Intel Set-Top Box and Cable TV Service Won't Initially Revolutionize the Industry

[dwman]

The only way cable and satellite companies start offering a la carte channels is if they start losing subscribers via cord cutting. Right now, that's a very small percentage of the populous. Until they start truly losing business like the music business did on the early 2000's, you won't see a shift to individual channels.

[unplugme71]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I dunno. Using the word "cracked" seems to be a direct jab at ole Steve there.

Though the sad truth of the whole situation is that it doesn't matter who has the best concept for the future of television, or who has the best UI, best delivery service. The content providers hold all the cards here. If they don't want to play along, even the most brilliant ideas will wither on the vine.

I'm sure Apple could just buy a few networks with their almost $100 billion in cash. Once others see how successfull it is, they will jump aboard.

[Ubele]

If it's going to offer the same content as what the cable companies offer, and it's not going to be any less expensive, where's the advantage? Am I missing something? It's like, "I'm opening a bookstore right next door to the one that's already there downtown. It will have the same layout, inventory, and pricing, but you'll be able to buy books from my store instead of the other store."

[Peace]

Originally Posted by unplugme71

I'm sure Apple could just buy a few networks with their almost $100 billion in cash. Once others see how successfull it is, they will jump aboard.

Don't think the FCC or the DOJ would go for that.

Comcast got lucky. Apple would be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by dwman

The only way cable and satellite companies start offering a la carte channels is if they start losing subscribers via cord cutting. Right now, that's a very small percentage of the populous. Until they start truly losing business like the music business did on the early 2000's, you won't see a shift to individual channels.

I just joined that crowd. Let me tell you - it was both an easy and hard decision.

Easy - because we'll be saving over $100 a month and still get to see everything we want via HDTV antenna and a computer acting as DVR + hulu.

Hard (not terribly) because it was out of our comfort zone. You know - you just HAVE cable. It's something people have. I mean - how do you NOT have cable?

It's been two weeks so far and couldn't be happier or more excited. Now granted - we don't watch premium tv and if we decide to splurge - we can just buy on iTunes or Amazon.

But to think that in the past 2 years (alone) we could have saved a few grand? Would have done it a lot sooner.

[arn]

Originally Posted by Mad Mac Maniac

What's with the title? Editorial?

The tone of the content doesn't even match the title....

The article has been clarified, so it should make more sense now.

[Yvan256]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

The problem with that is the media creators are bound to the networks, which are bound to the cable and satellite companies, who like providing channels to you in big bulk packages because it nets them tons of cash both from subscription fees and advertisements, which they then cycle back to the media creators to make their movies and shows so they can make even more money off of them.

Except for the fact that more and more people, like me, don't have cable or satellite TV at all.

They're starting to lose subscribers and money and their first reaction seems to be "increase prices" instead of "let's try and sell what people actually want". I'm pretty sure most people who have cut their TV services are turning to other things like reading, videogames, internet and hobbies.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by Yvan256

Except for the fact that more and more people, like me, don't have cable or satellite TV at all.

They're starting to lose subscribers and money and their first reaction seems to be "increase prices" instead of "let's try and sell what people actually want". I'm pretty sure most people who have cut their TV services are turning to other things like reading, videogames, internet and hobbies.

The more people who cut their cable, the most likely thing to happen is pricier internet.

[dvwtwo]

If you see a bundle, they blew it.

[samcraig]

Originally Posted by arn

The article has been clarified, so it should make more sense now.

Better. I still think it's a bit of an editorialized headline given the story itself. But it's your site

[Rogifan]

Originally Posted by samcraig

I disagree. No other company has claimed to have "cracked" the TV thing.

You don't know context of what Jobs' comment meant. He said that he cracked it. This guy is saying that no one has cracked it (yet) or has delivered.

I don't think he means Apple TV was supposed to be what cracked TV.

He's making a general statement - that, to date, no one has cracked anything. IE - the proof is in the pudding. Or "talk is cheap."

He's drawing a line in the sand and saying he believes intel will be the first to market with something unique. And in his mind - "cracks" it.

I guess I don't see that as a jab against Apple just because he used the word "cracked".

[bdavis89]

Originally Posted by samcraig

Won't revolutionize the industry - true or not - is editorializing the article.

He did take a swipe at Jobs/Apple though with the latter part of this quote

"We have been working for around a year now to setup Intel Media -- it's a new division that includes a lot of people from outside of the company. We've hired people from Apple, Netflix, Google, BBC, etc. We're aiming to develop an internet television platform. My opinion is that not many of those rivals have cracked it -- have truly delivered."

Originally Posted by Rogifan

One we don't know what Jobs meant when he said he "cracked it" and two, I don't think anyone believes the current ATV is Apple's grand vision when it comes to the TV space. If anything he's taking a swipe at Google TV and Samsung's Smart TV.

