"The risk of not partnering with Apple is that as young people may 'cut the cord' given the cost of cable that a screen connected to an Apple TV with AirPlay can provide a substantial array of content."
And anyone can cut the (cable and virtual satellite) cord by watching TV on their computer.
The cable industry is already feeling pressure from users streaming video over the internet. It's just a matter of time before the hideously expensive cable / satellite "channel bundle" model crumbles. It could take years, but eventually the TV and movie industries will suffer the same fate that the music industry suffered. Rampant piracy. They'll fight it, they'll try to keep Apple out of the business, but they'll eventually fail.
Legacy cable / satellite networks will lose revenue from piracy. Inevitable. And the TV and movie studios will also lose revenue from piracy. So what will they do? They'll look to Apple for salvation like the recording studios did. Better to give Apple a 30% cut than to lose the full 100%. Better to let Apple handle the user experience, because "easy" beats "free."
So what will Apple do? They won't buy the Comcasts and DirecTVs of the world. They'll avoid all that crumbling 20th century technology. They'll make the cell carriers an offer they can't refuse. By the time the TV and movie industries get desperate (maybe 5 to 10 years from now) "real 4G" cell networks may be on the horizon. The "real 4G" that is the next-generation beyond LTE, which, by the way, is simply the fastest and final version of 3G. (The full name of LTE being "3rd Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution.") "Real 4G" requirements include 1Gbit/sec to stationary and slow-moving (e.g. walking) devices and 100Mbit/sec to fast-moving (car / train) devices. Plenty fast enough to deliver video content to any of your iOS devices.
The problem with "real 4G," for the cell carriers, is that it will eliminate the need for separate voice and data plans. The current 3G-based LTE technology still requires separate voice and data connections. But the ITU 4G requirements call for merging all voice and data traffic into a single internet packet stream. This is one reason why the cell carriers jumped the gun and misleadingly called LTE "4G." So when "real 4G" arrives, there won't be anything to announce except faster speeds. They'll hide the fact that there is new technology which eliminates their justification for separate voice and data plans. It will be interesting to see if they still try to charge separately for voice and data.
So, "real 4G" will be another huge step toward dumb-pipe-hood for the cell carriers. They'll essentially be "wireless ISPs." Everything will be internet packets. They'll need something to differentiate themselves. And Apple could give it to them. Apple could offer the cell carriers the chance to be the new TV networks. The cell carriers could replace over-the-air broadcast to rabbit ear antennas, copper and optical cable, and satellite downlink. Say goodbye to the cable guy and the "professional satellite dish installers" forever.
Apple could leapfrog all that copper wire / optical fiber / satellite downlink technology and go wireless for all devices. Including that Apple television in your living room.
If one takes what Cue said at face value, it suggests little or noting about Apple ever building a TV set. The reference was to "television user interface," which sounds more like set-top box, which already has a jack in every TV.
Apple, after all, does not live and breathe to disrupt. It's not like the iPod was an end-run around the music industry. Or, the iPhone was an end-run around carriers.
Hence, logically anything Apple builds in the living room will not be an end-run around cable + satellite or content makers,especially since both industries are increasingly commingled (e.g., Comcast owns NBC, Disney owned ESPN gets $4.69 per subscriber from the cable cos).
The only scenario that makes sense is a set-top box, as it's a domain that Apple could use as a wedge to create a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, an area where content folks and carriers could build loyalty and facilitate the evolution of their services to platforms, and besides, hardware is not the core secret sauce of either content or cable/satellite, so it's a relatively clear 1+1 = 3.
The reason it does not happen is that cable + satellite are not in enough pain to consider such an evolution.
TV makes no sense when you consider the high price point, the ten year replace cycles and the logistics of dealing with inventory of 50 inch screens (ok, that one is solvable).
Some fodder on this topic at:
Apple's iTV and the Implications of what Steve Said
Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features/
It is not that easy to just replace the cable boxes. Those boxes provide conditional access (security) that goes hand-in-hand with encoder equipment at the headend. This would have to be licensed or there would have to be an separate encryption/decryption solution at each headend.
License channels from other countries and force the U.S. cable companies into submission. There's a lot of content from all over the world.
