And over the internets getting better... Google is launching 1GB/S in Kansas, so in about 10 years everything will be internet based... Phones are already running VOIP, Facetime as well, Why would anyone care about the Cable company.. Let them become the one thing they should be... The internet company. I've never bothered with a home phone or a tv subscription plan anyways.. And I don't watch my content from their cable lines... I stream it from the internet. Apple should do the same.
That's how they usually do it. "No we're not making a tablet." Then 6 months later, there it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731
Perhaps the Justice Department should look into this rather than ebook price fixing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.
Way too Big Headache!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
When h265 comes out and they can hit closer to 'real BluRay' without a huge file size markup, that will be another step in the right direction.
H265 Smaller File Sizes will give more power to iPads, iPhones, Macs etc!!! Time Warner Cable and other ISPs and Cell Carriers won't be able to Charge the Public for Extra Data, because H265 Video Files will be smaller!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
The solution to this is easy: "a la carte" bundles. We already have this is Quebec, Canada. How it works is you still bundle channels, but instead of theme bundles, you pick up the channels you want. So the bundle are per number of channels. For example, 10$ for 10 channels, 15$ for 20 channels, ...
It may not be perfect, but this at least has a chance of making the content providers bend.
Another thing they are doing is combine channels and count them as a single choice. For example, inside a 10 channels bundle, you could have a choice that combines 2 or 3 channels and count as only 1 channel choice. To see what it looks like go to the following link and select QC province.
I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!
What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.
I agree. I have DirecTV with a DVR and find the interface extremely easy to use. Exactly what problem would Apple be looking to fix? Even finding shows for VOD (video on demand) is very straightforward. Just type in a few letters and the show appears and then you can watch a VOD episode. It found Breaking Bad for example just after typing "BRE".
I don't see how a new Apple TV could ever compete with cable or satellite when in comes to live TV broadcasts like sports or news for example. How would it deliver live content without partnering with the dumb pipe companies like cable internet. A new Apple TV that simply adds a fuller iOS experience makes a lot more sense. Then you could control your 65" iPad like TV with a an iPhone, iPod, or iPad as your remote and possibly even another method like the Xbox Kinect or something completely new.
mp3 players played music just fine before the iPod came along. Phones dialed phone numbers just fine before the iPhone came along.
The current state of set top boxes is beyond pathetic. Seriously. They're stuck with interfaces that haven't really evolved in nearly 20 years.
To name just one improvement, airplay. The browsing/surfing experience is a whole new paradigm. The existing paradigm doesn't need mere improvement, it needs replacement. Barbaric channel surfing and on-demand lists of videos is far from optimal.
But I agree that content licensing is the hold-up. The current hardware is more than capable. It's just that the people who hold the content rights won't license content to anyone else because they're also the distributors to end customers. To license it to apple mean a quicker end to their vertical domination of content creation to end user eyeballs.
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
Why don't they make Content Makers Stream their channels to the Apple TV over the internet? Avoiding the Cable Companies. Microsoft did it for their Xbox. It'll feel like an interactive experience... Like in an example here... When a number is shown to vote for a contestant in American Idol, the user would not have to dial a number, rather just select it on the screen, and the vote would be sent to Fox for Results. And Users should be able to set to Save TV shows for later watch all over their iDevices over Wifi with iTunes Sharing and an Apple TV App that has a guide, and volume/ channel controls, as well as Siri on it to tell it to "change to kids shows" or "Show me the weather forecast" and " "Connect with Augustine" (facetime) or " Play My Music" You could use the App to also control a Note reminder system when a user turns on the tv, if another person in the same wifi network leaves a reminder for another person, the reminder is shown on the tv UI for them to see, as well as their iDevices Reminders App, and when they clear it it will dissappear from the Built in Calendar.
The Cable companies are NOT the problem with gaining content distribution rights, It's the media giants that don't want to give Apple permission.
