Tim Cook: 'Intense Interest' in Redefining the Television Experience

odditie said:

I did not include DVRs. I have one HD DVR that runs me $8 per month and I have a digital box that is another $5 with Comcast.

I believe the $8 a month might be at a special rate, but the rest of the prices are what I'll pay as long as they don't up my rates.

Click to expand...

you are definitely getting some deals. Normal price for their HD DVR's is $14.99 a month and then $11 for each additional....then you have to pay (I think this is still the same) $19.99 a month for the HD service. I have charter now b.c of where I live, but comcast TV and internet was costing me $110 for the first year and then $140 after that.

MonkeySee.... said:

I'd expect Apple to look more like LG's to be honest.

Click to expand...

There's nothing left to look like. The higher end LGs and Samsungs when mounted already are nothing but screen.

Am I the only neo-luddite?

I have not watched any commercial/broadcast/cableTV programming in twenty years. Occasionally I'll try to watch but my cable provider is constantly shifting and rearranging the channel lineup - we now have 3,500 digital channels with programming gaps and duplicates littered throughout the lineup. It's a huge mess that doesn't even begin to address the coffee table littered with remote controls.

What's wrong with TV:

adildacoolset said:

So what you're saying, is that they're falling behind on something they haven't released yet

Click to expand...

They are falling behind with the current hockey puck Apple TV box in my view.

For example, the XBox360/Kinect bundle or the Wii U with TVii offer more interesting functionality. Same for Sony PS3 with Blu-Ray for movie buffs in addition to streaming options.

Granted, Apple TV is cheaper, but offers too little in my view.

There's also a rumor that Microsoft will offer a cheap Xbox version soon with focus on set-top-box functionality. They already offer a subsidized $99 XBox360.

(And new console generation coming from MS and Sony in next few months)

In my view, Apple should make a better Apple TV box to counter Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, Roku, and cable TV solutions instead of a TV set.

derbladerunner said:

In my view, Apple should make a better Apple TV box to counter Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo, Roku, and cable TV solutions instead of a TV set.

Click to expand...

And why is that?

odditie said:

So right now I pay $55 for 150+ channels and you are going to give me 15 for $55? Even if I take my wife and kids out of it I'm going to want NBC, Fox, ABC, NFL Network, MLB Network, ESPN, ESPN2, AMC, TCM, Discovery. So to keep those 10 now my wife and kids get 5 additional channels to choose from?

Click to expand...

I understand you don't want to pay more but I think that if it's going to happen, it's going to be expensive. I have DirecTV with 225 channels but I've probably watched 20 channels, maybe 10 on a regular basis. I also pay a lot more than you do. I guess they could offer a better price but don't expect them getting into a deal where they lose money.

odditie said:

The problem is how do you do that with local channels? TV is stuck in model that is broken for the future.

Click to expand...

I don't think the current system of delivering the signal needs to change. Whatever way it's done today could remain. I don't see why it would need to change.

adildacoolset said:

And why is that?

Click to expand...

Because I see no advantage in Apple offering a large TV set.

A "dumb" TV set can be produced by many tech companies (Samsung, Sony...) and is standardized tech with no margins. What could Apple add to the TV set that is unique? And that can generate 30-40% gross margins in line with other Apple product lines?

Besides, most people already own HDTV sets today. People rarely switch TV sets unless they break.

Why buy an Apple TV set for lots of $$ when Apple could offer an improved Apple TV box for 100-200$ that people can hook up with Wi-Fi and a single HDMI cable in minutes to their existing set?

That is my reasoning. We will see what Cook thinks in 2013

odditie said:

Then it will fail.

I don't want to do hand signals to my TV and I don't want to talk to it and be frustrated when it doesn't understand me. I want it to just work without delay.

Click to expand...

To shape the future you have to look a bit further than what is in your hand. Just because something is slow or doesn't work well today, doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. Regarding your "I don't want" comment, that is fine but your reaction was the same people had when the iPhone was introduced in 2007. "Typing on glass. No, thanks! I am happy with my tactile keyboards!".

What would Apple be able to offer in a television that they can't offer by upgrading their AppleTv console?

My guess, nothing. Just another way to bilk a few grand out of their customers.

jglonek said:

If the "user experience" is anything like what the Apple TV currently provides I'll pass, thanks.

For instance - I literally -just- tried to pull up the Star Trek trailer on it. I know it's on Youtube, and I know it's on Apple's Trailer website. But pull up the Trailers app on the Apple TV? Not there. Try to search on the Youtube app? Can't find it.