Actually there is a huge amount of content available in the US via syndication. Apple could simply out bid the networks for the content. With the right box they could act as a set top box for traditional cable access and have their content delivered via the Internet. This would allow them to ramp up a "network" of their own to compete with the big and small on cable. In effect Apple becomes another intent provider.
This all sounds good but such a move is not to be underestimated in regards to cost, marketing efforts and talent requirements. It sounds easy but buy too many shows that don't generate share and you end up not making money. This is a lot tougher than it sounds. On top of this people have the expectation of reporting not just news but sports and politics too. To effectively replace the networks or cable operators you would need to be able to solve all of that live programming needs.
Frankly I don't see a big draw beyond a TV that has Apple TV built in for Apple. To go whole hog into this, effectively becoming a network, is just too huge of a nut too chew.
It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo. You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage. Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports
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.
I really don't care too much about the price even though I think $120 a month is too high for what you get. The part that irritates me is the horrible quality. In the evenings both the Internet and the TV are really slow and the picture freezes and the audio cuts out. During the day when no one is home it is fine. I had them come out to repair it a couple times and had to wait 3 hours during the middle of the day instead of being at work. When they finally get there everything is fine. As soon as everyone comes home from work in the evening the network is overloaded and virtually unwatchable and the Internet sometimes just goes missing. So yes the cable companies are an obstacle. I have also suspected that they screw with the Internet when the the data is being streamed from Netflix in order to degrade the quality and make it buffer constantly. I canceled my Netflix account anyway because there was nothing online that I wanted to watch. All of their content are just old "B" movies.
This is the perfect industry for Apple to disrupt in my opinion.
yep... read this thread, and I hear a lot of things Apple decision makers will have to say 'no' to. Most of this stuff is what 'you' want, not what will make TV (semi-realtime streaming content via broadband, coax, and OTA) 'insanely great.'
Apple has to
1) make navigating 300 odd 'channels' containing several thousand shows/episodes/real-time-happening content as easy as 'search for your favorite shows'
2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content... if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able
=====
those are hard.... because you have to crack the cable providers monopoly of the cablebox. 2 is semi possible OTA, but most stuff is on cable/sat only now.
These are easier
3) provide a central searchable hub of previously broadcast material from all sources
4) provide a single simple way of navigating, and purchasing non-free content
5) maintain security/privacy for those viewing content
6) ability to centrally put parental controls on everything on the 'web' visible on a TV (youtube, netflix, vimeo, hulu, podcasts, etc.)
7) One button, one controller to rule them all (and/or iRemote on an iPod/Phone/Pad).
8) learn your preferences and 'genius-ize' them
9) design it to have 'profiles' (authenticated access... Mommy's 50-shades-of-Grey movie and Dad's 'Expendibles 17' won't show up on kiddies 'watch list')
My guess it will build for 1-9, and deliver a subset of 3-9, and establish a platform, and then get either channels/networks, or the direct production houses to buy in.
In all of this, much like disintermediating mobile carriers, and album sales (record stores), this is all about making the 'cable' (DSL/FIOS/Coax) 'dumb', because the Cable/Telcos are making bundling the only way to watch popular shows, thereby increasing their profits, and making the content viewing experience more painful than what it could be.
2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content... if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able
On this, and I don't watch sports, so I could be wrong in my desire for this, but…
How about forcing channels to send out just the clean video stream data for these games and creating a unified UI for stats. If I flip between channels, I don't want to relearn the location of everything and try to figure it out. There should be one UI box, same design all the time, handled by the local device itself, showing exactly what that sport needs to show. Something clean, something beautiful, something simple.
6) ability to centrally put parental controls on everything on the 'web' visible on a TV (youtube, netflix, vimeo, hulu, podcasts, etc.)
Plus on everything visible on the TV in the first place.
You realize that this is PROOF they're making a (worthless) HDTV to about half the readership, right?
Until the real rumor outlets finally give up on it.
You don't hear much about the iPhone nano anymore.
Which means we will see one next month.
Because it isn't easy to do, Apple has to be the one to do it.
Ahh but Apple doesn't have to do everything.