I agree. I could search for a movie I want to watch or browse the current popular lists and the movie page pops up. The Apple service searches your local cable company VOD, Apple movies, Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, other services and broadcast television and lists all the services I can watch it from. If it finds the movie is playing on broadcast TV next week, I can set it to automatically record it to iCloud where I can watch it on any iOS device next week. I've cracked it!
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's basically what Google tried to do, and it was a flop. I'm not saying this is a bad solution, quite the contrary, it felt like a natural progression of the home theater experience. But Google tried to do it without talking to the Big Media Giants and they shut Google out.
It's not labor and talent acquisition, materials sourcing, manufacturing, scaling, or any of that other stuff. Apple is an amazing ability to scale up the company and its product shipments concurrently. Right now, however, content acquisition and bandwidth value for Apple customers are two of the biggest bottlenecks to Apple's continued growth. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO), carrier bandwidth costs about 3.4 times as much as MVNO bandwidth. Bandwidth affordability, especially, should be a major focus of Apple's long-term strategy. Once they capture more content in more markets at bandwidth costs their customers can afford, the more people will buy iDevices (and Macs).
Unfortunately, Apple, on the one side is being screwed by the cable companies and phone carriers (FaceTime over cellular only with more ridiculous bandwidth costs, anyone)?. They're also getting taken by cable guys again, as they tend to own content and its delivery system. It's almost like big banks. Could be an anti-competitive issue in the making. Perhaps they should spend a teensy bit more in Washington on lobbying.
Here's how this could play out:
1. Apple gets the best monetary settlement as possible from Samesung and move on while finding some way to continue to vigorously defend their patents and other innovations. Next,
2. Apple shifts its legal focus to determine whether cable and cell companies that hold the keys to content and bandwidth are doing so in an anti-competitive way. I happen to think they are (based on no legal training at all).
3. They convince cable networks whose contracts with cable providers are expiring to renegotiate in order to be able and convinced to take an Apple TV (set top box) deal. Slowly build out out programming with network and tv show apps while winning more cord cutters.
4. If #2 and #3 yield no real results, Apple needs to buy their own spectrum on the open market. They inevitably will become encumbered in law suits and regulatory opposition relevant to vertical monopolies, copyright, patents, etc., litigation. They then successfully argue that the cable and cell guys shut Apple out of certain content delivery markets to benefit their business models. Therefore, Apple deserves the right to buy spectrum and/or purchase content on somewhat equivalent terms as that content is sold elsewhere.
5. When they do not acquire outright, Apple sometimes buys significant portions of companies that they do not wish to own solely. Similarly, they should acquire an MVNO, not become one, or seek the services of an MVNE. That could be a worthwhile use for some of Apple's bilions. It's outside their core competencies, but I'm sure they've given it a lot of thought even if they dismissed it. I don't see the downsides of either of those options.
Because Apple has bet and won on an increasingly mobile strategy, Apple device owners need affordable mobile bandwidth, including ubiquitous Wifi. I think the analyst who predicted that content guys will need to eventually partner with Apple is right. But Apple needs more control over bandwidth.
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
I think Apple will side with IPTV Verizon and AT&T to give them a edge (the iOS set top box) to win customers from Cable to DSL. Until we all have 1 g/s + fibe connection straight into homes, it wont be possible to broadcast live TV without using the IPTV distribution architecture, which is implemented inside the distributor network. I dont think Apple can wait another 10 years, they need to make a moved before that or lose that market to windows and Android. Its only a matter time before Google puts android on the millions of already installed Motorola set top boxes.
Eddy Cue, Apple's chief of Internet Software and Services, has suggested to one analyst that his company would be unlikely to build a full-fledged television set unless it could secure necessary deals for content.
It doesn't sound like a TV was even the subject of the conversation. It was a 'message about the prospects of Apple making a "more significant move into TV distribution"'. TV distribution and an actual TV are not the same thing. It turns out they are denying it all now anyway:
9to5:
Pacific Crest analyst Andy Hargreaves reached out to us with some clarification on his note to clients earlier today noting the “commentary in our note was our interpretation and our thoughts based on the meetings we had”:
Nobody at Apple said anything to us about future products. The commentary in our note was our interpretation and our thoughts based on the meetings we had. It’s ok if you say “Analyst does not expect a TV any time soon”, but its incorrect to attribute the commentary to Apple management, particularly in the title.
