Intel to Launch Cable TV Service and Set Top Box at CES 2013

Confuzzzed said:

What makes you think that? The UI of most cable receivers are horrible. And there is nothing intelligent about the likes of TiVO either when it comes to actually working out what viewers like and what to recommend to you...Much room for improvement...

Click to expand...

They have control of the content not apple

----------

Confuzzzed said:

What makes you think that? The UI of most cable receivers are horrible. And there is nothing intelligent about the likes of TiVO either when it comes to actually working out what viewers like and what to recommend to you...Much room for improvement...

Click to expand...

macs4nw said:

That would be an idea, but it would cost billions upon billions in infrastructure, and I'm not sure APPLE has an appetite for that.



It seems that way, for now anyway.....

Cable companies are, for the most part, not content creators, but content distributors -middle men- effectively, who are not willingly going to give up their revenue streams, unless some revolutionary concept came along, that would alter the entire marketplace, and that would either replace them, or be financially beneficial to them in the long term. Another possibility would be, content creators uploading their shows directly to satellite, and dishes replacing our cable modems, for both broadband internet and cable tv. Probably cheaper than the billions, the cable cos spend on cabling infrastructure, as well as maintenance and upgrading thereof. The savings of having eliminated those cable cos/middlemen, could make a cheaper alternative for consumers a reality, while preserving, if not even increasing, profit for the creators of worthwhile content. This could be a win-win for both content creators and users.
Sorry middlemen, with your unbridled greed, you've priced yourselves "out of the picture'. No pun intended.

I'm optimistic that sometime in the future, the Cable Co's stranglehold on our tv viewing will be broken, and I'm cautiously hopeful that APPLE may have an ace up their sleeve, somewhere down the line. Only time will tell.

Click to expand...

Yup

----------

Thunderhawks said:

Cable TV may think it is in the drivers seat, but they will be dinosaurs eventually if they don't change their way of doing business.

People no longer want to pay for "packages" including channels they never watch. So, yes, they won't pay more for cable.

A la carte and streaming is where the future will be.

Whoever figures that out best is going to get the most business until Samsung comes in and copies it and Microsoft makes it a "foremost" priority in their minds.

Click to expand...

What makes u think pay per channel is coming? I mean I'd love it that way but it won't happen until congress steps in


Why should companies play ball with apple when they saw what they did to the music industry?

yossi said:

Let me get 7 local channels, CNN, TBS, USA, TNT and a few others for $20 a month and I will sign up! Right now I have no cable because I cannot afford $100 a month for 789 channels

Click to expand...

+1, those are the only channels, aside from FX and MSNBC at times, I watch. At 36, I haven't had cable TV for years (living alone as a home owner). As I'm back in grad school and moved to Boston for a bit, my flatmate needs it. Sucks that only Cablevision services our area, no FiOS or U-Verse or even TW. As much as I hate Cablevision, I was able to get high speed internet (50 Mbps DL and 20 UL), HDDVR's and 1000 channels, Showtime and HBO for ~$100/mo. However, I'd prefer what you wrote above.

Procurating is fun.

greenman45 said:

Would anybody be able to explain the hierarchy of Cable television?

I understand there are channels/network (ABC, CNN, TNT, Fox..)
There are distribution channels/providers (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, FIOS, AT&T Uverse, DISH...)

Does comcast own networks, or do the networks own the cable companies?

Click to expand...

As I understand, neither owns the other. TW, Cablevision, AT&T U-Verse, Verizon FiOS, etc are distributors supplying the content. I'm not well versed in the contractual cable television industry, so I cannot speak on the terms of their agreements. I do know, and correct me if I am wrong, that Comcast bought NBC in 2011. This is an exception of course. Perhaps the cable providers do own some channels/networks, but normally that isn't the case.

As for networks, I know that NBC took over USA network through various buys:

In 2000, USA Networks bought Canada's North American Television, Inc. (a joint partnership between the CBC and Power Corporation of Canada), owner of cable TV channels Trio and Newsworld International (the CBC continued to program NWI until 2005, when eventual USA owner Vivendi sold the channel to a group led by Al Gore, who relaunched it as Current TV).