Let's be unbiased and honest here. He's saying nobody has been able to change the TV space. He's right, end of story. He includes Apple, Netflix, Google, BBC, etc, well, because none of them have had revolutionary success yet. No, not even Apple.

The two things nobody has provided a solution to are below:
1. Live Sports without a TV subscription
2. HBO/Showtime, etc. without a TV subscription (Showtime makes you wait a year to get the most recent season on something like iTunes)
Until I can have these without requiring a TV subscription, then these boxes or whatever are a no go for me and millions of others.

[coolfactor]

Originally Posted by Yvan256

Just like today's Internet isn't fast enough for on-demand video for everyone, you have to remember that it wasn't fast enough for things like YouTube two decades ago either.

ISPs will be forced to upgrade their systems. It's high time that they put the millions and billions of profits to good use instead of pocketing it like Scrooge McDuck.

Yup. Just one of the major providers here in Canada (Shaw) is raking in $200+ million dollars in profit (PROFIT) every 3 months.

When companies are making that much profit, I believe they have a civic duty to be aggressively investing back into the infrastructure.

[louis Fashion]

Originally Posted by princetanha

I don't watch TV by the way -_-

Television is what makes us human. ~ me.

[slu]

This thing will be DOA for one reason: cost. If, as the article states, the content is no cheaper than cable this thing will fail unless it is roku cheap and has some amazing unifying UI. Also, unless you can replace a cable box with it, it will fail. And unless the Cable Cos get a cut of the box revenue, that will never happen. So one still has to rent a cable card or cable box. Most non-techies have no interest in adding a new box or new UI at any cost unless it is dead simple to use. I personally don't think Intel has it in them. But I do give them credit for trying.

At least this is what I think as someone who uses OTA and an AppleTV on all my sets. Unlike a lot of people that have cut the cord, I would love to have cable. I am a big sports fan and still enjoy flipping channels (could be an age thing). And I liked having it years ago, but as the costs rose I could no longer justify it for the value I got back.

[mrhick01]

Originally Posted by joshsand66

Have they considered the effect of this proposal?
If millions of people used a set top box like this would the Internet be able to cope with the demand.
Why can't the same idea use TV frequencies instead.

It would not in the long run if the wired ISP monopolists (the cable companies) were forced to allow TRUE competition and the US were allowed to install fiber from coast-to-coast.

[nagromme]

No unbundling, no price advantage, less reliability, more complexity, and it takes up your bandwidth. Do I understand him correctly? Let me guess: you pay for the box, and you pay monthly, yet it still has ads, too. And you won't own the content to re-play. And they're gonna make the box showy instead of letting vanish into your decor.

Cable TV is already more expensive than buying a few favorite shows on iTunes yearly (ad-free, replay them forever) while subscribing to both Netflix (ad free) and Hulu plus. And that gives you exactly what YOU want. You don't have to pay for a whole channel, much less a whole bundle of channels.

Why would I want to pay the same as cable TV for the same unwanted bundles and ads... and wait for buffering?

[chevy57]

Originally Posted by Moonjumper

My Mum is on a higher cost TV cable package just for 1 channel, but it is a channel she watches a lot, but maybe not for much longer as she has seen most of the content on that channel. A la carte would be a brilliant for her, and the cable company might get to keep some business.

It is cheaper for me to get the Blu-Ray or DVD of the series I want rather than a cable package. A la carte would be a brilliant for me, and the cable company would get some business from me.

Packaging channels raises the value of some customers, but I'm sure it keeps many away.

TV companies than embrace the new options stand a massive chance of leading the race into the future, but stand still for fear of losing their existing (and diminishing) market. But would they really lose out?

I really like A la carte channels. i never use music channels, kids channels and other channels. I like mostly local channels, news & weather channels and sport package. See link about Apple TV concept.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/11/26/an-a-l...ders-gallery/#

[canucksfan88]

cable/telcos will never let Intel/Apple change the status quo within that industry. it benefits them way too much right now, and they will never give up that control.

a la carte? no bloody way unless it is similar to the price point consumers are paying now.

Apple can try, but will fail...and so will Intel. And the end of the day, Apple and Intel rely on MSOs to deliver the connectivity.

[taylortm]

Originally Posted by samcraig

I just joined that crowd. Let me tell you - it was both an easy and hard decision.

Easy - because we'll be saving over $100 a month and still get to see everything we want via HDTV antenna and a computer acting as DVR + hulu.

Hard (not terribly) because it was out of our comfort zone. You know - you just HAVE cable. It's something people have. I mean - how do you NOT have cable?

Wow! samcraig and i DO think the same (about at least one thing in the world)! Seriously, samcraig, it's like you were channeling my thoughts. We cancelled cable and went to HDTV antenna + eyeTV/HomeRun + ATV/HuluPlus a couple of months ago.