I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!
That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries. However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.
I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly. There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable). Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA. You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck. My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo. However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD. So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.
I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though. It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together. Same goes for Cell service.
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
Cable companies are all broke right now. They already lease off part of the physical cable lines to people like AT&T for UVerse and other ISP's. So I don't see Cable Companies as an obstacle.
Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.
The same reason it doesn't make sense to buy a network or movie company.
At that point, they become a competitor to the others and all other content dries up.
That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries. However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.
I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly. There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable). Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA. You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck. My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo. However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD. So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.
I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though. It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together. Same goes for Cell service.
There is essentially no cable competition.
Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?
And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.
I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!
I agree, but it's not likely to happen. There's a major problem:
Cable companies are used to getting $100 (or whatever) from each household. In my family, we only watch about 5 channels regularly and 3 or 4 less frequently. They'd have to charge us $12 per channel per month in order to break even - and at that price, many people would refuse, so revenues would likely drop.
That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries. However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.
Your analogy doesn't apply. If I go to McDonald's and don't want a Value Meal, I can alway buy a Big Mac by itself. Try calling the cable company and telling them you don't want a bundle but only want to buy Discovery and ESPN.
I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly. There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable). Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA. You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck. My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo. However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD. So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.
I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though. It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together. Same goes for Cell service.
Actually, in many areas, it is a monopoly or close to it. Keep in mind that 'monopoly' in legal terms doesn't mean that there are no other options. Rather, it means that one company has a high enough market share to control the market. In my city, Cox has about 95% of households - and that's enough to control the market. Until a few months ago, I couldn't even get Dish for some reason and I still can't get any cable alternatives (Comcast and Uverse aren't available in my area).
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
I agree, but it's not likely to happen. There's a major problem:
Cable companies are used to getting $100 (or whatever) from each household. In my family, we only watch about 5 channels regularly and 3 or 4 less frequently. They'd have to charge us $12 per channel per month in order to break even - and at that price, many people would refuse, so revenues would likely drop.
Your analogy doesn't apply. If I go to McDonald's and don't want a Value Meal, I can alway buy a Big Mac by itself. Try calling the cable company and telling them you don't want a bundle but only want to buy Discovery and ESPN.
Actually, in many areas, it is a monopoly or close to it. Keep in mind that 'monopoly' in legal terms doesn't mean that there are no other options. Rather, it means that one company has a high enough market share to control the market. In my city, Cox has about 95% of households - and that's enough to control the market. Until a few months ago, I couldn't even get Dish for some reason and I still can't get any cable alternatives (Comcast and Uverse aren't available in my area).
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
There is essentially no cable competition.
Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?
And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.
Its a monopoly if I've ever seen one.
My point was less on technology and more on content distribution, which I still hold has no monopoly. Cable isn't the only way to get Paid digital TV. You don't even have to pay if you just want Basic channels. Dish, Direct, AT&T and traditional Cable all provide virtually the same content, just using different technology to do so. Method of distribution (meaning they all only offer packages) might need a look at by the DOJ though, but you still don't have to buy any one plan, there are many to choose from. Which is why my original argument was that there is no monopoly because there is at least a choice to opt-out of any or all.
Yes, the the USA there is no A-la-Carte TV so that analogy doesn't really apply.
What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.
I also have DirecTV. And while I would agree that the basic interface is relatively easy to use, I'd also say that it's not overly effective in finding what I might want to watch... unless I already know what I want to watch and what channel and time it comes on. I have TiVo on my DirecTV box and that helps a great deal. But its ability to "learn" is quite limited. The Suggestions and Wishlist features are very handy. But comparing them to what *could* be done says that the set-top box makers are still in early days. Most of what's out there are just "dumb boxes" that require the user to do most of the work. Apple could/should be able to improve on this. Although I'm not convinced that Apple needs to produce a TV set to do it, as I don't see why the current AppleTV couldn't accomplish roughly the same things. But yes, I can see lots of room for improvement in this sector.