In 2001, USA Networks sold its non-shopping TV and film assets (including the USA Network, the Sci Fi Channel, the Trio channel, USA Films (which was rechristened as Focus Features) and Studios USA) to Vivendi Universal. USA and the other channels were folded into Vivendi's Universal Television Group.

In 2003, General Electric's NBC agreed to buy 80% of Vivendi Universal's North American–based filmed entertainment assets, including Universal Pictures and Universal Television Group in a multi-billion dollar purchase, renaming the merged company NBC Universal.

In 2004, NBC Universal officially took over as owner of USA and its sibling cable channels (except for Newsworld International as stated above).

In 2011, control and majority ownership of then-parent NBCUniversal passed from General Electric to Comcast.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is interesting, your question has me very curious about other networks. I recall this buyout involving Comcast as it p.o.ed many for various reasons (Comcast is evil).

Turner Network Television (TNT) is an American cable television channel created by media mogul Ted Turner and currently owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division of Time Warner that airs a variety of shows, with a focus on dramatic programming.

Click to expand...

Huh, for some reason I always thought NBC and TNT were related in ownership as TNT plays many NBC shows in syndication (Law & Order being a main show), and CBS and USA being related due to USA play CBS shows such as NCIS at the same rate as TNT plays Law & Order. Interesting.

WilliamLondon said:

This reeks of Microsoft trying their hand at things they've never done in some totally new area which they find interesting because they see others doing something there and their investors are demanding new directions, throwing a whole lot of money at it, coming out with something, failing, and quietly retreating back into milking your install base upgrade business because that's all you can do well is upgrade the install base you somehow managed to lock in years ago when the industry was much different.

Click to expand...

Microsoft actually did launch a cable box front end UI on Comcast here in the Seattle / Puget Sound area. It wasn't great, but it worked well enough that when we were upgraded to HD, I went with a Comcast DVR and retired my Tivo 2.

Microsoft eventually grew bored with it and dropped it. Comcast then deployed iGuide / SARA UI, which was so craptacular that I bought a Tivo HD after three days and haven't looked back.

OriginalMacRat said:

You do realize that is would still require you to buy TV from Cox, right?

It's just yet another cable box with added features.

Click to expand...

Did not and lame.

I had to do a double take when I saw "Cable TV Service" and "Intel" together.

gotluck said:

The eyeroll at the end.

Click to expand...

I interpreted it as he thinks it's a little ridiculous to have a quad core processor in a cable box, not that Intel's processors are somehow inherently bad.

Of course, many people said the same thing about phones not too long ago, and now look where we are. I don't think it's an absurd notion, personally.

bedifferent said:

+1, those are the only channels, aside from FX and MSNBC at times, I watch. At 36, I haven't had cable TV for years (living alone as a home owner). As I'm back in grad school and moved to Boston for a bit, my flatmate needs it. Sucks that only Cablevision services our area, no FiOS or U-Verse or even TW. As much as I hate Cablevision, I was able to get high speed internet (50 Mbps DL and 20 UL), HDDVR's and 1000 channels, Showtime and HBO for ~$100/mo. However, I'd prefer what you wrote above.

Click to expand...

Do you mean $20 + the cost of the Internet so that you can stream the shows? Or are you thinking that $20 includes Internet Access? Not sure why most do not understand that the cost of Internet will go up when they can not bundle TV with it. Also, do you think you may need a faster internet connection at a higher cost so that you can stream all of your content over the Internet instead of cable. Not sure about all the solutions out there but FIOS offers options with much fewer channels at much less then $100 per month including Internet and phone. Also, ever heard of creating a "Favorite's" Channel List?

I'd look foreword to this.......but.......does intel really have the software knowhow to make this worthwhile? Most other cable or satellite services don't.

Radio said:

Ces2013 will suck.

Apple will not succeed with their tv

People won't pay more for cable tv

Cable tv is in the drivers seat

Click to expand...

And these computer guys aren't just going to walk in and figure out how to make a great phone. It's taken us years to figure that out. /famous last words

greenman45 said:

Would anybody be able to explain the hierarchy of Cable television?

Click to expand...

