Apple doesn't have to deal with studios that way. Keep elgato happy and customers have their DVR via elgato controlling with Front Row. Just like DCQ said.
I think the Tivo's pending patent lawsuit has a lot to with ReplayTV's demise. I liked the replay version better. There was a lifetime box activation fee that was a winning deal IMO.
The Tivo and SonicBlue had settled on the patent issue...and in fact SonicBlue had sued Tivo first. SonicBlue went under from lawsuits from CONTENT providers...Warner, MGM, Disney, the big three networks and 21 other media companies. That lawsuit was costing the company $1M/month according to their then CEO.
Quote:
As for Tivo going away, as you seem to suggest. I work for a warehouse that holds excess storage for a few big retail electronics outlets, and tivo was second only to the iPod during Xmas last year. We shipped directly to the stores, and that was a serious item; they never stopped coming in, and they shipped out just as fast.
The only folks dominating the DVR market are DISH, Motorolla and CISCO (who bought Scientific Atlanta). The standalone DVR market is miniscule in comparison to the cable and satellite controlled DVR markets.
Assuming that Tivo ultimately prevails against DISH the only real ramification for an Apple PVR is that it gets to pay Tivo royalties if they can get a license.
Quote:
The price on a Tivo is pretty cheap now a days too, straight from their website, (Free Box), but as has been mentioned many times in here before. Tivo isn't the only DVR option. Most satellites come with them built in, and it's definitely here to stay. I just don't see DVR leaving the millions of users just yet. BUt I still think Apple should have took it.
Exactly how is Apple supposed to compete favorably against a free box? How is Tivo's monthly fee considered "free" anyway?
Tivo's interface was much better than the DISH, Moto and CISCO offerings and yet they got very limited traction.
You've never answered any of these basic questions except by the UGBM assertion:
1) Apple Enters DVR Market
2) ?
3) Profit!
Quote:
Content providers don't have anything to loose.
Which is why they sued SonicBlue into oblivion...
Quote:
All their shows are free already,
Ad driven. A revenue stream threatened by DVRs...hence the suing of Sonic Blue into oblivion.
Quote:
and you can download most of them straight from their own websites just as fast as iTunes has them, but for free. Even ABC shows like desperate housewives. Which is might I remind you.. Owned by disney.
Ad driven. The current episode is sponsored by Sprint and you have to wait through the ads (30 secs) between each segment. Also only the most recent episode. I also really doubt that Sprint alone can sponsor an expensive a show as Desperate Housewives. It's "free" because its already been paid for by the ads from TV. A revenue stream threatened by...you guessed it...DVRs.
Quote:
So I really don't think it's against their strategy, but Apples is what worries me. Plus neither the Apple model, or the stations are going to stop free recording of their shows. The VCR is proof of that. And as I said before. They continue to let you download them for free anyway.
Right. How do content providers make any money if widespread use of DVRs destroy their ability to generate revenue from advertising? No money no professional content.
It is questionable if the $1.99 pricing is sustainable but the big advantage is that content providers don't have to guess the show's popularity and can budget accordingly.
And the content providers sure DO object when you download them for free via bittorrent or some other P2P mechanism. Nothing is "free".
I have concluded you must have no vision for anything other than what is in front of your face.
I have concluded you have no clue about DVRs and refuse to learn anything about them.
Quote:
I'd love to comment on how I can't download streamed shows, but I can't do that.
You can. It's called iTunes.
Quote:
I alone have. Use your imagination. It's easy. Just because Apple isn't offering a DVR doesn't mean you have to argue that DVR is nothing that Apple could possibly do.
Of course they can offer one. The question is can they make it a profitable business. They can build $399 cheapo towers too. So what?
Perhaps Apple chooses to SKIP the DVR and shoot for something better. You have yet to explain how DVRs are in any way better than VOD. Of course VOD costs money. So what? So does HBO, so does iTunes so does Tivo and DVRs.
Quote:
Your thinking in the box - the box that your mind went into when Apple didn't offer it. Apple isn't offering it so now it's impossible, so you need to come with an excuse as to why. Drop the excuses. It's just not there. You don't know why. And nobody cares why. Except the others living in that boxed mentality with you.
He's not providing an excuse. He's trying to explain why your position is so stupid. Most folks in this thread appear to get it...even if they want a PVR.
If Apple decides to add DVR capability to their line up its going to go in the Mini and not the iTV device anyway so it has zero bearing on iTV as a device.
Apple isn't offering it so now it's impossible, so you need to come with an excuse as to why. Drop the excuses. It's just not there. You don't know why. And nobody cares why. Except the others living in that boxed mentality with you.
Well, I sure would love a box to stream content from my iMac to my TV and stereo. I have no need whatsoever for a DVR. As it's looking now I will be buying one once it's on the market.
