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

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

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. ... 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.

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?

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Consultant

So Intel is resorting to copying actual Apple laptops to copying rumors of potential Apple product. That's going to end well.

Right. First Intel tries to kill off the Macbook Air. Now it is trying to kill off the Apple TV.

Apple needs to teach Intel a lesson, but good! Apple can make better chips than they can buy from Intel. There are plenty of options for better CPUs.

[bushido]

Originally Posted by Manderby

I don't quite get the discussions about these TV services. It's TV. It always was TV and will ever be. Not matter if it comes from the cable, antenna, satellite, from a box, with paid subscription, with flatrate, ...

Have a look at Teleclub. It exists since 1982 and tried to deliver superior content. It never took off. Most people don't want it. They are happy with what TV gives them.

And even if someone like Apple or Intel comes and truely delivers a new way of experiencing content on the TV... Who will actually care? I mean, I know that overall, there will be millions of customers who might be interested in. But that's the point: They are just interested, not more. Nice to have an option but paying another yearly fee just for some shows?
.

couldnt agree more, i have a smart tv but i never use those features. a tv is for watching tv. flipping channels is part of the experience imo, u discover things u may have never watched otherwise.

pay per episode is a no go for me, but maybe its different in the US with those redic prices. i pay 39€ for 100mbit cable internet incl. complete premium HD. it doesnt get cheaper than that

streaming a single season of one show from iTunes would already top that price

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What are those better options (than Intel chips)? I hope we're not dreaming that iToy CPUs can be better than Intel chips for "real" computers. I like my iPad just fine but I wouldn't put it's horses up against the chips in my iMac or Laptop for any serious work.

[NOV]

If I was content distributor and Steve Jobs came along to strike a deal I would be thrilled to join a new step in the media revolution.

If I was content distributor and Tim Cook came along to strike a deal I would be distracted by the slur of his voice and would kindly ask him to "don't call us, but we'll call you".

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Originally Posted by NOV

If I was content distributor and Steve Jobs came along to strike a deal I would be thrilled to join a new step in the media revolution.

If I was content distributor and Tim Cook came along to strike a deal I would be distracted by the slur of his voice and would kindly ask him to "don't call us, but we'll call you".

You're thinking as a consumer, not as a content creator or owner. If you were the latter, your goal would be profit maximization. If you didn't personally care about that for some reason (for instance, you just want to help Apple grow out of love for Apple), your investors or shareholders would demand it and you would be obligated by law to try to give it to them (even if it went against your personal preferences).

What you would actually say is: "Steve/Tim, show me how your new way is going to make my business MORE money than the existing way?"

And

"If your new model is going to make my existing sources of cash flow angry, who's going to make up for my losses if they decide to stop feeding my coffers because I'm trying to work with you?"

And

"My friends in the music industry are still struggling because Apple has gained such dominance over their media that they can't even set their own pricing for their creations. Why should I believe that Apple isn't going to do the same with video media if I help Apple gain dominance over my industry?"

Etc.

Note that the second one up above shows the big flaw in all these posts of dreamers thinking that we consumers end up with much better pricing for our television service. If the content creators are to make more money (so they are motivated to take a chance on this new model), who takes the hit to get us those lower prices? If they are going to make more, it's only Apple and us in the rest of the chain. Do we believe Apple is going to take the hit to deliver us lower prices? If Apple was willing to do that, we would already have lower prices in the video media already in the iTunes store.

In short, we're a tough bunch here. We believe that we are going to get everything we want in this Apple revolution at much lower prices than we pay now. All that's really happening is Apple (or Intel or Google) is trying to inject themselves in as a new middleman in this particular chain. Unfortunately, their replacement solution entirely depends on broadband pipes likely controlled by the existing middle men who like their cable revenue stream "as is", SO it should be obvious that any replacement solution that actually takes hold with the masses leads to broadband rates going up to make up the difference. Net result: still paying the cable company what we pay now (if not more), content creators still getting theirs, Apple now getting some additional money for their cut and we're footing the higher bill. If content creators are going to make more and Apple is going to make new revenue and there is absolutely no reason for the cable companies to take the hit when Apple's solution must flow through the cable company's broadband pipes, only us consumers are left to take the cost hit.

Look no further than how an Apple revolution in smart phones did not yield huge savings in cell service subscriptions. That is a near-perfect proxy for how this will play out too. To make this dream have any real legs, there has to be a companion, plausible rumor that resolves the distribution problem (the broadband toll master being the same companies that sell us cable now). That's the HUGE missing piece that we all seem to just ignore to gush about how much better it will be once Apple, Intel, Google squeezes into the chain.