There is no defined hierarchy as implied by your question. For original programming:

1. Production companies. Generate programs. They may be independent or they may work for the network that distributes their program.
2. Networks. Distribute programming to cable providers.
3. Cable provider. They deliver programming to the local viewer. In the USA, cable providers are legally local businesses that operate under contract with local government. In practice, they are becoming branches of huge national distributers. The local cable company is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

For repeat programming, everything is the same except the relationship between the network and producers--and not even that. The networks produce original programming for each other. The TV producer business model is a repeat programming business model. The original network is given the rights to display a program for a limited number of times--let's say twice. After that, the producer may license the program to other outlets. Programs like M*A*S*H and Seinfield, which are seen about 1851 times each day in the US on both cable and broadcast, generate enormous revenue for their producers. This revenue pays for the production of new programs that the producers hope will be equally successful.

greenman45 said:

I understand there are channels/network (ABC, CNN, TNT, Fox..)
There are distribution channels/providers (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, FIOS, AT&T Uverse, DISH...)

Does comcast own networks, or do the networks own the cable companies?

Click to expand...

GE owns 50% of NBCUniversal. Comcast owns the other 50% of NBCUniversal and operates the company. NBCUniversal owns numerous cable networks, several broadcast networks, and several local broadcast TV stations. NBCUniversal also owns several production companies, amusement parks, and web-based services.

Comcast owns cable franchises across the US.

Comcast is not unique in having fingers in every aspect of entertainment from studio to living room. TimeWarner also owns production companies, 50% of The CW broadcast network, TimeWarner Cable, several major cable networks, and broadcast stations. NewsCorp owns numerous production companies, cable networks, broadcast networks, and local broadcast stations, but no cable providers. CBS owns production companies, broadcast networks, cable networks, local broadcast stations, but no cable providers. Disney owns ABC, the ubiquitous ESPN cable networks, other cable networks, production companies, local broadcast stations, but no cable providers.

greenman45 said:

Couldnt apple just negotiate directly with the networks and have the content stream over the internet protocol. What do they need Comcast or Time warner for?

Click to expand...

The cable companies provide the Internet connection for most private homes. Comcast's Xfinity cable service is IPTV-based.

I guess the short answer to your question is "Yes." However, I believe that this is the wrong question. For all of the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, you and people who think like you are really just asking for a relatively minor upgrade to iTunes.

d21mike said:

Do you mean $20 + the cost of the Internet so that you can stream the shows? Or are you thinking that $20 includes Internet Access? Not sure why most do not understand that the cost of Internet will go up when they can not bundle TV with it. Also, do you think you may need a faster internet connection at a higher cost so that you can stream all of your content over the Internet instead of cable. Not sure about all the solutions out there but FIOS offers options with much fewer channels at much less then $100 per month including Internet and phone. Also, ever heard of creating a "Favorite's" Channel List?

Click to expand...

I think you've missed the point. The cost was for cable television, nothing about internet. I merely stated my expenses as an aside, explaining that I don't mind paying for hundreds of channels per month as the cost for my cable bill (television and internet) is so low with a flatmate it's a drop in a salty sea compared to others' monthly cable bills. As I responded to that individuals comment in agreement that those are also the only channels I watch, our point was we are paying a lot of money for hundreds of channels we don't watch. Certainly I know a "favourites" list, however you make our point more valid by stating that a favourites list is necessary in order to extract the only few channels we watch out of hundreds of unnecessary channels for our modest viewing needs. Why spend more money a month for channels we do not need?

As for the internet, that is an entirely different topic.

Awesome, I'll buy 2. I wish there was something better than TiVo. I just bought an HDHomerun box to run WMC so I could watch live tv, but maybe i'll return it if this works out.

deannnnn said:

I've been having DNS issues too, seems to be affecting all FiOS northeast customers. I switched over to the Google Public DNS though and it solved everything.

Click to expand...

It happens to all Verizon customers. I tried switching to the non-FiOS Verizon DNS, and it was still bad. I'm using OpenDNS now, which is good but occasionally takes a long time for a DNS lookup. Google is slower for me.

I wonder if the slow DNS thing is a way of throttling users? It seems pretty ridiculous that such an awesome service has a DNS worse than Quest DSL in Arizona.