My only uh... not regret... but maybe annoyance with it is trying to get my wife to understand that live TV is not a given anymore. She invited a bunch of people over for Super Bowl last weekend. "Uh, Honey. We don't have cable anymore. Remember?" Then she wanted to watch the Grammies the other day. "Uh, Honey..."

But, all in all, we are VERY happy with this approach. Saving griploads of cash and not really missing much.

(For those of you on the edge of your seat, I grabbed a "Leaf" antenna and threw it on the TV for Super Bowl and Grammies. Worked great and then just "hides" behind the TV when not in use.)

[NorEaster]

Originally Posted by HiRez

So we pay the same as for cable, but with the inherent unreliability, lag, data caps, and higher compressed, lower-quality video of going through the internet? Sounds awesome.

How is this any different than Apple TV or roku?!?! Content is delivered to those devices over the internet, so they are subject to "unreliability, lag, data caps, etc" as well.

Are you bashing Intel just because they aren't Apple or do you really have a concern here? And if you really do have a concern, then why? Folks are effectively using Apple TV or roku devices today.

[nagromme]

Originally Posted by NorEaster

How is this any different than Apple TV or roku?!?! Content is delivered to those devices over the internet, so they are subject to "unreliability, lag, data caps, etc" as well.

Are you bashing Intel just because they aren't Apple or do you really have a concern here? And if you really do have a concern, then why? Folks are effectively using Apple TV or roku devices today.

It sounds very different from Apple/Roku/others, and I agree with him: to accept unreliability/lag I want to pay LESS, not the same, and/or get something much better than cable TV packages.

Netflix and Apple (buying multiple Season Passes, say, and renting some films) are cheaper AND have no ads AND let you cherry pick what you want.

It's not that the Internet is so unreliable as to be useless, it's that Intel makes it sound like they're simply adding the Internet's problems on top of cable TV's problems.

AppleTV, Roku/Netflix etc. are worth the Internet's problems because they can, for many people, be SO much better than cable TV in ways that matter.

I don't think we're bashing Intel because they're not Apple, but because of they way they've explained their coming offering.

[rbrian]

Originally Posted by Chrjy

we're so far behind in this area it's now becoming a joke.

Surprisingly, that isn't entirely true - it's one area where the USA trails the world. This time next year, 65% of the UK by population (and some remote sparsely populated areas where they got government funding) will be able to get fibre broadband. Within 5 years, that will rise to 90%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19267090

http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/the-big-build/

[Sensa]

Originally Posted by dwman

The only way cable and satellite companies start offering a la carte channels is if they start losing subscribers via cord cutting. Right now, that's a very small percentage of the populous. Until they start truly losing business like the music business did on the early 2000's, you won't see a shift to individual channels.

Having worked in the Cable business for 20 years, in Canada, I always chuckle when I see comments like this because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of how the industry works.

There are 2 main reasons, over and above the greed of cable companies, that there aren't more al a carte offerings from Cable companies.

1) Government regulation - The FTC (or CRTC in Canada) as part of the licensing requirements for Cable operators demands that they offer certain channels as part of their basic package. In Canada these channels include French stations and the CBC among others. In the US (though I don't know for sure) this group of stations would most likely be PBS, a spanish channel and local network affiliates (ABC, FOX etc).

Never watch PBS? Think its stupid to pay for it? Don't blame the Cable companies blame the FTC.

2) Cable Companies are, for the most part, not creators of content but rebroadcasters of content. Thus, if a content creator owns multiple channels and one is very popular (ESPN etc) they will demand that the Cable operator carry all their channels if they want to be able to rebroadcast the popular one. You have seen this play out several times in the past few years when you read about content creators pulling their programming from one Cable operator or another if they cable company didn't pay huge fees to carry ALL of their products / channels.

So, under the current structure of the industry, the cable companies actually have very little flexibility in offering al a carte channels because they themselves cannot buy channels individually whether its a result of government mandate or content creator demand.

Do I feel sorry for the Cable companies. Not really.

But, that being said, arguments are more intelligent when based on facts.

[smoledman]

Originally Posted by rbrian

Surprisingly, that isn't entirely true - it's one area where the USA trails the world. This time next year, 65% of the UK by population (and some remote sparsely populated areas where they got government funding) will be able to get fibre broadband. Within 5 years, that will rise to 90%.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19267090

http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/the-big-build/

The USA is also a lot bigger with huge rural and desert areas. Not comparable. Better to compare the UK with the Northeast USA.

----------

Originally Posted by unplugme71

I'm sure Apple could just buy a few networks with their almost $100 billion in cash. Once others see how successfull it is, they will jump aboard.

The government will not allow Apple to buy up networks.