Time Warner would give up user interface control to an Apple cable box

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Sounds like a reasonable possibility. Essentially an Apple TV with cable tuner inside that is customized for each Cable company but which still allows access to the Apple store for apps. I could see the value of that.




    The tuner would not be customized for each cable company because it would be a QAM tuner. However, the conditional access would be different for each cable company. Apple would have to license it. Or they could just provide their own encoding equipment at the headend which their set top box would know how to decrypt. Some cable systems do that so they can use Motorola and Scientific Atlanta set top boxes on the same network.

  • Reply 22 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Customer relationship - come on, you guys have monopolies not relationships.




    Customer relationship means the cable company would need to make as much money as before or no (business) deal.

  • Reply 23 of 36
    I think that Time Warner knows that their DVR offerings completely suck. They just updated the UI on their deployed fleet of Scientific Atlanta / Cisco boxes, and it still sucks, it just sucks with darker colors now.

    If they paired up with Apple to deliver an AppleTV that had a CableCard slot on it and a hard disk for DVR storage, I'd actually consider not firing them.
  • Reply 24 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    pt123 wrote: »

    The tuner would not be customized for each cable company because it would be a QAM tuner. However, the conditional access would be different for each cable company. Apple would have to license it. Or they could just provide their own encoding equipment at the headend which their set top box would know how to decrypt. Some cable systems do that so they can use Motorola and Scientific Atlanta set top boxes on the same network.

    While the tuner would not have to be customized, the access would. In addition, the cable companies would probably insist on some kind of visual cues to indicate that it's their box.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,485member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    If Time Warner were to relinquish control, Marcus said the cable operator would need to ensure that customers know its TV services are being provided by Time Warner Cable and not any third parties.


    I don't get this. People sign up for Time Warner Cable and pay their bills to Time Warner Cable. How would customers ever not know TV services are being provided by Time Warner Cable?

  • Reply 26 of 36
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    I don't get this. People sign up for Time Warner Cable and pay their bills to Time Warner Cable. How would customers ever not know TV services are being provided by Time Warner Cable?

    That's not the issue. It's one of branding. Time Warner wants to make sure their brand is prominent so that it's the first thing the customer sees when turning on the TV and looking at the on-screen menus.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    jd_in_sb wrote: »
    I don't get this. People sign up for Time Warner Cable and pay their bills to Time Warner Cable. How would customers ever not know TV services are being provided by Time Warner Cable?

    Plus the set top box is made by Motorola, Samsung, Scientific Atlanta, etc... Why doesn't that confuse the consumer but a Apple box will?
  • Reply 28 of 36
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,469member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post



    Customer relationship - come on, you guys have monopolies not relationships.


    I'm not fan of cable companies, but I think your statement does not reflect reality in most places outside of small towns.    In New York City, you generally have a choice of Comcast, RCN, Time-Warner, Verizon FIOS, Dish, AT&T + all the services offered on the web and a whole bunch I didn't mention.    There are more choices for this content than at any time in technology history.  Not very vendor is available in every location, but there are choices.  


     


    I don't blame Time-Warner:  they did the marketing to acquire the customer and they want to keep that customer.  I actually don't think that's going to be a problem.  Isn't that the relationship Apple has with the phone companies?   I may have purchased my iPhone directly from Apple, but I'm an AT&T customer.  I get billed and marketed from AT&T.


     


    I don't think Apple has much of a chance dealing directly with the cable channels because they can't risk their relationships with the MSOs.   So going to the MSOs is Apple's best bet.     They can then supplement the MSO content with their own acquisitions as per Apple TV. 

  • Reply 29 of 36
    Dammit! I NEED to know if Apple is going to do this NOW!!! /sarcasm.

    But I joke because I'm about ready to throw my Scientific Atlantic Explorer HDDVR box out the f-ing window and buy a Tivo. We relocated to the Albany region from Central NY a few months ago and are already on our 3rd box, going to be Number 4 tomorrow, because all of TWC's boxes have been crap.

    We had the same issue years ago in our previous locations. It took me 3 boxes before I found one where the HDD didn't crap out after a week's worth of use or that the HDMI port didn't crap out or the entire Java OS crash hard.

    I would give my left AND right nut for my cable to come through an Apple set top box with Apple TV integrated! Or better yet and TV!
  • Reply 30 of 36
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,221member


    Quote:


    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    Why would Apple get a cut from PPV?


