Apple needs to skip the studios AND cable providers and use some of that cash to buy distribution rights for live sports. I feel like sports is what keeps a huge percentage of people plugged into cable, and large media corporations are far too invested in the current cable dynamic to have any incentive to change it.
I'd take a set-top box too, but if apple got me the NFL and NBA, I'd never pay a cable company another dime outside of internet access. Looks like rights cost a few billion a year for the NFL, I'm sure much less for the NBA. They have $100B in cash, and would make a lot back on just subscription fees for each sport PLUS large margins on the set-top box or TV. Plus they could figure out a way to monetize advertising in a less intrusive but profitable way and take a cut of PPV and and other subscription apps like HBO Go etc.
If all this is, is an Apple branded set top box that you'd get with Timr Warner or Comcast or whatever then big yawn. Especially for those of us who have satellite or those who cut the cord and don't have cable.
Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.
Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step. ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes. And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.
The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...
My opinion is that we may see a "Apple TV" that's one really big IPS panel. But unlike the iMac may have a remove able AppleTV module connected via a single display-port, and it's this separate module that all the i/o connects to. It makes the entire "remove the TV from the wall, reach-around-blindly" problem go away. Most of us already have one of these boxes, they're usually the surround-sound system, and these boxes all suck. So the better Apple TV module would consist of all the digital i/o, with adapters for analog i/o. I some how doubt Apple would make a surround-sound box, but existing boxes are these huge mostly-empty boxes, that most of the circuitry is dedicated to just switching analog paths (you can hear relays switch.) If you've ever seen the Xbox surround system, there's an example of how it can be made simpler. Tiny "Apple TV" sized box that the i/o connects to, one cable that runs to the sub-woofer where all the power supply and speaker distribution is dealt with.
What I really want to see is everything on demand. Forget "owning" or "licensing" or "renting" , if a TV show has been produced, it will have a "broadcast availability time", eg 9pm Eastern, and at that point anyone around the world can connect to the local edge node and watch it live, or if they miss it, they can start the stream from the beginning. This would utilize in-stream advertisement tokens (that tell the device to load an "advertisement" stream and return to that time point of the stream, which is what most of the "web" streams do anyway. Watchers who want to watch an entire show whenever, simply click a "subscribe" button, and the box will download the stream appropriate for the size of television as soon as it's available for whatever fee applies to that program. So if you record the live stream, you still have to watch the advertisements. If you pay the fee you get to watch/download it advertisement-free. If 30 years later you discover this box in your storage ,you should still be able to play back anything stored on it.
Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'
Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.
Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.
Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.
The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.
All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?
Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.
Lol- What are you talking about? On demand is limited (very) selection.
The day I can on demand the rangers game- ill agree with you.
Cord cutting is impossible for the majority- and while people blame cable (rightfully)- the main reason is simple- sports. Exclusive deals with Fox , FSSW, CBS, etc. Some of y'all might not watch sports, but the juggernaut of all television is the NFL. Always the top show, always the top ratings- a complete powerhouse, because people love it. You can't find it online- you can't buy just a package (direct ticket you have to have in addition to satellite)- nada. Even MLB I can't watch local because of the local deal with FSSW. No one can watch local through the MLB package. The sports have American Tv by the balls.
That said- I'm for this deal completely- hopefully with uverse and/or fios and not cable- both of which they have great rapport. I don't mind paying $60/month. I love baseball and football too much.
Go Rangers!
I know, I didn't phrase that very well did I? I meant my comment in the sense of future products.... on demand is surely the future so an Apple device that's not yet here should look to the future not the past. Kind of like dropping floppies, CDs and DVD players before anyone else. DVR seems to me like something from those fun days of Tivo way back when in the early part of the century. /wink
As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well
There are probably many, many tiny little places on Earth with their own obscure TV systems but Apple have to look to support the main, serious systems ... /kidding
If all this is, is an Apple branded set top box that you'd get with Timr Warner or Comcast or whatever then big yawn. Especially for those of us who have satellite or those who cut the cord and don't have cable.
There is a big difference between a classic Cable box and an Apple Tv cable box which will combine the cable feed, ATSC, dvr, on demand content, apps, internet access, games, Airplay, you're own itunes purchased and library, all in a single integrated interface that may or may not respond to voice command.