I would not if the DVR was built in, because then it would be way to expensive and I don't want to be paying for functionality I'm not goin to use....
What if the iTV becomes necessary because content creators start using iTunes as an alternative to the TV and movie studios distribution model. Joe Blow with camera, Josephine Blow with script, and Joey Blow with acting talent create a great new show. Funny. Insightful. Action-packed. Suspenseful. Artful. Exactly the sort of thing the media execs generally hate. Well, with iTunes, they go ahead and create it, allow Apple to distribute it, and rake in the cash (if its successful). If I were the head of Apple's iTunes division, I'd start talking to independent filmmakers, film school students, and skraggly coffee-house denizens right away. Hell, I'd start by calling up Joss Whedon and the cast of Firefly.
What if the iTV becomes necessary because content creators start using iTunes as an alternative to the TV and movie studios distribution model. Joe Blow with camera, Josephine Blow with script, and Joey Blow with acting talent create a great new show. Funny. Insightful. Action-packed. Suspenseful. Artful. Exactly the sort of thing the media execs generally hate. Well, with iTunes, they go ahead and create it, allow Apple to distribute it, and rake in the cash (if its successful). If I were the head of Apple's iTunes division, I'd start talking to independent filmmakers, film school students, and skraggly coffee-house denizens right away. Hell, I'd start by calling up Joss Whedon and the cast of Firefly.
Mmmmmmmmm...
Going to go daydream now...
I don't see how that would happen within the near future. Further out, probably. But not Apple alone.
The studios have learned from iTunes. They don't want any one company to control the majority of downloads.
That doesn't mean that Apple won't manage by the vote of the dollar, but the studios are trying to prevent that from happening.
Viaclix has developed a system that streams broadcast quality video directly to TV's without the use of a PC and they've integrated the Internet into the system so you can watch TV and surf the net at the same time. Looks pretty cool.
Viaclix has developed a system that streams broadcast quality video directly to TV's without the use of a PC and they've integrated the Internet into the system so you can watch TV and surf the net at the same time. Looks pretty cool.
So this means you can have cable on a TV without it actually connected by a cable? I don't see the great point.
ViaCLIX is not cable...it's IPTV and it can be wireless.
IPTV is going to replace cable for many reasons. First of all, cable companies broadcast 150 channels to all of their subscribers at the same time whether on not you watch a particular channel. Cable has bandwidth limitations. IPTV, on the other hand, sends only the channel's you are watching. When you change channels it stops sending one and sends your new selection. This means that IPTV channel selections are theoretically unlimited. This makes for a more effeciant delivery system.
The second factor is that consumers are going to want to be able to have the option of accessing the web from their TV sets. The third factor is that advertisers are going to want to pay for interactive ads. All these add up to the cable industry eventually swapping over to IPTV.
So this means you can have cable on a TV without it actually connected by a cable? I don't see the great point.
Cable is only a part of the equation. DSL has caught up with cable, and is growing faster.
That means that there won't normally be an internet connection easily available in the living room where your audio/video systen is, unless you are one of those few who keep their computer there as well.
And, that's only one other part of the equation as well.
IPTV, on the other hand, sends only the channel's you are watching. When you change channels it stops sending one and sends your new selection. This means that IPTV channel selections are theoretically unlimited. This makes for a more effeciant delivery system.
Cable technology isn't exactly standing still either.
I read in an article maybe about a year ago. Cable companies exploring new delivery systems. One option was the ability to send one channel at a time to maximize use of available bandwidth. There was some technical limitations to it but I can't remember what they were.
They still have yet transition to all digital ATSC systems. So what we have today isn't likely to be the same a few years from now.
And the percentage of people that want to do that every time they enter their living room to watch some programming is?
The difference for a person who watches TV programming between iTV and a DVR is that DVR owners use a DVR all the time, and would never go back to not having one. iTV looks like something that will sit there for long periods of time doing nothing, and being as useless as I think it will be for the majority. It's not going to take over the living room like a DVR does. iTV is a HoHum product, plain and simple.
Ho-hum is just about the best summary of iTV I've heard yet. Nearly as boring as movies on iTunes. Bah! \
Apple doesn't have to sell one of these to every person who watches Tv or movies. If they can manage to move, say, two million a year, not a huge number, that's $600 million a year.
Comments
Apple doesn't have to deal with studios that way. Keep elgato happy and customers have their DVR via elgato controlling with Front Row. Just like DCQ said.
The new hybrid EyeTV is pretty nice.
http://elgato.com/index.php?file=pro...9d6df41d943873
I think the Tivo's pending patent lawsuit has a lot to with ReplayTV's demise. I liked the replay version better. There was a lifetime box activation fee that was a winning deal IMO.