As it is, it has been said that Apples R&D budget is 3/4 of a billion a quarter. It is safe to assume that isn't being used to design the next desktop Mac, so one oes wonder what Apple is up too. I just have a hard time believing it is simply to make a TV. I do wonder though if we will see the efforts of all this R&D spending this year.
It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo. You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage. Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports
eyeTV 3 from Elgato can work just like a DVR. You can even edit out the commercials and save the movie in iTunes, then watch on aTV.
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.
i'm reading your comments. Charter was the only land-based option in my area, until they started leasing off their land-lines to AT&T. I think the monopoly argument doesn't specify the TECHNOLOGY being use to proved pay-content. I've already stated this in my past comment. I can't get Dish, UVerse or DTV either because I live in an apartment that has lease agreements against mounting dishes to the building. UVerse would be the other options but for some reason my neighborhood is not available for that service...even though I live in a very connected burb of St. Louis. So for me I'm in the same boat as you. But I don't think Charter has a monopoly.
Edit: OK, I did some quick skimming online. These situations are sometimes called "Micro-monopolies" but are still not considered a monopoly by the DOJ because the majority of subscriptions do not span nation-wide. So as long as the markets don't grow too much on a national scale, it's perfectly legal.
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.
AT&T is not leasing physical cable lines for U-Verse. U-Verse is using DSL (phone line). In fact, its the first time Cable is facing real competition because both services are land lines. AT&T even has an edge because they can have packages that includes cellular services.
U-Verse is also far more advanced than cable because its using state of the art IPTV architecture for channel distribution which allow them to provide unlimited HD channels over the old copper phone line because they only stream the channels you watch, solving the limited bandwight problem between the fiber node and youre house. The IPTV architecture also allow them to network the set-top boxes, allowing for example all the set-top boxes to share the same PvR.
The Cable companies are over confident and are going to end up like RIM if they dont react. AT&T is going to eat there lunch when they are fully deploy.
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.
So Apple can just make people do whatever they say? Talk about RDF.
You do need a Mac. But that is where your iTunes is anyway right?
Yes. But… It shouldn't… have to be?
Gosh, I'm actually torn on this now. I absolutely want more Mac sales as part of the entire iDevice ecosystem halo, but Apple has already effectively removed the Mac from the equation entirely with iTunes Match and redownloading of content (which bothers me). So in the grand scheme of things, my desire to have iTunes Libraries be connected directly to the network only cuts out computers further… But I really, really want greater Mac marketshare.
I suppose since… OH! Have multiple libraries on a hard drive connected to the network. Have the Mac iTunes see them and treat them the same as local device libraries. Then allow similar editing on the iPad and even allow content purchased on the iPad to be copied to said libraries (when they have the proper account authorization). That keeps the Mac in play beyond the initial NAiTL setup.
ROTFLMAO. I guess it's too much to expect good reporting.
Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features.
It wouldn't be that hard to modify them to purchase their content directly from the Cable companies rather than going through iTunes so there's no reason the cable companies should reject it out of hand.
Still, if the actual attributed quotes are accurate (I'm assuming they are, it would be a bit much to make up actual dialogue for Cue) then it's not unreasonable to conclude that Apple is unlikely to make a big TV move of the sort that has been so enthusiastically predicted as of late.
I mean, if content aggregation is an insurmountable obstacle, as Cue observes that it is, then..... there's really nothing for Apple to do. They can certainly update the existing AppleTV with apps or additional streaming channels, but if they can't work a deal with big content then there's no reason to expect any kind of game changing device.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"The risk of not partnering with Apple is that as young people may 'cut the cord' given the cost of cable that a screen connected to an Apple TV with AirPlay can provide a substantial array of content."
And anyone can cut the (cable and virtual satellite) cord by watching TV on their computer.
The cable industry is already feeling pressure from users streaming video over the internet. It's just a matter of time before the hideously expensive cable / satellite "channel bundle" model crumbles. It could take years, but eventually the TV and movie industries will suffer the same fate that the music industry suffered. Rampant piracy. They'll fight it, they'll try to keep Apple out of the business, but they'll eventually fail.