I understand some people dont like cable, but its not Apple job to go on a vendeta to purge cable from earth. Even if they did, Apple would come up with on demand content or packages that cost the same amount of money as cable or more... on top of paying huge amounts of cash to youre internet provider over excessive bandwith.
With Google entering the distribution business, Apple needs to make a move with or without cable, but it as to do something to make sure the iOS ecosystem compete in the living room before Android takes over that space. The 99$ AppleTV may be cute, but it will never be mainstream because it cant handle live feed and with the exception of a few tech geeks, people do want reliable live channels.
About the Google distribution initiative, on top of testing ultra fast fibe internet in Kansas city, they also bough motorola, which is a major player in IPTV cable Box. Those box currently run on WindowsCE, how long do you think it will take Google to replace that with Android? Google is maybe a year away from having millions of customers in the TV space through Motorola. There is a real threat for Apple here, Apple absolutly must enter that market, and it need to move fast.
The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV. And that's already a huge market. The cable companies simply don't want to do that.
If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so.
I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.
Hijacked? Prison? Revenge? Uh, OK. Perspective. It's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?
I don't know about you, but with my FiOS TV there is a whole lot that is not On Demand. Same with Comcast. I use my DVR quite a bit, as I suspect most people do. The point is that an Apple TV needs to replace both my current TV and the cable box.
As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well
same in the USA but most people pay over $100 for cable TV/internet. the over the air broadcasts are so so quality
The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV.
If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so.
They offer an ecosystem. People love ecosystems that integrates everything, Android will soon be in the living room through Motorola. Samsung smart Tv's is like the 99$ Apple Tv, it 's cute. The real game is going to be an ecosystem war in the TV distribution space and its about to start.
You are spot on about content providers. I will add that cable companies also own many content providers, which makes it even more complex.
Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'
Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.
Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.
Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.
The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.
All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?
Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.
Offering reliable live channels to a large client base through the internet using lets say youre local internet provider is not technicly possible at this time. Maybe with h.265 codec , advances in live peer to peer distribution model and faster home internet connections this could be achieve in 5 years at the earliest.
Hijacked? Prison? Revenge? Uh, OK. Perspective. It's important.
I don't know about you, but with my FiOS TV there is a whole lot that is not On Demand. Same with Comcast. I use my DVR quite a bit, as I suspect most people do. The point is that an Apple TV needs to replace both my current TV and the cable box.
DVR- That's the problem with blogs isn't it? Yep, I replied to the same criticism later in the thread and explain myself better. Re the Cable - from what I read (I wasn't here then) in the beginning the cable companies intercepted the transmissions from the then three Networks and then piped it to consumers over cables. The original ads were replaced with their own and they didn't pay the Networks for the content. If this is wrong I'm happy to be educated on the subject.
What has never been mentioned is that the switch to digital OTA free'd up a lot of bandwidth. It is possible right now to transmit 100s of digital HDTV channels over the air. Good thing for the cable companies that our Gov. let them buy content providers so that wont ever happen.
Imagine if a channel like Comedy central had a free method of distributing there channel to everyone in the U.S. with a set of $10 rabbit ears. Wouldn't they take that to increase their viewer base and thus their ad revenue. Well technically this can happen right now. So why wont they do it? Gov in bed with big industry, yes, but the real answer is bundling. By keep CC on cable Viacom (parent company) can force the cable providers and consumers to pay for all of their channels. This couldn't be more against the idea of a free market, which is what I thought this country was based on. To be fair they all do this, Viacom is just one example.
Just for giggles here is the list off all Viacoms U.S. channels that, if your are a cable subscriber, you are forced to pay for:
Atom Entertainment, BET Networks, CMT networks, Colors, Comedy Central, GameTrailers, GoCityKids
Logo, MTV Networks, Nickelodeon networks, Palladia, ParentsConnect, Quizilla, Rhapsody, Spike TV, TV Land, VH1
You know what? Screw 'em all. All the cablecos and telcos and Applecos can go jump in the river. Between VPNs and Slingboxes I can watch pretty much ANY live TV for very little cost.
So screw them and their packaged, high priced, low-value content.
There will be a big 'ol Apple Television in your future to replace that Sony/Mitsubishi/Samsung or whatever it is you have right now.