My point was less on technology and more on content distribution, which I still hold has no monopoly. Cable isn't the only way to get Paid digital TV. You don't even have to pay if you just want Basic channels. Dish, Direct, AT&T and traditional Cable all provide virtually the same content, just using different technology to do so.
You're not paying attention.
In my city, I don't have all of those options. Cox is the only land-based option and Dish has only recently become available. Cox has 95% of the market with Dish having the rest. I'd be happy to be able to talk to Comcast or Uverse or anyone else, but it's not an option.
Cox clearly meets the legal definition of a monopoly.
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
You can't blame it all on monopoly. Content providers have been raising prices too. ESPN has been paying a lot for NFL and college football. Networks have started to charge to carry the broadcast channel that use to be free. There is a lot of blame to go around to the price increases.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Suppress rumours. Misdirect and mislead.
Then bring it out during a Keynote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
That's how they usually do it. "No we're not making a tablet." Then 6 months later, there it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyb0731
Perhaps the Justice Department should look into this rather than ebook price fixing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.
Way too Big Headache!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
When h265 comes out and they can hit closer to 'real BluRay' without a huge file size markup, that will be another step in the right direction.
H265 Smaller File Sizes will give more power to iPads, iPhones, Macs etc!!! Time Warner Cable and other ISPs and Cell Carriers won't be able to Charge the Public for Extra Data, because H265 Video Files will be smaller!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
The solution to this is easy: "a la carte" bundles. We already have this is Quebec, Canada. How it works is you still bundle channels, but instead of theme bundles, you pick up the channels you want. So the bundle are per number of channels. For example, 10$ for 10 channels, 15$ for 20 channels, ...
It may not be perfect, but this at least has a chance of making the content providers bend.
Another thing they are doing is combine channels and count them as a single choice. For example, inside a 10 channels bundle, you could have a choice that combines 2 or 3 channels and count as only 1 channel choice. To see what it looks like go to the following link and select QC province.
http://fibetv.bell.ca/en/programming/
I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.
I agree. I have DirecTV with a DVR and find the interface extremely easy to use. Exactly what problem would Apple be looking to fix? Even finding shows for VOD (video on demand) is very straightforward. Just type in a few letters and the show appears and then you can watch a VOD episode. It found Breaking Bad for example just after typing "BRE".
I don't see how a new Apple TV could ever compete with cable or satellite when in comes to live TV broadcasts like sports or news for example. How would it deliver live content without partnering with the dumb pipe companies like cable internet. A new Apple TV that simply adds a fuller iOS experience makes a lot more sense. Then you could control your 65" iPad like TV with a an iPhone, iPod, or iPad as your remote and possibly even another method like the Xbox Kinect or something completely new.
mp3 players played music just fine before the iPod came along. Phones dialed phone numbers just fine before the iPhone came along.
The current state of set top boxes is beyond pathetic. Seriously. They're stuck with interfaces that haven't really evolved in nearly 20 years.
To name just one improvement, airplay. The browsing/surfing experience is a whole new paradigm. The existing paradigm doesn't need mere improvement, it needs replacement. Barbaric channel surfing and on-demand lists of videos is far from optimal.
But I agree that content licensing is the hold-up. The current hardware is more than capable. It's just that the people who hold the content rights won't license content to anyone else because they're also the distributors to end customers. To license it to apple mean a quicker end to their vertical domination of content creation to end user eyeballs.
