Apple's Eddy Cue Suggests Apple Television Unlikely in Near-Term

So basically all this Apple TV buzz (whether set top box or television set) is just that, buzz from wall street analysts who are obsessed with the next thing Apple might "revolutionize". Yawn.

More time to keep saving up for one... do I hear any guesses on what these would start at?

alent1234 said:

each production company owns dozens of channels, its not like you have to deal on a channel by channel basis.

the issue is that they will only sell in bundles

Click to expand...

I think thats what Alent is getting at. A simple rundown of how the whole things works, and how Apple is most likely looking at it. (IMO)

I actually don't understand how/if the networks could lose $$ on a Cable-iTunes system. I know I would buy a share of Channels/shows. Wouldn't people like me surely help pick up profits? Its got to be the providers (TW/Comcast/etc.) holding the gun. "sign with them, and we're done"

I've said this again and again. The problem isn't the TV, it's the box connected to it. And combining the two doesn't solve the fundamental problem of content delivery.

Also, hardware servicing of televisions is not a casual game a company should just walk into. The sheer size of a TV product would require a different storage and distribution system than I think most Apple stores are equipped to handle (and since they are in malls, they can't just magically expand).

Regardless, I'd rather keep shopping for picture quality of a TV set separate from any subscription TV services offered by any other companies. Much easier to replace an outdated box than an outdated TV.

Rogifan said:

So basically all this Apple TV buzz (whether set top box or television set) is just that, buzz from wall street analysts who are obsessed with the next thing Apple might "revolutionize". Yawn.

Click to expand...

And some Cryptic comments by Steve himself. And I mean, it just seems to make sense.

joelisfar said:

More time to keep saving up for one... do I hear any guesses on what these would start at?

Click to expand...

$99. It's called the "Apple TV" They're pretty neat. I really like mine.

Translation: We haven't secured nor can we secure enough content deals to release anything and until we can get the TV and Movie industry to act like the music and publishing industry - we're at an impasse.

engg2000 said:

Steve's obviously found a way to be better. ITS OBVIOUS and I'm only posting this on this site once.

Can you imagine if you could subscribe to your favorite shows or channels rather than pay for your channels or series of channels, and watch them while they're being broadcast through Apple's TV?

If you miss the show you have any time to access that show (PVR in the cloud).

People who have Apple TV box won't be able to watch live. You need the TV for this feature.

Timeline for TV is dependent on when the broadcast rights can be secured.

e.

Click to expand...

And who exactly is going to sign up with Apple to do this? This is pie in the sky and I think Apple knows it, hence Tim Cook referring to TV Asa hobby.

And if the current TV is any indication of what Steve supposedly "cracked" then Apple needs to go back to the drawing board. The TV UI is awful.

Cable is a slowly dying industry...

Sure this won't happen this year, or maybe even next. But when the tipping point comes (that more consumers prefer "a la carte" viewing) Apple will be prepared and the cable companies won't have a leg to stand on. It will be about survival at that point.

I for one would welcome that day. As it is I'm close to letting cable go if it weren't for a few channels and apps here and there that require a cable subscription.

good cause an apple tv will flop hard.. it will be over priced and un needed

AlphaHumanus said:

And some Cryptic comments by Steve himself. And I mean, it just seems to make sense.

Click to expand...

I wonder how much this mythical Apple TV is priced into the stock. I mean Gene Munster is so sure a TV is coming next year.

I like the Apple TV enough for now until they perfect this.

re original article

i agree with mr cue
aapl tv set would have been a joke at this time
what would be the point of it
its the unification of content that is what the world needs
youtube was the on the right track untill the youtube police started closing accounts for copyright infringements
i would gladly pay a resonable price for "out of circulation" content shown at decent viewing resolution

MacRumors said:

As pointed out by Fortune's Philip Elmer-DeWitt, SEC rules prohibit sharing insider information that might have material affect on the company's stock

Click to expand...

Effect, not affect.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affect

imagine the disappointment if people found out THIS was the Apple TV

AlphaHumanus said:

I think thats what Alent is getting at. A simple rundown of how the whole things works, and how Apple is most likely looking at it. (IMO)

I actually don't understand how/if the networks could lose $$ on a Cable-iTunes system. I know I would buy a share of Channels/shows. Wouldn't people like me surely help pick up profits? Its got to be the providers (TW/Comcast/etc.) holding the gun. "sign with them, and we're done"

Click to expand...

if you look at the new google fiber TV package there are lots of missing channels and they are all in blocks. ABC/disney/ESPN, all the Fox channels. CBS is part of it because all the CBS channels are part of the package including Nick.

that's they way it works. if someone owns twenty some channels like ABC/Disney/ESPN you have to license them all and in the service tier that they tell you.

and when a provider like CBS adds a new channel you have to add it as well and pay the higher price

MacRumors said:

...iterated the company's mantra that it will enter markets where it feels it can create great customer experiences and address key problems. The key problems in the television market are the poor quality of the user interface and the forced bundling of pay TV content, in our view. While Apple could almost certainly create a better user interface...

Click to expand...

Ummmm...

1)The tv user interface is not "poor". Looking back, maybe it was back in 1975 when we all had to use antennas. 99% of people do not want 900 channels...they probably have 3-10 favorites...and very likely know the channel numbers. Moreover, the Guides have been around for 20+ years and although not terrific, are pretty simple to use. This quote is like saying it's hard to dial a phone number or use a phone book.