Apple doesn't need to reinvent television content redistribution just like it didn't need to reinvent cell service with the iPhone. You still have the same sucky cell service with your iPhone as you did with whatever other non-apple phone you had before it. What the iPhone did was allow you to do a lot of really kick ass stuff with your phone IN ADDITION TO making phone calls. An Apple Television will do the same. It will allow you to do a lot of kick-ass stuff in addition to watching TV. Since there's been a lot of talk about sports in this thread, here's an example:
Let's say you're watching a pre-season Broncos game and, while still stuck to your couch, you say "Siri, pause the game and tell me how it's looking for Peyton Manning to start the first regular-season game. How's his neck been feeling?" Boom, the game pauses, Siri gets the info, and then tells you the results and says, "would you like to read the most recent relevant article?" and then the web is on your TV and you can read all about it (or have Siri read it to you). Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk.
And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated. This will be way, way more powerful than an iPad playing games on your TV with Airplay. See ya, Playstation. Xbox, you now have a real competitor.
And other apps on an Apple Television....well that's just too long of a reply to even dig into how that will revolutionize TV. Let's just say that if you've seen the movie Minority Report and remember how Tom Cruise walks into his house and "tells his house" to turn on the lights, etc? That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television. "Siri, I'm cold, turn up the heat in here." "Siri, preheat the oven to 450 degrees." "Siri, why was my electricity bill so high this month?" (as Siri checks the amp draw in all your outlets because the public utility company is all too happy to offer an app and some basic hardware to help you monitor it).
Apple Television is not what or how you watch. It's all the other stuff that it's going to allow you to do...without any effort on your part.
Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk.
Spectacular. You want to automate laziness. Steve Jobs said once that a television is what you use to turn your mind off. Making it the center of your house seems like the ultimate in giving up.
And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated.
But you can already do this, and they're not. Building hardware that is outdated yearly into a dumb, expensive panel isn't going to change anything.
That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television.
Sounds terrible (the television bit). I'd rather have a touchscreen wall panel in every room (replacing light switches) where I can physically do that.
For a Siri-based (-supplemented) automation solution to work, you'd need a PA system in every room of your house, plus you'd be replacing every single appliance in your kitchen, mud room, etc…
I want intelligent houses more than anyone I know. It's 20-freaking-12; we were supposed to have this decades ago… but there's no way to do it without buying all new crap.
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Online viewing really sucks!
I've actually been pretty happy with cutting the cord (going on two years now). The Olympics did suck.
I get a good HD over-the-air signal, so I get most of the major sports/programs. I don't really miss ESPN as much as I thought I would. Major golf tournaments almost always stream for free through iPad/iPhone apps. I love Netflix because it has great documentaries. I have a Roku - chose it over Apple TV - because I also can get Hulu Plus and Amazon on Demand. It also has good news networks, etc.
I find that I actually watch more and higher-quality TV now than I did when I paid endless bills to cable.
If I really want to see something that I can't get (like a game on ESPN), then I go to a sports bar. I could even buy a round for everyone around me and still come out ahead of where I was when paying for cable.
I wish Apple would find a way to work directly with the content providers. I'd pay for ala carte programming if the price is right.
Comments
Apple needs to skip the studios AND cable providers and use some of that cash to buy distribution rights for live sports. I feel like sports is what keeps a huge percentage of people plugged into cable, and large media corporations are far too invested in the current cable dynamic to have any incentive to change it.
I'd take a set-top box too, but if apple got me the NFL and NBA, I'd never pay a cable company another dime outside of internet access. Looks like rights cost a few billion a year for the NFL, I'm sure much less for the NBA. They have $100B in cash, and would make a lot back on just subscription fees for each sport PLUS large margins on the set-top box or TV. Plus they could figure out a way to monetize advertising in a less intrusive but profitable way and take a cut of PPV and and other subscription apps like HBO Go etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aross99
Cord cutting is dead in the water for a lot of us, as long as the cable companies can pressure content providers not to release content online.
Replacing the Cable Box with an Apple TV Styled "Tivo" is a good interim step. ANYTHING would be better than the cable boxes. And keeping it out of the TV means you don't have to worry about all of the negatives of an Apple branded Television.