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strat09
Why don't they make Content Makers Stream their channels to the Apple TV over the internet? Avoiding the Cable Companies. Microsoft did it for their Xbox. It'll feel like an interactive experience... Like in an example here... When a number is shown to vote for a contestant in American Idol, the user would not have to dial a number, rather just select it on the screen, and the vote would be sent to Fox for Results. And Users should be able to set to Save TV shows for later watch all over their iDevices over Wifi with iTunes Sharing and an Apple TV App that has a guide, and volume/ channel controls, as well as Siri on it to tell it to "change to kids shows" or "Show me the weather forecast" and " "Connect with Augustine" (facetime) or " Play My Music" You could use the App to also control a Note reminder system when a user turns on the tv, if another person in the same wifi network leaves a reminder for another person, the reminder is shown on the tv UI for them to see, as well as their iDevices Reminders App, and when they clear it it will dissappear from the Built in Calendar.
The Cable companies are NOT the problem with gaining content distribution rights, It's the media giants that don't want to give Apple permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
I agree. I could search for a movie I want to watch or browse the current popular lists and the movie page pops up. The Apple service searches your local cable company VOD, Apple movies, Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, other services and broadcast television and lists all the services I can watch it from. If it finds the movie is playing on broadcast TV next week, I can set it to automatically record it to iCloud where I can watch it on any iOS device next week. I've cracked it!
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's basically what Google tried to do, and it was a flop. I'm not saying this is a bad solution, quite the contrary, it felt like a natural progression of the home theater experience. But Google tried to do it without talking to the Big Media Giants and they shut Google out.
It's not labor and talent acquisition, materials sourcing, manufacturing, scaling, or any of that other stuff. Apple is an amazing ability to scale up the company and its product shipments concurrently. Right now, however, content acquisition and bandwidth value for Apple customers are two of the biggest bottlenecks to Apple's continued growth. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MVNO), carrier bandwidth costs about 3.4 times as much as MVNO bandwidth. Bandwidth affordability, especially, should be a major focus of Apple's long-term strategy. Once they capture more content in more markets at bandwidth costs their customers can afford, the more people will buy iDevices (and Macs).
Unfortunately, Apple, on the one side is being screwed by the cable companies and phone carriers (FaceTime over cellular only with more ridiculous bandwidth costs, anyone)?. They're also getting taken by cable guys again, as they tend to own content and its delivery system. It's almost like big banks. Could be an anti-competitive issue in the making. Perhaps they should spend a teensy bit more in Washington on lobbying.
Here's how this could play out:
1. Apple gets the best monetary settlement as possible from Samesung and move on while finding some way to continue to vigorously defend their patents and other innovations. Next,
2. Apple shifts its legal focus to determine whether cable and cell companies that hold the keys to content and bandwidth are doing so in an anti-competitive way. I happen to think they are (based on no legal training at all).
3. They convince cable networks whose contracts with cable providers are expiring to renegotiate in order to be able and convinced to take an Apple TV (set top box) deal. Slowly build out out programming with network and tv show apps while winning more cord cutters.
4. If #2 and #3 yield no real results, Apple needs to buy their own spectrum on the open market. They inevitably will become encumbered in law suits and regulatory opposition relevant to vertical monopolies, copyright, patents, etc., litigation. They then successfully argue that the cable and cell guys shut Apple out of certain content delivery markets to benefit their business models. Therefore, Apple deserves the right to buy spectrum and/or purchase content on somewhat equivalent terms as that content is sold elsewhere.
5. When they do not acquire outright, Apple sometimes buys significant portions of companies that they do not wish to own solely. Similarly, they should acquire an MVNO, not become one, or seek the services of an MVNE. That could be a worthwhile use for some of Apple's bilions. It's outside their core competencies, but I'm sure they've given it a lot of thought even if they dismissed it. I don't see the downsides of either of those options.
Because Apple has bet and won on an increasingly mobile strategy, Apple device owners need affordable mobile bandwidth, including ubiquitous Wifi. I think the analyst who predicted that content guys will need to eventually partner with Apple is right. But Apple needs more control over bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria
Proofread before submitting stories, AI. For crying out loud.