2)I agree with the bundling...but that is a BUSINESS decision to rob us of money by forcing us to do something their way or hit the highway. The same way other businesses (Apple, anyone?) force you to do something with extremely limited choices. Apple is a perfect example with forcing iOS people to buy only from Apple App Store. Or Apple giving you really limited "options" when ordering say a low-end iMac compared to a high-end iMac.


If Apple wants to revolutionize the TV industry, there's going to have to be a lot of negotiations on exactly how the TV industry (making the bazillions of dollars every year in profit already) is going to profit from the new Apple way. Let's face it, tv is a giant advertisement system that also has tv shows for you to watch (and usually has tons of ads in the corners of the shows too!). TV makes its money on ads. Therefore, Apple is going to have to come up with some model that allows tv shows to be produced and also allow the networks to get paid in order to create the shows in the first place. It will never be ad-free...that's a pipe dream.

I can see Apple revolutionizing the Pay Per View type model with a better UI...sure...I have Apple TV and really really like the interface. But I still pay out the nose for a movie on Apple TV just like I do with regular PPV today...

An apple branded TV isn't a mass market product, I love apple stuff am averagely well off and couldn't justify spending what Apple are likely to charge for a telly.
I think we'll see a PowerBook G5 first.

The current Apple TV is fine, but it would be great if live tv were accessible.

Couldn't agree more, while the user interface of most cable providers is very confusing and counter-intuitive. The bigger problem is the business model for purchasing the service. If Apple can negotiate better pricing on Rentals, Expand it's Catalog to include almost everything, and get Apple TV into more homes. I see no reason why they couldn't force cable companies to change their pricing policies, or face going out of business.

alent1234 said:

if you look at the new google fiber TV package there are lots of missing channels and they are all in blocks. ABC/disney/ESPN, all the Fox channels. CBS is part of it because all the CBS channels are part of the package including Nick.

that's they way it works. if someone owns twenty some channels like ABC/Disney/ESPN you have to license them all and in the service tier that they tell you.

and when a provider like CBS adds a new channel you have to add it as well and pay the higher price

Click to expand...

....right.

I understand how it works, but would networks lose $$ if they didnt do it that way? What benefit does a network get from deciding a cable companies service tiers? Is that really how it works? Thats an actual question, I havent had cable in years. I left because the ******* DIY channel shouldnt cost me $20, because I have to pay for 7,462,476 other channels that come with it.

Networks would still contract shows from production companies, and then license a package to Apple, who then allows the consumer to subscribe to personally tailored packages. a Cable app. with in app purchases of show subscriptions, and all that television-y nonsense.

I'm then lead to believe the obstacle is cable providers, who have the whole thing on contract lock.

Blame Content Providers / Cable Companies...

It would be one thing if Apple was trying to go head to head against one or two companies... but they are fighting most content providers AND all cable/dish companies on this... and that's not a battle even Apple can win... at least not yet... it will come.. cable/dish companies can resist it as long as they can, but eventually that old model will fall... it will just take time... its like Long Distance service... phone companies fought Free Long distance and use of local land lines as long as they could... but eventually, it went away in place of cell and VoIP... the same will eventually happen to cable/dish providers... it just takes a while when they give so much money to politicians...

String said:

Good news. I think the Apple Tv set would be a mistake. The market is both crowded and saturated. I just don't see an opportunity here.

Click to expand...

So were the computer, MP3 player, and cell phone markets when the iMac, iPod, iPhone came out.

Undecided said:

The current Apple TV is fine, but it would be great if live tv were accessible.

Click to expand...

Live TV is not the answer anymore, Streaming is where it's at.

The problem isn't Apple putting TV tuners into the Apple TV, it's the content providers offering New Releases through Streaming the moment they Air. It's being able to buy a Season Pass to Breaking Bad, and being able to Stream it immediately Sunday night at 10pm. This is the future

AlphaHumanus said:

I understand how it works, but would networks lose $$ if they didnt do it that way? .

Click to expand...

Yes they would...

It is because there is no real way to measure eyeballs, so advertisers are sort of over a barrel...

Lets say I have ESPN and a bunch of other channels. I charge a lot for my package because ESPN is a must have for my subscribers. I charge more every upgrade cycle, so the price goes up. I also make you take all of these other channels, and i want you to include those stations on the widest tier possible. Because I can then tell the advertisers that those channels are on that tier and therefor the ad rate is xxx.

Ala carte pricing would be a disaster for consumers. You would have dramatically less content, and ESPN would be WAY more expensive. All of these "good" programs that attract you to smaller channels would likely go away. Less content, less channels, same expense for the must haves... Not a good thing.

Rocketman said:

iTunes Music Store was made possible when music distributors entered into distribution agreements with Apple. They didn't do agreements with each artist. That would have been too "byzantine". One notable holdout, The Beatles, waited about a decade to cave.

TV is similar. Apple would have to enter into agreements with distributors. That either means aggregators like cable and satellite systems, or individual "channels". Trying to make deals with each and every production company would be "byzantine".

Click to expand...

Don't forget that the TV business is different in every country and being able to come to a solution for the U.S. doesn't guarantee a solution for the U.K. or Italy. And in most countries there's a degree of government regulation in the distribution of TV that isn't there for music.

And while making deals with each and every production company may by byzantine, it remains true that "XYZ Productions," who make "The Tom Smith Show" and "Amazing Model Race" may have sold one to CBS and the other to Fox in the US, both to CTV in Canada, neither in the UK, and one to 10 and the other to 7 in Australia, while both are on the XYZ satellite channel in Asia and South America.

It's amazingly complex.