The up front cost isn't an issue for me, but I hate the $15/mo or whatever for the "privilege" of being able to time-shift their content...
My opinion is that we may see a "Apple TV" that's one really big IPS panel. But unlike the iMac may have a remove able AppleTV module connected via a single display-port, and it's this separate module that all the i/o connects to. It makes the entire "remove the TV from the wall, reach-around-blindly" problem go away. Most of us already have one of these boxes, they're usually the surround-sound system, and these boxes all suck. So the better Apple TV module would consist of all the digital i/o, with adapters for analog i/o. I some how doubt Apple would make a surround-sound box, but existing boxes are these huge mostly-empty boxes, that most of the circuitry is dedicated to just switching analog paths (you can hear relays switch.) If you've ever seen the Xbox surround system, there's an example of how it can be made simpler. Tiny "Apple TV" sized box that the i/o connects to, one cable that runs to the sub-woofer where all the power supply and speaker distribution is dealt with.
What I really want to see is everything on demand. Forget "owning" or "licensing" or "renting" , if a TV show has been produced, it will have a "broadcast availability time", eg 9pm Eastern, and at that point anyone around the world can connect to the local edge node and watch it live, or if they miss it, they can start the stream from the beginning. This would utilize in-stream advertisement tokens (that tell the device to load an "advertisement" stream and return to that time point of the stream, which is what most of the "web" streams do anyway. Watchers who want to watch an entire show whenever, simply click a "subscribe" button, and the box will download the stream appropriate for the size of television as soon as it's available for whatever fee applies to that program. So if you record the live stream, you still have to watch the advertisements. If you pay the fee you get to watch/download it advertisement-free. If 30 years later you discover this box in your storage ,you should still be able to play back anything stored on it.
Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'
Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.
Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.
Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.
The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.
All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?
Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.
I know, I didn't phrase that very well did I? I meant my comment in the sense of future products.... on demand is surely the future so an Apple device that's not yet here should look to the future not the past. Kind of like dropping floppies, CDs and DVD players before anyone else. DVR seems to me like something from those fun days of Tivo way back when in the early part of the century. /wink
There are probably many, many tiny little places on Earth with their own obscure TV systems but Apple have to look to support the main, serious systems ... /kidding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
If all this is, is an Apple branded set top box that you'd get with Timr Warner or Comcast or whatever then big yawn. Especially for those of us who have satellite or those who cut the cord and don't have cable.
There is a big difference between a classic Cable box and an Apple Tv cable box which will combine the cable feed, ATSC, dvr, on demand content, apps, internet access, games, Airplay, you're own itunes purchased and library, all in a single integrated interface that may or may not respond to voice command.
I understand some people dont like cable, but its not Apple job to go on a vendeta to purge cable from earth. Even if they did, Apple would come up with on demand content or packages that cost the same amount of money as cable or more... on top of paying huge amounts of cash to youre internet provider over excessive bandwith.
With Google entering the distribution business, Apple needs to make a move with or without cable, but it as to do something to make sure the iOS ecosystem compete in the living room before Android takes over that space. The 99$ AppleTV may be cute, but it will never be mainstream because it cant handle live feed and with the exception of a few tech geeks, people do want reliable live channels.
About the Google distribution initiative, on top of testing ultra fast fibe internet in Kansas city, they also bough motorola, which is a major player in IPTV cable Box. Those box currently run on WindowsCE, how long do you think it will take Google to replace that with Android? Google is maybe a year away from having millions of customers in the TV space through Motorola. There is a real threat for Apple here, Apple absolutly must enter that market, and it need to move fast.
The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV. And that's already a huge market. The cable companies simply don't want to do that.
If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I have to say, ever since I came to the States, 22 years ago, the story of how the cable companies hijacked the network's content and made money rebroadcasting it with their own ads and stayed out of prison has fascinated me. If Apple can work directly with the actual content providers it might be sweet revenge.
Hijacked? Prison? Revenge? Uh, OK. Perspective. It's important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
DVR? You are in the wrong decade. Who on earth wants to record content when it is on demand?