I think people are living in fantasy land if they think they'll ever get an ala cart system for $20 per month. With my current DIRECTV account I'm paying roughly 59¢ per channel. Does anyone honestly think channels would be that cheap under an ala cart system? Or that companies like NBCUniversal or Walt Disney would even allow for an ala cart system? Aren't they the ones forcing bundling in the first place?

----------

drblank said:

I think it would be a great idea if Apple sold a box that could be used by any cable TV provider that had a built-in DVR, ability to run Mac Apps/Games, video conferencing, rent movies from iTunes/NetFlix, etc., AirPlay.. And had the ability to be moved from location to location and use the same service or change service. I think 4G/LTE might be fast enough to do this wirelessly. Whatcha think?

Click to expand...

You really think Apple's future is getting in the set top business? Google just sold Motorola's. I'd rather see Apple get into the car audio space. Last time I was at best buy they told me they're installing audio decks in cars all the time; it's a huge business. And talk about confusing interfaces. I don't think you can get much worse than some of the after market car audio decks.

.

Great. Now Apple is going to start suing Intel now.

MacRumors said:

... Intel was frustrated with "everyone doing a half-assed Google TV...

Click to expand...

Aren't we all.

----------

Rogifan said:

... With my current DIRECTV account I'm paying roughly 59¢ per channel. ...

Click to expand...

But how many are you actually watching? I watch zero Home and Garden TV, but I'm paying DirecTV for it every month.

Rogifan said:

... Does anyone honestly think channels would be that cheap under an ala cart system? ...

Click to expand...

I don't. But I'd gladly pay for just what I'm interested in. Kind of like renting only the DVDs/BDs I really want instead of renting all of them, every month, without watching 99.9% of them.

Stupid idea for Intel, but for Apple....

If Intel really did do this, it would fail miserably. I am just waiting on Apples TV if they ever do it. It will be a great product but will be very expensive and not have many buyers because of the expensive prices. So Apple would have to make it inexpensive for normal consumers and they will be selling out.

HobeSoundDarryl said:

Nice thought. Who controls your broadband feed through which these alternative breakthrough services must flow? Apple, Google, Intel, etc: whoever brings us the next-gen TV service that depends upon a broadband pipe very likely owned by the very same middleman who likes their cable/satt revenues "as is" is only inserting a new middle man (Apple, Google, Intel, etc). If somehow such a new service was able to eat up the cable revenues, the cable company that is also our broadband provider (probably the sole broadband provider in most areas) will simply make up the difference in higher broadband rates. Why do you think they're in the broadband business anyway? Any why do they gobble up any challengers that try to get broadband alternatives going in their markets?

And the satt dish bypass idea- while good in concept (and personally I think about the only way the dream might have a chance)- is highly unlikely to translate into savings for us consumers. There's already existing satt players in place with satts already in orbit and their pricing tends to not be that different than cable pricing. One could argue they are just "being greedy" too but then we have to take a leap of huge faith that someone like Apple would forgo all that profit just because they would like to replace the existing greedy middlemen. Does Apple have the reputation of profit minimization to benefit us consumers in anything they offer?

I love the dream of this wonderful new world of us getting all of our television wishes granted for much less than we spend now but it all falls apart by simply thinking it through. It's like the dream of much cheaper cell phone service just because Apple entered the cell phone industry with a new smart phone. We all should recognize that some of the very same players in the cell phone service business are these existing middlemen in the cable service business. Why do we imagine huge savings for us consumers this time? For huge savings, someone else in the chain has to take the huge hit. Is that the new middleman (Apple, Google, Intel?) or is that the content creators. In the dream, those are the only other links in the chain. Who's going to take the big revenue hit so that we can get those cheaper prices we imagine?

Click to expand...

Don't hose me too bad if this idea has already been shot down, and I have no idea of what the FCC hurdles would be, but what if Apple simply wants to launch their own satellites?

Think about it: They clear the initial hurdle of FCC licensing, find privately funded ways to launch (becoming more and more prevalent.) They strike their own content deals directly with the providers, completely sidetrack having to deal with any of the existing strangleholds, and then sell their own boxes. No TV production, just the set top box, and the al a carte model (with hopefully some more friendly pricing packages for those who want more than just a few shows, but not 8000 channels.) It would be a package deal that would include the roof top dish and X amount of some Apple TV set top box on steroids.