Legacy cable / satellite networks will lose revenue from piracy. Inevitable. And the TV and movie studios will also lose revenue from piracy. So what will they do? They'll look to Apple for salvation like the recording studios did. Better to give Apple a 30% cut than to lose the full 100%. Better to let Apple handle the user experience, because "easy" beats "free."
So what will Apple do? They won't buy the Comcasts and DirecTVs of the world. They'll avoid all that crumbling 20th century technology. They'll make the cell carriers an offer they can't refuse. By the time the TV and movie industries get desperate (maybe 5 to 10 years from now) "real 4G" cell networks may be on the horizon. The "real 4G" that is the next-generation beyond LTE, which, by the way, is simply the fastest and final version of 3G. (The full name of LTE being "3rd Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution.") "Real 4G" requirements include 1Gbit/sec to stationary and slow-moving (e.g. walking) devices and 100Mbit/sec to fast-moving (car / train) devices. Plenty fast enough to deliver video content to any of your iOS devices.
The problem with "real 4G," for the cell carriers, is that it will eliminate the need for separate voice and data plans. The current 3G-based LTE technology still requires separate voice and data connections. But the ITU 4G requirements call for merging all voice and data traffic into a single internet packet stream. This is one reason why the cell carriers jumped the gun and misleadingly called LTE "4G." So when "real 4G" arrives, there won't be anything to announce except faster speeds. They'll hide the fact that there is new technology which eliminates their justification for separate voice and data plans. It will be interesting to see if they still try to charge separately for voice and data.
So, "real 4G" will be another huge step toward dumb-pipe-hood for the cell carriers. They'll essentially be "wireless ISPs." Everything will be internet packets. They'll need something to differentiate themselves. And Apple could give it to them. Apple could offer the cell carriers the chance to be the new TV networks. The cell carriers could replace over-the-air broadcast to rabbit ear antennas, copper and optical cable, and satellite downlink. Say goodbye to the cable guy and the "professional satellite dish installers" forever.
Apple could leapfrog all that copper wire / optical fiber / satellite downlink technology and go wireless for all devices. Including that Apple television in your living room.
If one takes what Cue said at face value, it suggests little or noting about Apple ever building a TV set. The reference was to "television user interface," which sounds more like set-top box, which already has a jack in every TV.
Apple, after all, does not live and breathe to disrupt. It's not like the iPod was an end-run around the music industry. Or, the iPhone was an end-run around carriers.
Hence, logically anything Apple builds in the living room will not be an end-run around cable + satellite or content makers,especially since both industries are increasingly commingled (e.g., Comcast owns NBC, Disney owned ESPN gets $4.69 per subscriber from the cable cos).
The only scenario that makes sense is a set-top box, as it's a domain that Apple could use as a wedge to create a 2-3 year upgrade cycle, an area where content folks and carriers could build loyalty and facilitate the evolution of their services to platforms, and besides, hardware is not the core secret sauce of either content or cable/satellite, so it's a relatively clear 1+1 = 3.
The reason it does not happen is that cable + satellite are not in enough pain to consider such an evolution.
TV makes no sense when you consider the high price point, the ten year replace cycles and the logistics of dealing with inventory of 50 inch screens (ok, that one is solvable).
Some fodder on this topic at:
Apple's iTV and the Implications of what Steve Said
http://radar.oreilly.com/2012/02/apple-itv-television.html
Check it out, if interested.
Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features/
It is not that easy to just replace the cable boxes. Those boxes provide conditional access (security) that goes hand-in-hand with encoder equipment at the headend. This would have to be licensed or there would have to be an separate encryption/decryption solution at each headend.
Actually there is a huge amount of content available in the US via syndication. Apple could simply out bid the networks for the content. With the right box they could act as a set top box for traditional cable access and have their content delivered via the Internet. This would allow them to ramp up a "network" of their own to compete with the big and small on cable. In effect Apple becomes another intent provider.
This all sounds good but such a move is not to be underestimated in regards to cost, marketing efforts and talent requirements. It sounds easy but buy too many shows that don't generate share and you end up not making money. This is a lot tougher than it sounds. On top of this people have the expectation of reporting not just news but sports and politics too. To effectively replace the networks or cable operators you would need to be able to solve all of that live programming needs.