I don't know about you, but with my FiOS TV there is a whole lot that is not On Demand. Same with Comcast. I use my DVR quite a bit, as I suspect most people do. The point is that an Apple TV needs to replace both my current TV and the cable box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinneal
As a Brit I really don't understand the US TV system, in the UK we just have 5 free to air channels plus freeview. If apple does do TV they have to be able to offer it worldwide s well
same in the USA but most people pay over $100 for cable TV/internet. the over the air broadcasts are so so quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
The problem here is that, Apple is not offering anything new here to the cable companies. If the cable companies want, they can already offer contents to let's say e.g. a Samsung Smart TV.
If you say well Apple should just go directly to content providers, many many companies have tried that and never gone anywhere because all the content providers already have contracts with the cable companies that bar them from selling the content in other means. Just not possible legally to do so.
They offer an ecosystem. People love ecosystems that integrates everything, Android will soon be in the living room through Motorola. Samsung smart Tv's is like the 99$ Apple Tv, it 's cute. The real game is going to be an ecosystem war in the TV distribution space and its about to start.
You are spot on about content providers. I will add that cable companies also own many content providers, which makes it even more complex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee
Look at it another way..
Imagine apple going to the major cable systems and telling them 'By offering your cable package under iOS you'd be able to utilize 'our' data centers as distribution points and in return you'll have no exclusive rights to sell your cable packages to the entire US market.'
Now think on that for a minute.... Cablevision being able to sell to markets well outside the telephone polls they have wire hung from.
Dish or directtv being able to sell to customers without the costly upfront hardware and installation costs.
Time Warner & Comcast have similar benefits... Tho given their larger customer base the benefits aren't as great.
The big obstacles would be providing locals as needed as per the FCC ... However, dish and directtv have that stuff all worked out and Apple could offer them a sweeter deal in return for the expertise they bring to the table.
All apple needs is for one or two to get on board and the rest would be all but forced to join in or say goodbye to their customer base. Imagine what happens once ALL the cable providers are in direct competition with each other?
Finally, this will do more to light a fire under content owners to peruse the idea of selling direct to the consumer.
Offering reliable live channels to a large client base through the internet using lets say youre local internet provider is not technicly possible at this time. Maybe with h.265 codec , advances in live peer to peer distribution model and faster home internet connections this could be achieve in 5 years at the earliest.
DVR- That's the problem with blogs isn't it? Yep, I replied to the same criticism later in the thread and explain myself better. Re the Cable - from what I read (I wasn't here then) in the beginning the cable companies intercepted the transmissions from the then three Networks and then piped it to consumers over cables. The original ads were replaced with their own and they didn't pay the Networks for the content. If this is wrong I'm happy to be educated on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
the over the air broadcasts are so so quality
This isn't true anymore. Since the switch to digital, OTA is the best picture quality available. There is little to no compression.
What has never been mentioned is that the switch to digital OTA free'd up a lot of bandwidth. It is possible right now to transmit 100s of digital HDTV channels over the air. Good thing for the cable companies that our Gov. let them buy content providers so that wont ever happen.
Imagine if a channel like Comedy central had a free method of distributing there channel to everyone in the U.S. with a set of $10 rabbit ears. Wouldn't they take that to increase their viewer base and thus their ad revenue. Well technically this can happen right now. So why wont they do it? Gov in bed with big industry, yes, but the real answer is bundling. By keep CC on cable Viacom (parent company) can force the cable providers and consumers to pay for all of their channels. This couldn't be more against the idea of a free market, which is what I thought this country was based on. To be fair they all do this, Viacom is just one example.
Just for giggles here is the list off all Viacoms U.S. channels that, if your are a cable subscriber, you are forced to pay for:
Atom Entertainment, BET Networks, CMT networks, Colors, Comedy Central, GameTrailers, GoCityKids
Logo, MTV Networks, Nickelodeon networks, Palladia, ParentsConnect, Quizilla, Rhapsody, Spike TV, TV Land, VH1
Ridiculous
You know what? Screw 'em all. All the cablecos and telcos and Applecos can go jump in the river. Between VPNs and Slingboxes I can watch pretty much ANY live TV for very little cost.
So screw them and their packaged, high priced, low-value content.
Apple makes money by selling hardware.
Apple makes money by selling hardware.
Apple makes money by selling hardware.
Apple makes money by selling hardware.
There will be a big 'ol Apple Television in your future to replace that Sony/Mitsubishi/Samsung or whatever it is you have right now.