Or at least run spell check.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
I think Apple will side with IPTV Verizon and AT&T to give them a edge (the iOS set top box) to win customers from Cable to DSL. Until we all have 1 g/s + fibe connection straight into homes, it wont be possible to broadcast live TV without using the IPTV distribution architecture, which is implemented inside the distributor network. I dont think Apple can wait another 10 years, they need to make a moved before that or lose that market to windows and Android. Its only a matter time before Google puts android on the millions of already installed Motorola set top boxes.
It doesn't sound like a TV was even the subject of the conversation. It was a 'message about the prospects of Apple making a "more significant move into TV distribution"'. TV distribution and an actual TV are not the same thing. It turns out they are denying it all now anyway:
9to5:
Pacific Crest analyst Andy Hargreaves reached out to us with some clarification on his note to clients earlier today noting the “commentary in our note was our interpretation and our thoughts based on the meetings we had”:
Nobody at Apple said anything to us about future products. The commentary in our note was our interpretation and our thoughts based on the meetings we had. It’s ok if you say “Analyst does not expect a TV any time soon”, but its incorrect to attribute the commentary to Apple management, particularly in the title.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macologist
I'd love to see Consumers creating their own Bundles, instead being forces to buy a lot of Content that they are no interested in! It's like as if one wants to buy Ice Cream and the store forces one to buy soda and or pencils and crazy glue, so that customers could seal their mouths shut and not complain:)! It's a Rip Off!!! Why is Department Of Justice doing nothing about all that? It's a Collusion!!!!
That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries. However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.
I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly. There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable). Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA. You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck. My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo. However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD. So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.
I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though. It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together. Same goes for Cell service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
That's how they usually do it. "No we're not making a tablet." Then 6 months later, there it is.
But that is just it. Windows pushed for tablets for 10 years.... they all sucked...
Apple did not make a "tablet"............. they made an iPad.... and it did not suck.
Just a thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I would really like to see Apple put in fiber optics like FiOS and also WiFi hotspots. In order to do HD TV content over IP you really need fiber. Right now the obstacle is the cable companies. If they start losing TV revenue to Apple they will jack up the Internet price.
Cable companies are all broke right now. They already lease off part of the physical cable lines to people like AT&T for UVerse and other ISP's. So I don't see Cable Companies as an obstacle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline
Why couldn't Apple just do an endgame run around the cable providers and start their own network? They have more cash than the top five media companies combined. It seems like Amazon and Netflix are doing this already and if Apple could create just a few channels of live coverage, I think the cable companies are going to start to sweat that their little kingdoms would crumble.
The same reason it doesn't make sense to buy a network or movie company.
At that point, they become a competitor to the others and all other content dries up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
That analogy is really hard to grasp...it's more like the value meal vs. buying individually, the meal is cheaper, but maybe you don't want a coke, you want a shake, so they charge you regular price for the burger and fries. However most fast-food places now just up-charge you for modified orders.
I think the DOJ isn't investigating this because there's no monopoly. There are other options, other cable providers (i.e. Dish, DirectTV, UVerse, Local Cable). Now granted they all offer the same types of "rip-off" packages, but that seems to be the marketing plan for just about any type of service industry in the USA. You get the "Choice" of one of many "packages" but they all suck. My cable provider offers HD channels for an extra $10/mo. However, you have to get the DVR to decode these channels because the standard digital box is not HD. So that's another $12/mo for the DVR.
I can see how one might want the DOJ to investigate for price-fixing though. It seems like most services like this are all strangely competitive with price, and they all tend to go up/down together. Same goes for Cell service.
There is essentially no cable competition.
Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?
And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.
Its a monopoly if I've ever seen one.
I agree, but it's not likely to happen. There's a major problem:
Cable companies are used to getting $100 (or whatever) from each household. In my family, we only watch about 5 channels regularly and 3 or 4 less frequently. They'd have to charge us $12 per channel per month in order to break even - and at that price, many people would refuse, so revenues would likely drop.