Seems a bit far fetched, but it isn't terribly far from a reality. Its much cheaper than building a ground based infrastructure, or negotiating with existing cash mongers out there now, AND they could revolutionize they way they would like.

Makes plenty of sense to me on some levels.

Edit: This is reeallly far fetched, but depending on the price of the set top box (it would be crazy high if this were to happen....) but no monthly fee? With the exception of paying for premiums like HBO....nah. I'm nuts on this one.

bedifferent said:

I think you've missed the point. The cost was for cable television, nothing about internet. I merely stated my expenses as an aside, explaining that I don't mind paying for hundreds of channels per month as the cost for my cable bill (television and internet) is so low with a flatmate it's a drop in a salty sea compared to others' monthly cable bills. As I responded to that individuals comment in agreement that those are also the only channels I watch, our point was we are paying a lot of money for hundreds of channels we don't watch. Certainly I know a "favourites" list, however you make our point more valid by stating that a favourites list is necessary in order to extract the only few channels we watch out of hundreds of unnecessary channels for our modest viewing needs.

Why spend more money a month for channels we do not need?

Click to expand...

Take it a step further...

Why pay for entire channels when there are only certain shows you want to watch?

Channels play 24 hours a day. They play when you're asleep or at work. And most of the time they play programs you care nothing about.

So... why not just buy the shows you want?

Michael Scrip said:

Take it a step further...

Why pay for entire channels when there are only certain shows you want to watch?

Channels play 24 hours a day. They play when you're asleep or at work. And most of the time they play programs you care nothing about.

So... why not just buy the shows you want?

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

Personal aside, I used Time Warner when I lived in NYC and LA. TW has been fully digital for a long while. I've been able to connect TV's and my Mac Pro via EyeTV Hybrid to any cable jack and get 1-99 channels, and OTA HD programming.

In Boston I'm forced to use Comcast. I have to pay $1.99/month for a "DTA" if I wish to use another cable jack without a DVR. Comcast claims this is because they are fully digital. BS, complete and utter BS. Time Warner has been fully digital in NYC, upstate NY and LA (at least in my area) and they don't scramble their signal in order to charge customers $1.99/month per TV set, and that is only for 1-99 channels and the signal is awful.

I was able to use my EyeTV to directly control my programming, schedule recordings, and watch them at home or abroad. Now I have to set my EyeTV to channel 3, thereby negating its purpose.

It irks me that Comcast has a deal with Boston politicians in securing markets, keeping competition out. This is the case with Rochester, NY (where my family resides). TW has a deal with the city of Rochester as the only cable provider by circumventing laws as a "test market" (they test marketed caller ID for your TV, which went no where). Verizon FiOS and AT&T U-Verse have hubs based in Buffalo that feed all the way to NYC, but they cannot come into Monroe County. The only other provider is Dish or DirectTV which aren't cable based. When I lived in Rochester for a summer, my cable bill for the same package was double what I paid in NYC. When I asked TW why, the operator stammered and basically stated they have a monopoly on cable services.

Nice. Go corporate America!

This is why we need to get a grip on the cable providers. Internet services have become a necessity in our modern lives, and as such many people require them for work and school. No, it's not electricity but it certainly is a need for many. Gauging customers has become commonplace, and someone needs to hold these companies and their lobbyists accountable. While the cost of living sky rockets while gross annual income barely moves to match pace, as consumers we need to hold these businesses accountable. I'd state vote with your dollars, but when providers have a lock on markets there aren't other choices. This is un-American; it's a monopoly and fair business laws needs to level this market out. I hope Apple can do some good in this area.

Why do all these new options feel so expensive?

Waxhead138 said:

Don't hose me too bad if this idea has already been shot down, and I have no idea of what the FCC hurdles would be, but what if Apple simply wants to launch their own satellites?

Click to expand...

Apple could do that but then you are talking a many years process just to set up the first launch. It's very expensive to put it all together and actually launch one satt. If you are going to have some kind of on-demand, al-a-carte, you are going to need to launch huge satt bandwidth... much more than- say- DirecTV and DISH who have been launching many satts for many years.

