Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Set-Top Box and Cable TV Service Won't Initially Revolutionize the Industry
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It was bound to happen sooner or later if we talk about enough subjects
And I second the Leaf. Love it.
Our setup is an old (2009) laptop (with HDMI out to the TV) I wasn't using any more - HDHomeRun - Leaf Antenna + windows media center. I thought I would have to get Eye TV software or something - but so far, I have to say with the amount we watch/need to record (which isn't much) WMC works just fine.
We also have Apple TV on both sets and I love PLEX. We haven't subscribed to Hulu + yet. We're debating.
So for $40 (antenna) + $80 (HDHomerun) - we now pretty much have as much "cable" and "dvr" as we ever really needed in the first place.
And I was honestly surprised at the quality of the HD signal coming from the Leaf antenna too.
Scripted content is already available a la carte per episode from Apple iTunes & Amazon Video.
I have cable shows like "The Walking Dead" automatically pushed down to my Tivo to supplement what I record over the air (OTA).
The big issue is live sports carried on pay (not broadcast) channels.
Unless Intel can solve that problem they're just offering another Roku.
I have cable shows like "The Walking Dead" automatically pushed down to my Tivo to supplement what I record over the air (OTA).
The big issue is live sports carried on pay (not broadcast) channels.
Unless Intel can solve that problem they're just offering another Roku.
Its time to bypass the cable companies. Its ridiculous we pay so much to watch commercials.
You're kidding yourself if you think commercials are going away with any new television business model.
Others will jump on board buying out networks? It's unlikely that such a purchase could go through with antitrust protections. It's also unlikely that Apple would make such a purchase. They typically look for small companies with talented staff. Think of Apple like like this.
They look for companies that can be easily assimilated. They have no real experience running a television network and do not make a habit of taking on wholly owned subsidiaries most of the time. Filemaker Pro was published by a subsidiary, but it was more of an exception. Returning capital to investors would likely make more sense than taking on increased bloat in areas where they have no experience and a lack of appropriate evaluation skills.
It's a 'comfortable little cycle' that has worked great for them up till now. There's zero incentive for them to change, after all, why would they rock the boat; they have a good thing going. But nothing lasts forever, and neither will their stranglehold over our cable content and DSL broadband. If they are not willing to be reasonable with any negotiations, technology will find a way around them, sooner or later. I'm 100% convinced of that. When that time comes, you won't find many people weeping for them.
I know I won't be. I want a'la carte, and I want it now.
Thing is, until the internet provides a model that provides the networks and studios at least the same amount of cash as the oldschool model, and allows them to hype and advertise their shows just as easily, they won't be willing to move on. They certainly won't be doing it simply because it's cheaper and easier for us.
If they're not getting the cash, they can't make new shows and movies for us to watch. They can't gain a profit to impress their shareholders and allow them to grow. Tragically, our convenience only plays a small part of a much larger whole. One day we'll have a'la carte, but realistically, I'm not expecting things to change all that much over the next 5 years or so.
...though I'd happily eat a whole bunch of crow if it does.
The only way to revolutionise this industry is to cut the stranglehold of the cable/internet companies by switching to wireless broadband. 4G technology is faster than most fixed line broadband now. Apple could set up a MVNO wilth unlimited data at 4G speeds. Access TV on the internet wirelessly on your iOS device or Apple TV. No more cable companies. Subscribe to individual channels as app's.
I don't disagree with your argument that "Intel TV's" business model and services are different than Apple TV and/or roku. You have valid points there. BUT, the OP didn't bring any of that up. He was merely mocking (or criticizing) Intel TV, saying that it would be crap because of internet unreliability. And I was merely stating that a) the internet unreliability that would affect an Intel TV product would be the same unreliability that affects Apple TV today and b) criticizing Intel TV for internet unreliability isn't warranted given that it affects other streaming services as well.
I think there is merit to your arguments above and these arguments justify your criticism of Intel TV...BUT the OP didn't make the same arguments that you did.
Bundled content is just one aspect of Intel TV. The on-demand/streaming options is a totally different story.
Doesn't Cablevision own HBO and a few others? Seems like the cable companies are slowly buying up networks.
I'm not paying $120 every month for a cable-like bundle with AppleTV, that's the difference.
Exactly! the networks control the content. They have absolutely no incentive to move to a model that's going to mean LESS money to them.
A la carte means no bundling of channels and ad dollars they get from putting families of channels together. It means no subscription fees for multiple TV networks.
Everybody assumes their a la carte pricing is basically a fraction of their bill for 'what they watch'. In reality it'll be much higher because the cost of shared programming now has to be floated by customers of that one show or network.
Until the group of 'cord cutters' is big enough to make it worthwhile...things aren't going to change. And until live sports and first run content is available, that number is going to stay relatively low...
While I agree that paying $100+ for a cable-like bundle IS different than Apple TV, please read the original post that I was responding to.
The OP was claiming that Intel's TV service would be horrible due to internet unreliability and my statement was related to that. Apple TV, roku, and similar streaming services are also subject to internet / ISP unreliability...hence my question: How is Intel's service different than Apple TV in this regard?
If folks want to criticize Intel's business model, pricing, content service... then sure I think there are valid points. But criticizing Intel's efforts based on something that they can't control (and affects all streaming services) is a bit unfair and seems to be "bashing Intel" without proper justification.