Frankly I don't see a big draw beyond a TV that has Apple TV built in for Apple. To go whole hog into this, effectively becoming a network, is just too huge of a nut too chew.
It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo. You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage. Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
I really don't care too much about the price even though I think $120 a month is too high for what you get. The part that irritates me is the horrible quality. In the evenings both the Internet and the TV are really slow and the picture freezes and the audio cuts out. During the day when no one is home it is fine. I had them come out to repair it a couple times and had to wait 3 hours during the middle of the day instead of being at work. When they finally get there everything is fine. As soon as everyone comes home from work in the evening the network is overloaded and virtually unwatchable and the Internet sometimes just goes missing. So yes the cable companies are an obstacle. I have also suspected that they screw with the Internet when the the data is being streamed from Netflix in order to degrade the quality and make it buffer constantly. I canceled my Netflix account anyway because there was nothing online that I wanted to watch. All of their content are just old "B" movies.
This is the perfect industry for Apple to disrupt in my opinion.
yep... read this thread, and I hear a lot of things Apple decision makers will have to say 'no' to. Most of this stuff is what 'you' want, not what will make TV (semi-realtime streaming content via broadband, coax, and OTA) 'insanely great.'
Apple has to
1) make navigating 300 odd 'channels' containing several thousand shows/episodes/real-time-happening content as easy as 'search for your favorite shows'
2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content... if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able
=====
those are hard.... because you have to crack the cable providers monopoly of the cablebox. 2 is semi possible OTA, but most stuff is on cable/sat only now.
These are easier
3) provide a central searchable hub of previously broadcast material from all sources
4) provide a single simple way of navigating, and purchasing non-free content
5) maintain security/privacy for those viewing content
6) ability to centrally put parental controls on everything on the 'web' visible on a TV (youtube, netflix, vimeo, hulu, podcasts, etc.)
7) One button, one controller to rule them all (and/or iRemote on an iPod/Phone/Pad).
8) learn your preferences and 'genius-ize' them
9) design it to have 'profiles' (authenticated access... Mommy's 50-shades-of-Grey movie and Dad's 'Expendibles 17' won't show up on kiddies 'watch list')
My guess it will build for 1-9, and deliver a subset of 3-9, and establish a platform, and then get either channels/networks, or the direct production houses to buy in.
In all of this, much like disintermediating mobile carriers, and album sales (record stores), this is all about making the 'cable' (DSL/FIOS/Coax) 'dumb', because the Cable/Telcos are making bundling the only way to watch popular shows, thereby increasing their profits, and making the content viewing experience more painful than what it could be.
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
2) allow for excellent display of real time (sports, news) content... if 400 million sets are on watching the superbowl... we better be able
On this, and I don't watch sports, so I could be wrong in my desire for this, but…
How about forcing channels to send out just the clean video stream data for these games and creating a unified UI for stats. If I flip between channels, I don't want to relearn the location of everything and try to figure it out. There should be one UI box, same design all the time, handled by the local device itself, showing exactly what that sport needs to show. Something clean, something beautiful, something simple.
6) ability to centrally put parental controls on everything on the 'web' visible on a TV (youtube, netflix, vimeo, hulu, podcasts, etc.)
Plus on everything visible on the TV in the first place.
As it is, it has been said that Apples R&D budget is 3/4 of a billion a quarter. It is safe to assume that isn't being used to design the next desktop Mac, so one oes wonder what Apple is up too. I just have a hard time believing it is simply to make a TV. I do wonder though if we will see the efforts of all this R&D spending this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCGOO
It is too bad the Apple TV does not have an atsc receiver on board for recording OTA content. Kinda like Tivo. You could use an existing Mac, or even a TimeCapsule for storage. Could add one (or more) of the USB receivers outboard I suppose, if their were available USB ports
eyeTV 3 from Elgato can work just like a DVR. You can even edit out the commercials and save the movie in iTunes, then watch on aTV.
Originally Posted by wizard69
Ahh but Apple doesn't have to do everything.
