that crap expensive, it ends up with a dreadful user experience.
It has to change.
What concerns me is that I have the money and the desire to buy all of Apple's highest end products. However, people who are willing to pay a premium for a TV aren't going to settle for a 50 inch or smaller.
If I am going to buy a new HDTV it is going to be at least 60 and probably 65 inches. My old 50 inch is just too small now that I have seen the 65 inch TVs that my friends have and Costco's has them for just $2500.
I have seen most rumors stating TV sizes much smaller. This will keep most high end videophiles away.
That said, it is far from perfect.
For example if I am looking to play a tv show via home sharing it would make sense that I hit TV Shows, but that's the store. I have to go to computer. Having those 'genre' buttons go to my content with a 'store' connection at the top is more logical.
Another example, I can't move things around to suit my needs. I don't watch baseball so why can't I put that at the bottom. Same with my settings since I'll only need to change that in a rare moment.
And so on
The reason why those other devices we unveiled so soon before becoming widely available is that Apple needed to apply for FCC approval for such devices well in advance since they employed communications technology requiring FCC approval. Being as the iPhone, for example, would have to have been run past the FCC long before it could go on sale, why conceal details about the product. It was going to be public knowledge well ahead of launch whether or not Apple wanted that to happen.
I don't imagine the same will be the case for a TV but I could be wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill42
What concerns me is that I have the money and the desire to buy all of Apple's highest end products. However, people who are willing to pay a premium for a TV aren't going to settle for a 50 inch or smaller.
If I am going to buy a new HDTV it is going to be at least 60 and probably 65 inches. My old 50 inch is just too small now that I have seen the 65 inch TVs that my friends have and Costco's has them for just $2500.
I have seen most rumors stating TV sizes much smaller. This will keep most high end videophiles away.
Videophiles are not where the money is made anyways. They are a niche market. The sweetspot for Apple is 55" with a nice design, good picture quality and the to be known features at $2000. It is in the range of 65" sets in price but the extra features make up the difference.
Apple is an American company which is why that is their main focus. Thus why American 4G is in the iPads, American sports/news content is the only thing they have put up in those extra apps, American stores always launch new products.
If America will buy it, Apple will sell it. Let everyone else come later
Quote:
There isn't gonna be a disruptive change because as far as the TV industry goes all is fine and well. There's not a Napster for TV shows, yes there's torrents but ask most people what a torrent is and they'll say "um, um, when it rains hard?" There's not widespread thievery of TV shows. Most people either DVR a show they want to watch or watch it on demand. Netflix and Amazon do well on older shows as does iTunes. The TV business is not perfect but its not broken neither. There's no scare tactic Apple can use to make it change.
The TV market is very, very, broken.
* When I have to pay over one hundred dollars a month for a bazillion channels (in bundles) most of which I never watch, that is a big problem.
* When any given delivery method (like cable, or DirectTV, or DishNetwork) within most market areas (like my part of Tucson AZ) has a virtual monopoly there, that is a big problem. Sure, different delivery methods compete with one another, sort of, but not very effectively. Many people simply don't have enough good choices.
* When I need a bunch of boxes attached to my TV, each with their own remotes, in order to consume all of the content I want (including games, etc) that is a big problem. A universal remote helps, but it doesn't eliminate complexity, especially with the hassles of scheduling, which technology could eliminate in a heartbeat (to the cheers of the masses).
Oh, yeah, and I wouldn't bet my life that Apple has no scare tactics available to cause a change.
It eliminates at least 2 boxes and 4 cables (in the form most widely being discussed).
Your proposal:
TV with power cable
Cable box with power cable and data cable
Apple TV with power cable and data cable
Proposed:
TV with power cable
For some people, that difference is HUGE. And if they include DVD and/or BR player, it eliminates another box and 2 more cables.
More than half of Apple's revenue is from outside the US as well as almost all of their manufacturing and some of the design work. It's a mistake to think of them solely as a U.S. company.
Just seen the advert for the new Panasonic Viera TV where you can swipe the screen from your iPad to the TV. That's so cool I hope the Apple TV can do that.
If you haven't seen it.....
That makes it broken mainly on your end, most of those bazillion channels belong to a few networks. Those networks are still making there money whether you watch or not. You're right on there being a virtual monopoly in some areas, FiOS and U-verse are slowly changing that. I'd like to know how is Apple going to consolidate all the set top boxes we own. There are 5 fairly new TVs in my house. No way will I buy 5 Apple branded TV sets when I can buy 5 ATVs at $500.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
But regardless of the economy any content agreements here in the US would not be valid on the UK. Apple would need content agreements in every country, much much different than releasing a iPhone or iPad. EPIC FAIL on you.
Umm....Get your basics straight. They had to do that for the iPod (which, quite apart from being a first ever of its kind in this arena, was introduced at the time of 2000-01 recession), and with getting carrier agreements around the world for the iPhone/iPad.
In any event, as with all of its major product introductions, Apple will likely introduce it in the US first, test the waters at home, learn, iron out the bugs, get momentum, and only then venture outside the US. My guess is that Europe will probably not see that product until late 2013 (assuming it's announced in the US in late 2012 and sold starting mid-2013).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That makes it broken mainly on your end, most of those bazillion channels belong to a few networks. Those networks are still making there money whether you watch or not. You're right on there being a virtual monopoly in some areas, FiOS and U-verse are slowly changing that. I'd like to know how is Apple going to consolidate all the set top boxes we own. There are 5 fairly new TVs in my house. No way will I buy 5 Apple branded TV sets when I can buy 5 ATVs at $500.
Exactly. I just don't see how Apple can eliminate the boxes and provide us with their user experience without controling the content and its distribution. Unless it can work out a cable card deal with the cable companies. But I see no chance of them playing ball and letting Apple control the box.
The Cable Companies are not going to give up any revenue like VOD or even advertising revenue that gets put on the Cable Box UI.
Apple could go a Tivo like model but you still have to deal with the cable box.
No doubt the TV will be slick and I'll want one, but there is zero chance it replaces any current boxes.
In my Dream World, Apple buys Dish Network. Content issue resolved. Apple then utilizes Dish's 4G LTE Spectrum for piggy backed content delivery as well as the obvious satellite subscribers. Then they have a true walled garden.
Pipe dream with lots of holes to be sure but....
I just got a Panasonic and didnt know it could do that. Thanks