I had to pull out my phone and airplay it from a Youtube link on Facebook, which recently sometimes works with Youtube videos and sometimes doesn't.

Click to expand...

True that. Long way to go. If Siri is the mdel, even a longer wayyyy to go!

Just loaded my Xfinity app to DVR it.

phr33k said:

It actually does make sense if you look at whats happening by reading this article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-05/apple-declines-as-nokia-clinches-china-smartphone-deal.html

Click to expand...

I see what you mean... yet, everything indicates Apple's going to have an amazing quarter - best ever - and yet investors have the stock on a roller coaster. To me, seems like positioning for profit taking in Q1.

Content is king

The saying goes: content is king.

Even Sony, which owns Columbia Pictures and many other content providers, hasn't "revolutionized" the current TV model.
Now, I can't speak intelligently on Sony's ambition in this area but with all of their gaming, audio, video, and professional lines to leverage, they would seem like a natural in that arena.

Apple, has been very successful in creating products that disrupt or create market segments so dismissing their ambition is silly. The TV space; and by that I mean physical televisions, has razor thin margins, overbearing regulation, and a content delivery model that is behind current display technologies (720p cable/satellite to 1080p sets). These barriers, are a lot to take on and I suspect, very costly.

I'm personally looking forward to the evolution of television's content delivery. As long as I can still watch my favourite sports teams live everything else can be watched "time-shifted". Of course this is just my $0.02!

derbladerunner said:

Because I see no advantage in Apple offering a large TV set.

A "dumb" TV set can be produced by many tech companies (Samsung, Sony...) and is standardized tech with no margins. What could Apple add to the TV set that is unique? And that can generate 30-40% gross margins in line with other Apple product lines?

Besides, most people already own HDTV sets today. People rarely switch TV sets unless they break.

Why buy an Apple TV set for lots of $$ when Apple could offer an improved Apple TV box for 100-200$ that people can hook up with Wi-Fi and a single HDMI cable in minutes to their existing set?

That is my reasoning. We will see what Cook thinks in 2013

Click to expand...

Apple can add unique stuff to the TV set. It may be something we do know or something we don't know.

We don't even know apple's strategy. It's stupid to think that the executives wouldn't know that people don't switch their TVs every couple of years. They must have something in store because of that.

They may sell the two side by side, adding new display tech and a nice design with the TV set. Along with the other features expected. And a heavily refreshed box that competes well with the products you mentioned earlier, for a cheaper price and does the TV jobs better than the other products.

We just don't know, and its too early to make a conclusion as to how the App,e TV will do. I also remember hearing pundits saying the ipad won't do well because its a blown up iPod. The executives and the engineering team must have accounted for the things you mentioned. Products don't just instantly appear at the blink of an eye.

TallManNY said:

Yes, but the point is are they trying to change it was software, itunes and a $100 hockey puck or are they trying to do it with those three things plus a $1,000 monitor.

The first one makes the most sense to me. I just don't see how they can get into the massive screen business and still keep their margins up.

Click to expand...

They're trying to do it by changing the business model behind television using the internet as disruptive technology. Everyone talking about Apple killing the bundle is right and the TV hardware isn't important. It's the content distribution that's important.

TV is one of the last media markets whose distribution hasn't been disrupted by internet technology. Music was disrupted by iTunes. Books were disrupted by eBooks. Video rentals were disrupted by Netflix. Video Games were disrupted by digital downloads. TV is still the same as it was 30 years ago - consumers overpaying for bundled channels sent to their TV through redundant equipment. It's a golden opportunity for whoever can kill the bundle and Apple is one of the few companies with the clout to do it.

Boatboy24 said:

Jumping onto the DirecTV app on my iphone to set my DVR...

Click to expand...

just did the same!

Great a $10,000 32'' TV.


I agree why not just enhance AppleTV?

Why bother getting into this market.


I don't even have cable anymore. I have USA Netflix, Canada Netflix, Hulu, and the rest I "purchase overnight". Everything streams or is used through my Xbox without issue.


I don't need/want those in app TV's. They are all a gimmick.

I think whatever Tim Cook is cooking up with TV, that it's still a year or more away. We'll just have to make due with a new retina iPad mini, updated 5S and maybe retina MBA in the first half of 2013.

If they have "intense interest" in redefining the TV experience but the Apple TV is a "hobby" are we going to see an Apple TV set?