The Tivo and SonicBlue had settled on the patent issue...and in fact SonicBlue had sued Tivo first. SonicBlue went under from lawsuits from CONTENT providers...Warner, MGM, Disney, the big three networks and 21 other media companies. That lawsuit was costing the company $1M/month according to their then CEO.
As for Tivo going away, as you seem to suggest. I work for a warehouse that holds excess storage for a few big retail electronics outlets, and tivo was second only to the iPod during Xmas last year. We shipped directly to the stores, and that was a serious item; they never stopped coming in, and they shipped out just as fast.
TIVO hasn't had a profitable year. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=TIVO&annual
SonicBlue went bankrupt.
The only folks dominating the DVR market are DISH, Motorolla and CISCO (who bought Scientific Atlanta). The standalone DVR market is miniscule in comparison to the cable and satellite controlled DVR markets.
Assuming that Tivo ultimately prevails against DISH the only real ramification for an Apple PVR is that it gets to pay Tivo royalties if they can get a license.
The price on a Tivo is pretty cheap now a days too, straight from their website, (Free Box), but as has been mentioned many times in here before. Tivo isn't the only DVR option. Most satellites come with them built in, and it's definitely here to stay. I just don't see DVR leaving the millions of users just yet. BUt I still think Apple should have took it.
Exactly how is Apple supposed to compete favorably against a free box? How is Tivo's monthly fee considered "free" anyway?
Tivo's interface was much better than the DISH, Moto and CISCO offerings and yet they got very limited traction.
You've never answered any of these basic questions except by the UGBM assertion:
1) Apple Enters DVR Market
2) ?
3) Profit!
Content providers don't have anything to loose.
Which is why they sued SonicBlue into oblivion...
All their shows are free already,
Ad driven. A revenue stream threatened by DVRs...hence the suing of Sonic Blue into oblivion.
and you can download most of them straight from their own websites just as fast as iTunes has them, but for free. Even ABC shows like desperate housewives. Which is might I remind you.. Owned by disney.
Ad driven. The current episode is sponsored by Sprint and you have to wait through the ads (30 secs) between each segment. Also only the most recent episode. I also really doubt that Sprint alone can sponsor an expensive a show as Desperate Housewives. It's "free" because its already been paid for by the ads from TV. A revenue stream threatened by...you guessed it...DVRs.
So I really don't think it's against their strategy, but Apples is what worries me. Plus neither the Apple model, or the stations are going to stop free recording of their shows. The VCR is proof of that. And as I said before. They continue to let you download them for free anyway.
Right. How do content providers make any money if widespread use of DVRs destroy their ability to generate revenue from advertising? No money no professional content.
It is questionable if the $1.99 pricing is sustainable but the big advantage is that content providers don't have to guess the show's popularity and can budget accordingly.
And the content providers sure DO object when you download them for free via bittorrent or some other P2P mechanism. Nothing is "free".
Vinea
I have concluded you must have no vision for anything other than what is in front of your face.
I have concluded you have no clue about DVRs and refuse to learn anything about them.
I'd love to comment on how I can't download streamed shows, but I can't do that.
You can. It's called iTunes.
I alone have. Use your imagination. It's easy. Just because Apple isn't offering a DVR doesn't mean you have to argue that DVR is nothing that Apple could possibly do.
Of course they can offer one. The question is can they make it a profitable business. They can build $399 cheapo towers too. So what?
Perhaps Apple chooses to SKIP the DVR and shoot for something better. You have yet to explain how DVRs are in any way better than VOD. Of course VOD costs money. So what? So does HBO, so does iTunes so does Tivo and DVRs.
Your thinking in the box - the box that your mind went into when Apple didn't offer it. Apple isn't offering it so now it's impossible, so you need to come with an excuse as to why. Drop the excuses. It's just not there. You don't know why. And nobody cares why. Except the others living in that boxed mentality with you.
He's not providing an excuse. He's trying to explain why your position is so stupid. Most folks in this thread appear to get it...even if they want a PVR.
If Apple decides to add DVR capability to their line up its going to go in the Mini and not the iTV device anyway so it has zero bearing on iTV as a device.
Vinea
The Tivo and SonicBlue had settled on the patent issue...and in fact SonicBlue had...
etc., etc., etc.
... Nothing is "free".
Dang! That whole post is concise, incredibly insightful, and very tied into the issues that are flying around Hollywood at the moment. Spot on!
Apple isn't offering it so now it's impossible, so you need to come with an excuse as to why. Drop the excuses. It's just not there. You don't know why. And nobody cares why. Except the others living in that boxed mentality with you.
Well, I sure would love a box to stream content from my iMac to my TV and stereo. I have no need whatsoever for a DVR. As it's looking now I will be buying one once it's on the market.