Your analogy doesn't apply. If I go to McDonald's and don't want a Value Meal, I can alway buy a Big Mac by itself. Try calling the cable company and telling them you don't want a bundle but only want to buy Discovery and ESPN.
Actually, in many areas, it is a monopoly or close to it. Keep in mind that 'monopoly' in legal terms doesn't mean that there are no other options. Rather, it means that one company has a high enough market share to control the market. In my city, Cox has about 95% of households - and that's enough to control the market. Until a few months ago, I couldn't even get Dish for some reason and I still can't get any cable alternatives (Comcast and Uverse aren't available in my area).
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I agree, but it's not likely to happen. There's a major problem:
Cable companies are used to getting $100 (or whatever) from each household. In my family, we only watch about 5 channels regularly and 3 or 4 less frequently. They'd have to charge us $12 per channel per month in order to break even - and at that price, many people would refuse, so revenues would likely drop.
Your analogy doesn't apply. If I go to McDonald's and don't want a Value Meal, I can alway buy a Big Mac by itself. Try calling the cable company and telling them you don't want a bundle but only want to buy Discovery and ESPN.
Actually, in many areas, it is a monopoly or close to it. Keep in mind that 'monopoly' in legal terms doesn't mean that there are no other options. Rather, it means that one company has a high enough market share to control the market. In my city, Cox has about 95% of households - and that's enough to control the market. Until a few months ago, I couldn't even get Dish for some reason and I still can't get any cable alternatives (Comcast and Uverse aren't available in my area).
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
There is essentially no cable competition.
Satellite is useless for data, and if you get data-only from cable you pay a penalty for not using their service. How is being able to charge you for something you don't use NOT a clear sign of monopoly?
And there are no more than a handfull of places where you have a choice of cable providers.
Its a monopoly if I've ever seen one.
My point was less on technology and more on content distribution, which I still hold has no monopoly. Cable isn't the only way to get Paid digital TV. You don't even have to pay if you just want Basic channels. Dish, Direct, AT&T and traditional Cable all provide virtually the same content, just using different technology to do so. Method of distribution (meaning they all only offer packages) might need a look at by the DOJ though, but you still don't have to buy any one plan, there are many to choose from. Which is why my original argument was that there is no monopoly because there is at least a choice to opt-out of any or all.
Yes, the the USA there is no A-la-Carte TV so that analogy doesn't really apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
What exactly is the issue with the user interface again? I have DirecTV and I have no issues with my user interface. It's not confusing and the guide works just fine for me. I can easily search for programs or shows that are on DVR. This whole notion of Apple cracking the user interface (as if it's that bad to begin with) seems like hyperbole to me. What would Apple do that is so revolutionary? Siri? I'm sorry but I don't want or need to talk to my TV.
I also have DirecTV. And while I would agree that the basic interface is relatively easy to use, I'd also say that it's not overly effective in finding what I might want to watch... unless I already know what I want to watch and what channel and time it comes on. I have TiVo on my DirecTV box and that helps a great deal. But its ability to "learn" is quite limited. The Suggestions and Wishlist features are very handy. But comparing them to what *could* be done says that the set-top box makers are still in early days. Most of what's out there are just "dumb boxes" that require the user to do most of the work. Apple could/should be able to improve on this. Although I'm not convinced that Apple needs to produce a TV set to do it, as I don't see why the current AppleTV couldn't accomplish roughly the same things. But yes, I can see lots of room for improvement in this sector.
You're not paying attention.
In my city, I don't have all of those options. Cox is the only land-based option and Dish has only recently become available. Cox has 95% of the market with Dish having the rest. I'd be happy to be able to talk to Comcast or Uverse or anyone else, but it's not an option.
Cox clearly meets the legal definition of a monopoly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's why my cable charge has been increasing by an average of about 20% per year for the past 3 years.
You can't blame it all on monopoly. Content providers have been raising prices too. ESPN has been paying a lot for NFL and college football. Networks have started to charge to carry the broadcast channel that use to be free. There is a lot of blame to go around to the price increases.