I'm really interested to see what Apple will do in this space. Apple has lately turned to the strategy of getting people to upgrade because of software but no one wants to buy a new TV every year or even every 5 years. I always thought the Apple TV is a sensible device since it gives you an Apple experience and you don't have to upgrade the entire TV to update the software. At the same time, it's just another box in the living room and I'm not sure Apple can rely on only content to succeed.

MisterMe said:

Given:

• Many cable providers stream 1000s of channels each.
• Satellite providers stream hundreds.
• In many markets, over-the-air broadcasters provide dozens of streams.
• If you have an Internet connection, then you have many streaming services including Apple's own iTunes at your beck and call.

Question:

Why do you believe that Apple will revolutionize television by providing yet another program stream?

Click to expand...

out of those 1000s channels that cable companies provide, how many you actually watch? without spamming with ads, repeat, and low quality? Cable contents today are a waste land. it is very hard to find things that you like.

remember before apple itune? you buy a CD with 16 songs for $20-$25 for one good song, and other songs are just filler.

give us content that we can choose and decide when we can watch. No bundle, no ads, no repeat. on top of that, provide the technologies to easily find the content, interest matching, seemlessly integrated with idevices. if apple can provide the same value that they did for itune, they will get big business.

Liquorpuki said:

They're trying to do it by changing the business model behind television using the internet as disruptive technology. Everyone talking about Apple killing the bundle is right and the TV hardware isn't important. It's the content distribution that's important.

TV is one of the last media markets whose distribution hasn't been disrupted by internet technology. Music was disrupted by iTunes. Books were disrupted by eBooks. Video rentals were disrupted by Netflix. Video Games were disrupted by digital downloads. TV is still the same as it was 30 years ago - consumers overpaying for bundled channels sent to their TV through redundant equipment. It's a golden opportunity for whoever can kill the bundle and Apple is one of the few companies with the clout to do it.

Click to expand...

The problem is that cable television is an entirely different business model. Those other forms of media stand on their own. Buying an e-book isn't all that different than buying a physical copy in the store. Same with buying an album, or a movie, or a game. There's a one to one transfer between seller and buyer. Cable is vastly different.

As I described earlier, a lot of programming and channels can only exist because of the bundle. There's a good chance that killing the bundle would end up severely limiting choice down the road. I'm not saying that there isn't a way to do it. It's just a lot more complicated than people think.

foxnews1 said:

No bundle, no ads, no repeat.

Click to expand...

You make it sound so simple.

handsome pete said:

The problem is that cable television is an entirely different business model. Those other forms of media stand on their own. Buying an e-book isn't all that different than buying a physical copy in the store. Same with buying an album, or a movie, or a game. There's a one to one transfer between seller and buyer. Cable is vastly different.

As I described earlier, a lot of programming and channels can only exist because of the bundle. There's a good chance that killing the bundle would end up severely limiting choice down the road. I'm not saying that there isn't a way to do it. It's just a lot more complicated than people think.



You make it sound so simple.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that it will be way more complicated than people think. If it's done right however this really could be a great thing! Apple (sort of) has some things in place for a service like this.

handsome pete said:

The problem is that cable television is an entirely different business model. Those other forms of media stand on their own. Buying an e-book isn't all that different than buying a physical copy in the store. Same with buying an album, or a movie, or a game. There's a one to one transfer between seller and buyer. Cable is vastly different.

As I described earlier, a lot of programming and channels can only exist because of the bundle. There's a good chance that killing the bundle would end up severely limiting choice down the road. I'm not saying that there isn't a way to do it. It's just a lot more complicated than people think.

Click to expand...

No, you're right and the fact that it's difficult is probably why TV is the last to be disrupted. But I can't picture Apple making a move into the TV market without changing the business model, I really don't think they're that dumb. Without affecting distribution, they really have no leverage.

In the end I think it's the consumers that will decide and not the companies. Whoever makes the better value proposition will win. I pay Time Warner a ton of money just so I can watch Laker games because I'm subsidizing a ton of channels in languages I don't understand, oxygen, the lifetime network, AKA channels I don't care about. If someone could give me a value proposition where I only pay for what I actually watch, I would switch in a heartbeat and my $$$ would follow.

bacaramac said:

I already have Apple TV's at all three and would very much prefer to only need the Apple TV box.

Click to expand...

If and when Apple does come up with a solution, you will be upgrading those apple tvs because they surely won't support it.