I would not if the DVR was built in, because then it would be way to expensive and I don't want to be paying for functionality I'm not goin to use....
Random thoughts...
What if the iTV becomes necessary because content creators start using iTunes as an alternative to the TV and movie studios distribution model. Joe Blow with camera, Josephine Blow with script, and Joey Blow with acting talent create a great new show. Funny. Insightful. Action-packed. Suspenseful. Artful. Exactly the sort of thing the media execs generally hate. Well, with iTunes, they go ahead and create it, allow Apple to distribute it, and rake in the cash (if its successful). If I were the head of Apple's iTunes division, I'd start talking to independent filmmakers, film school students, and skraggly coffee-house denizens right away. Hell, I'd start by calling up Joss Whedon and the cast of Firefly.
Mmmmmmmmm...
Going to go daydream now...
Changing subjects.
Hell, I'd start by calling up Joss Whedon and the cast of Firefly.
Mmmmmmmmm...
Going to go daydream now...
Too bad Steve isn't a browncoat...he could fund a few episodes...
Vinea
Changing subjects.
Random thoughts...
What if the iTV becomes necessary because content creators start using iTunes as an alternative to the TV and movie studios distribution model. Joe Blow with camera, Josephine Blow with script, and Joey Blow with acting talent create a great new show. Funny. Insightful. Action-packed. Suspenseful. Artful. Exactly the sort of thing the media execs generally hate. Well, with iTunes, they go ahead and create it, allow Apple to distribute it, and rake in the cash (if its successful). If I were the head of Apple's iTunes division, I'd start talking to independent filmmakers, film school students, and skraggly coffee-house denizens right away. Hell, I'd start by calling up Joss Whedon and the cast of Firefly.
Mmmmmmmmm...
Going to go daydream now...
I don't see how that would happen within the near future. Further out, probably. But not Apple alone.
The studios have learned from iTunes. They don't want any one company to control the majority of downloads.
That doesn't mean that Apple won't manage by the vote of the dollar, but the studios are trying to prevent that from happening.
Viaclix has developed a system that streams broadcast quality video directly to TV's without the use of a PC and they've integrated the Internet into the system so you can watch TV and surf the net at the same time. Looks pretty cool.
So this means you can have cable on a TV without it actually connected by a cable? I don't see the great point.
IPTV is going to replace cable for many reasons. First of all, cable companies broadcast 150 channels to all of their subscribers at the same time whether on not you watch a particular channel. Cable has bandwidth limitations. IPTV, on the other hand, sends only the channel's you are watching. When you change channels it stops sending one and sends your new selection. This means that IPTV channel selections are theoretically unlimited. This makes for a more effeciant delivery system.
The second factor is that consumers are going to want to be able to have the option of accessing the web from their TV sets. The third factor is that advertisers are going to want to pay for interactive ads. All these add up to the cable industry eventually swapping over to IPTV.
So this means you can have cable on a TV without it actually connected by a cable? I don't see the great point.
Cable is only a part of the equation. DSL has caught up with cable, and is growing faster.
That means that there won't normally be an internet connection easily available in the living room where your audio/video systen is, unless you are one of those few who keep their computer there as well.
And, that's only one other part of the equation as well.
IPTV, on the other hand, sends only the channel's you are watching. When you change channels it stops sending one and sends your new selection. This means that IPTV channel selections are theoretically unlimited. This makes for a more effeciant delivery system.
Cable technology isn't exactly standing still either.
I read in an article maybe about a year ago. Cable companies exploring new delivery systems. One option was the ability to send one channel at a time to maximize use of available bandwidth. There was some technical limitations to it but I can't remember what they were.
They still have yet transition to all digital ATSC systems. So what we have today isn't likely to be the same a few years from now.
One less reason why Apple will need to provide this functionality. Hopefully they will allow it to play nice with iTV.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10...getv/index.php
And the percentage of people that want to do that every time they enter their living room to watch some programming is?
The difference for a person who watches TV programming between iTV and a DVR is that DVR owners use a DVR all the time, and would never go back to not having one. iTV looks like something that will sit there for long periods of time doing nothing, and being as useless as I think it will be for the majority. It's not going to take over the living room like a DVR does. iTV is a HoHum product, plain and simple.
Ho-hum is just about the best summary of iTV I've heard yet. Nearly as boring as movies on iTunes. Bah!
Ho-hum is just about the best summary of iTV I've heard yet. Nearly as boring as movies on iTunes. Bah!
I'm sure it's not something that would appeal to everyone. I'm sure there are people who love FM radio who think iPod is ho-hum.
A tidy sum.
Also, enough to get the ball rolling for them.
The rest is talent and audience choice, which will keep most of it in total obscurity.
The rest is talent and audience choice, which will keep most of it in total obscurity.
And we're better off for it.