Apple doesn't need to reinvent television content redistribution just like it didn't need to reinvent cell service with the iPhone. You still have the same sucky cell service with your iPhone as you did with whatever other non-apple phone you had before it. What the iPhone did was allow you to do a lot of really kick ass stuff with your phone IN ADDITION TO making phone calls. An Apple Television will do the same. It will allow you to do a lot of kick-ass stuff in addition to watching TV. Since there's been a lot of talk about sports in this thread, here's an example:
Let's say you're watching a pre-season Broncos game and, while still stuck to your couch, you say "Siri, pause the game and tell me how it's looking for Peyton Manning to start the first regular-season game. How's his neck been feeling?" Boom, the game pauses, Siri gets the info, and then tells you the results and says, "would you like to read the most recent relevant article?" and then the web is on your TV and you can read all about it (or have Siri read it to you). Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk.
And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated. This will be way, way more powerful than an iPad playing games on your TV with Airplay. See ya, Playstation. Xbox, you now have a real competitor.
And other apps on an Apple Television....well that's just too long of a reply to even dig into how that will revolutionize TV. Let's just say that if you've seen the movie Minority Report and remember how Tom Cruise walks into his house and "tells his house" to turn on the lights, etc? That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television. "Siri, I'm cold, turn up the heat in here." "Siri, preheat the oven to 450 degrees." "Siri, why was my electricity bill so high this month?" (as Siri checks the amp draw in all your outlets because the public utility company is all too happy to offer an app and some basic hardware to help you monitor it).
Apple Television is not what or how you watch. It's all the other stuff that it's going to allow you to do...without any effort on your part.
Originally Posted by grannysmith007
Or, you're still stuck to the couch watching that game and you say "Siri, call the closest Domino's Pizza for me" and then your TV talks to your iPhone via wifi or bluetooth and automatically dials it for you and you're still sitting on the couch having done nothing but talk.
Spectacular. You want to automate laziness. Steve Jobs said once that a television is what you use to turn your mind off. Making it the center of your house seems like the ultimate in giving up.
And because you have an Apple Television in your house that does apps with iOS, the video game console market just got eradicated.
But you can already do this, and they're not. Building hardware that is outdated yearly into a dumb, expensive panel isn't going to change anything.
That's what Siri will be doing for you in the not-too-distant future when she's the hub of your home as your television.
Sounds terrible (the television bit). I'd rather have a touchscreen wall panel in every room (replacing light switches) where I can physically do that.
For a Siri-based (-supplemented) automation solution to work, you'd need a PA system in every room of your house, plus you'd be replacing every single appliance in your kitchen, mud room, etc…
I want intelligent houses more than anyone I know. It's 20-freaking-12; we were supposed to have this decades ago… but there's no way to do it without buying all new crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126
I have to agree...I'm a cord cutter and it has been extremely frustrating.... one minute I can watch the republican debates via CNN online and then it's cut off mid point.
NBC says it is streaming the Olympics online, only to find out you have to have a cable subscription to watch.
Golf? Forget about it.
PBS News Hour? A day late.
Video Podcasts? Suck
YouTube? Google. So it automatically blows, enough said.
Formula One? Forget it.
Tennis...same.
Netflix streaming? Old "B" movies, documentaries and Foreign Films with no car chases!
Online viewing really sucks!
I've actually been pretty happy with cutting the cord (going on two years now). The Olympics did suck.
I get a good HD over-the-air signal, so I get most of the major sports/programs. I don't really miss ESPN as much as I thought I would. Major golf tournaments almost always stream for free through iPad/iPhone apps. I love Netflix because it has great documentaries. I have a Roku - chose it over Apple TV - because I also can get Hulu Plus and Amazon on Demand. It also has good news networks, etc.
I find that I actually watch more and higher-quality TV now than I did when I paid endless bills to cable.
If I really want to see something that I can't get (like a game on ESPN), then I go to a sports bar. I could even buy a round for everyone around me and still come out ahead of where I was when paying for cable.
I wish Apple would find a way to work directly with the content providers. I'd pay for ala carte programming if the price is right.
This is the first Apple TV rumor I've heard in a couple of years that managed to pass the bullshit test.