Oh, I'm not even talking about any hardware or R&D, I'm just talking about breaking the 60 years of ZERO change to television and how it's done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
eyeTV 3 from Elgato can work just like a DVR. You can even edit out the commercials and save the movie in iTunes, then watch on aTV.
Correct. But AFAIK, it won't work connected to an AppleTV. If it did, I would have one in a heartbeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
i'm reading your comments. Charter was the only land-based option in my area, until they started leasing off their land-lines to AT&T. I think the monopoly argument doesn't specify the TECHNOLOGY being use to proved pay-content. I've already stated this in my past comment. I can't get Dish, UVerse or DTV either because I live in an apartment that has lease agreements against mounting dishes to the building. UVerse would be the other options but for some reason my neighborhood is not available for that service...even though I live in a very connected burb of St. Louis. So for me I'm in the same boat as you. But I don't think Charter has a monopoly.
Edit: OK, I did some quick skimming online. These situations are sometimes called "Micro-monopolies" but are still not considered a monopoly by the DOJ because the majority of subscriptions do not span nation-wide. So as long as the markets don't grow too much on a national scale, it's perfectly legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, I'm not even talking about any hardware or R&D, I'm just talking about breaking the 60 years of ZERO change to television and how it's done.
I wouldn't say zero change to TV. We've gone from analog to digital, added HD, added PVR. Pretty cool changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Good. Can we finally put these Apple television rumors to bed?
Gene Munster has been pretty quietly lately about the Apple TVs he's talked about forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1
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.
AT&T is not leasing physical cable lines for U-Verse. U-Verse is using DSL (phone line). In fact, its the first time Cable is facing real competition because both services are land lines. AT&T even has an edge because they can have packages that includes cellular services.
source: http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/iptv-technology.jsp
U-Verse is also far more advanced than cable because its using state of the art IPTV architecture for channel distribution which allow them to provide unlimited HD channels over the old copper phone line because they only stream the channels you watch, solving the limited bandwight problem between the fiber node and youre house. The IPTV architecture also allow them to network the set-top boxes, allowing for example all the set-top boxes to share the same PvR.
The Cable companies are over confident and are going to end up like RIM if they dont react. AT&T is going to eat there lunch when they are fully deploy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCGOO
Correct. But AFAIK, it won't work connected to an AppleTV. If it did, I would have one in a heartbeat.
You do need a Mac. But that is where your iTunes is anyway right?
Originally Posted by mstone
You do need a Mac. But that is where your iTunes is anyway right?
Yes. But… It shouldn't… have to be?
Gosh, I'm actually torn on this now. I absolutely want more Mac sales as part of the entire iDevice ecosystem halo, but Apple has already effectively removed the Mac from the equation entirely with iTunes Match and redownloading of content (which bothers me). So in the grand scheme of things, my desire to have iTunes Libraries be connected directly to the network only cuts out computers further… But I really, really want greater Mac marketshare.
I suppose since… OH! Have multiple libraries on a hard drive connected to the network. Have the Mac iTunes see them and treat them the same as local device libraries. Then allow similar editing on the iPad and even allow content purchased on the iPad to be copied to said libraries (when they have the proper account authorization). That keeps the Mac in play beyond the initial NAiTL setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
ROTFLMAO. I guess it's too much to expect good reporting.
Even so, I think the easiest solution would be for Apple to team with one or more cable companies and replace those humongous Motorola cable boxes with Apple TVs that have been modified to handle cable TV content. Since Apple is able to sell them at retail for $99 at a reasonable profit, I suspect that they could make the price very attractive to the cable companies - as well as offering dramatically better features.
It wouldn't be that hard to modify them to purchase their content directly from the Cable companies rather than going through iTunes so there's no reason the cable companies should reject it out of hand.
Still, if the actual attributed quotes are accurate (I'm assuming they are, it would be a bit much to make up actual dialogue for Cue) then it's not unreasonable to conclude that Apple is unlikely to make a big TV move of the sort that has been so enthusiastically predicted as of late.
I mean, if content aggregation is an insurmountable obstacle, as Cue observes that it is, then..... there's really nothing for Apple to do. They can certainly update the existing AppleTV with apps or additional streaming channels, but if they can't work a deal with big content then there's no reason to expect any kind of game changing device.