     


    Because the proposition is to use iTunes and not make a separate PPV cable offer. Cable and Apple are not going to fight over rentals on the TV, they are going to share profits.


     


    From what I understand with the current BCE negotiations, the problem is not UI but client handling. BCE wants to keep full control on its clients and share all sales on the TV with Apple, this includes all itunes video on demand and apps that run on the TV. VoD is a part of cable business so iTunes profits must be shared between Apple and Cable. On the other side, cable with distribute all video rentals to consumer WITHOUT using any internet bandwidth. 



    They don't want to have Apple control client information like they do when they sell in app magazine subscription for example where Apple shield clients info to the content provider. 


     


    Cable is NOT going to give Apple control on its subscribers. Its a shame we are stall over this because everything it ready: The cable box, the TV, the channel UI and it all works on the IPTV network.  

  • Reply 31 of 36
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KindredMac View Post



    Dammit! I NEED to know if Apple is going to do this NOW!!! /sarcasm.



    But I joke because I'm about ready to throw my Scientific Atlantic Explorer HDDVR box out the f-ing window and buy a Tivo. We relocated to the Albany region from Central NY a few months ago and are already on our 3rd box, going to be Number 4 tomorrow, because all of TWC's boxes have been crap.



    We had the same issue years ago in our previous locations. It took me 3 boxes before I found one where the HDD didn't crap out after a week's worth of use or that the HDMI port didn't crap out or the entire Java OS crash hard.



    I would give my left AND right nut for my cable to come through an Apple set top box with Apple TV integrated! Or better yet and TV!


    Don't undervalue your nuts.

  • Reply 32 of 36
    herbapou wrote: »
    [SIZE=12px]Because the proposition is to use iTunes and not make a separate PPV cable offer. Cable and Apple are not going to fight over rentals on the TV, they are going to share profits.[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=12px]<span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">From what I understand with the current BCE negotiations, the problem is not UI but client handling. BCE wants to keep full control on its clients and share all sales on the TV with Apple, this includes all itunes video on demand and apps that run on the TV. VoD is a part of cable business so iTunes profits must be shared between Apple and Cable. On the other side, cable with distribute all video rentals to consumer WITHOUT using any internet bandwidth. </span>
    <br style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">
    <br style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">
    <span style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">They don't want to have Apple control client information like they do when they sell in app magazine subscription for example where Apple shield clients info to the content provider. </span>
    [/SIZE]<br style="font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;background-color:rgb(250,250,250);">

     
    [SIZE=12px]<span style="background-color:rgb(250,250,250);font-family:verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:normal;">Cable is NOT going to give Apple control on its subscribers. Its a shame we are stall over this because everything it ready: The cable box, the TV, the channel UI and it all works on the IPTV network.</span>
      [/SIZE]

    What part of " to ensure that customers know its TV services are being provided by Time Warner Cable and not any third parties" didn't you understand?
  • Reply 33 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    Don't undervalue your nuts.



     


    Ever.

  • Reply 34 of 36
    kindredmac wrote: »
    I would give my left AND right nut for my cable to come through an Apple set top box with Apple TV integrated! Or better yet and TV!
    So with that transaction complete we can assume that the cable company is not going to make any money selling you pay-per-view in the "adult" category!
  • Reply 35 of 36
    hzchzc Posts: 63member
    "rumroed?" Don't you guys use spellcheck? ;-)

    Apple, again, will pave the way for a radical change in how content is delivered to the consumer. Then Amazon and Google will jump on the train at the next stop, using names that are close enough, but not quite, like ATV - Amazon TV Store... most likely without the proper licensing for storing said content on multiple devices or distributing to multiple devices via a cloud service...
  • Reply 36 of 36

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hzc View Post



    "rumroed?" Don't you guys use spellcheck? ;-)

    Apple, again, will pave the way for a radical change in how content is delivered to the consumer. Then Amazon and Google will jump on the train at the next stop, using names that are close enough, but not quite, like ATV - Amazon TV Store... most likely without the proper licensing for storing said content on multiple devices or distributing to multiple devices via a cloud service...


     


    Actually Amazon already offers this with it's Amazon Video on Demand service.

Sign In or Register to comment.