It's the same problem for cable. We think we want al-a-carte but cable doesn't have the bandwidth for us to watch what we want to watch when we want to watch it even if they actually wanted to deliver the dream. It's one thing to stream the exact same flow of data at exactly the same time to several hundred thousand households in an area. It's much more complicated if those households all decided they wanted to watch different things at that time (or even watch that same show but all start it at slightly different times).

For the dream as we want it, I think the satt solution is probably the way to go. But it's not an easy solution and not one that could be realized over even a few years. And it's not a solution where Apple is going to spend the billions to get a satt fleet in orbit and deliver us a cable replacement solution for $20 or $10 or $5 per month. We might as well wish for Apple to build out a LTE network for the iPhone at the same time and then sell us unlimited LTE everything for $20 or $10 or $5 per month.

Occasionally there is some talk of Apple buying DISH network and repurposing those assets toward some kind of "cut out the middleman" solution to link us to the iCloud. That's probably THE way for this dream to have much of a shot (and even then there's not enough bandwidth for full on-demand, al-a-carte, etc... and there's not a viable scenario of it yielding $20 per month or $10 or $5 for us consumers either). Else, that is going to be one very expensive piece of hardware (the TV).

Even satt has it's problems though. For example, Apple is a global company but even buying DISH is a North American "solution". For an Apple Television to fly, they'll need a global model of "bypassing the middlemen" so that's a global fleet of satts to launch & manage, global uplink centers, etc. Huge cost for Apple that just doesn't seem to lead to $20 per month for us consumers.

So, I would say you are probably right that satts are the way to go to solve the big problem of bypassing the middlemen and that problem must be resolved to have any chance at linking content in iCloud to end users without existing middlemen just raising the broadband rates to make up for the cable subscription losses as the masses migrate to the next big thing.

What likely doesn't work is the idea that we are somehow going to be able to get just what we want to get (channels or shows) for something like 80% or less than we pay now. Apple has already taken a good cut at the commercial-free, on-demand, al-a-carte dream with iTunes video offerings as is. What's missing? The super discount that we keep imagining should come with al-a-carte. That's the part that will never happen. All the players besides us want any new model- from Apple or elsewhere- to help them make MORE money, not substantially less. None of the other links in the chain are going to take the huge hit so that we consumers can pay a fraction of what we pay now.

Waxhead138 said:

Don't hose me too bad if this idea has already been shot down, and I have no idea of what the FCC hurdles would be, but what if Apple simply wants to launch their own satellites?

Think about it: They clear the initial hurdle of FCC licensing, find privately funded ways to launch (becoming more and more prevalent.) They strike their own content deals directly with the providers, completely sidetrack having to deal with any of the existing strangleholds, and then sell their own boxes. No TV production, just the set top box, and the al a carte model (with hopefully some more friendly pricing packages for those who want more than just a few shows, but not 8000 channels.) It would be a package deal that would include the roof top dish and X amount of some Apple TV set top box on steroids.

Seems a bit far fetched, but it isn't terribly far from a reality. Its much cheaper than building a ground based infrastructure, or negotiating with existing cash mongers out there now, AND they could revolutionize they way they would like.

Makes plenty of sense to me on some levels.

Edit: This is reeallly far fetched, but depending on the price of the set top box (it would be crazy high if this were to happen....) but no monthly fee? With the exception of paying for premiums like HBO....nah. I'm nuts on this one.

Click to expand...

SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Paypal Mogul Elon Musk. The 25th of May, 2012 they made their first cargo delivery to the ISS.

Steve's Eureka was not just about a TV, but about how Apple could bring you that next big "one more thing." Apple would bridge SatTV with a fat data pipe. Elon just had to prove he could succeed on sending Steve's iSat network into Space. This announcement was going to be from Steve's floating palace at sea for a special dev conference on how you could now use your iPhone at sea and aboard airliners (reason iPhones and iPads were being tested by the FAA). This was to be the ultimate trump card on Samsung. Had SpaceX been able to make things happen sooner, the space jump of 2012 would have included a beta of the iPhone calling back to earth. There is a reason the default OSX Screen has a view from Space. That is Steve's view of where he wanted to expand before his passing. This is also why there is an emphasis on the large data centers. Apple wants to deliver content fast to you, cut down on latency via short loc to sat beaming. Welcome to the new iSpace technology enabled TV, iPhone, iPad.