[rendevouspoo]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Apple can make better chips than they can buy from Intel. There are plenty of options for better CPUs.

No.

[Mike MA]

I wonder if things repeat and we soon hear something like "We did not enter the desktop/laptop processor manufacturing business. They entered the set top box business."

[the8thark]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

Like Intel, Apple has been said to be working on a similar set up for its rumored Apple-branded television set, an idea that was made famous by Walter Isaacson's biography on Steve Jobs, when Jobs expressed his desire to revolutionize the television industry.

This is not true. Wrong information. Steve Jobs said he cracked the television idea etc etc. He did not specifically say if he was talking about a new TV or an Apple branded television set. From reading the book I instantly thought he meant a new innovative TV. But even to me that's an educated guess as I'm not inside Jobs mind to know.

[Thunderhawks]

Originally Posted by Radio

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

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.

[technopimp]

Oh good, another "selected markets" service offering. I'm still waiting for FIOS to be launched where I live. By the time any of these sort of things actually make their way to my town, the technologies have been obsolete for years. I'm still recovering from the shock that AT&T actually turned up LTE for us last month.

[kjs862]

Originally Posted by macs4nw

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.

Yeah that is a lot of money, even if Apple does have it in the bank.

I read an article somewhere not too long ago, maybe it was here, that Apple's R&D spending is fairly modest compared to other tech companies.

I don't know why but for a company that likes controlling the entire experience they leave a lot of things to others. I think Apple should be more aggressive in their R&D spending. They have the most cash and the most stress from competition.

Time to step up the R&D spending and take a chill on the lawyers.

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawks

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.

Best implementation of al-a-carte is to use the fav channel feature of your set-top box now to hide all those channels you never watch. Then, they can keep running in the background (invisible to you) generating revenues from their commercials that you never have to see. That commercial revenue is subsidy money (other people paying money to run those commercials) that helps keep our overall cost of television service as low as it is now. I've shown the approx. average subsidy per household before in similar threads. I estimate it at about $54 per household. For those that dream of commercial free, that would be about $54 per household to make up out of pocket.

It would be naive to do the math like this: $100/month cable bill for 200 channels = .50 (cents) per channel. I only watch 10 channels. My bill in al-a-carte world should be $5 per month.

The reality of al-a-carte world is that all the players would still want to make at least what they make now. So if we all selected only about 10 channels, I would expect those favorite 10 to cost us each about $100 per month (or about $10 per channel). But, since al-a-carte world would likely kill off a lot of those filler channels "I" never watch, the commercial revenue subsidies generated by those channels would cease to flow to content creators which would likely mean that either we pay a bit more in total out-of-pocket or the quality and/or breadth of programming that we do like would probably go down.

In short, I think al-a-carte world yields higher costs for us consumers (making up for the lost revenues of commercials running on channels we never watch) for much less breadth of programming options. I also think quality of programming would go down unless we all agree on our favorite 10 or 20 channels (which will never happen). I also think this would significantly up the risk for those who fund pilots of new shows such that the abundance of new shows will cease.

Don't get me wrong. I love the concept of it myself. It's just the implementation where it gets really messy. If we bend the dream to our desires as a consumers, it seems like it's a complete win (for us). But for us to "win" by getting a 90% or more reduction in our collective television service bills, somebody else in the chain takes a 90%+ loss over the "as is" model now. Knowing the middlemen- be that a Comcast or an Apple- will not take such hits- it seems that much of that would hit the content creators. If so, the quality of their output would likely have to go down.

I know the comeback is that they could just focus their reduced compensation on a fewer number of "really good shows" but then who gets to decide what is a "really good show"? Kardashians has a huge following. Is that a good show? Soap Operas? Hoarders? Honey Boo Boo? Etc. In thinking beyond our own situation, imagine how it would really play out. Who takes the hit so that we can pay only $5 per month or so? Is Apple going to lose money to do this? Is the tollmaster of our broadband pipe going to lose money? Who's left? If it's not us, it has to be the content creators. We have no-cost/low-cost "programming" available in abundance on youtube & similar. If our collective bills are going to be cut by about 90% or more, that's probably a good proxy for the new programming we can expect.

[slu]

Originally Posted by !¡ V ¡!

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this however, what if is not producing a TV or even a set-top-box. What if is producing a

1080p projector with the TV built-in and a 4K projector down the road. Shipping a defined size and multiple model TV's is a logistical nightmare along with shipping cost, warehouse cost and delivery plus warranties. This sounds unlike Apple.

A 1080p LED projector the size of the MacMini with TV functionality built-in is logical as packaging, shipping, storage, delivery and repairs are on a minor flexible scale. I believe this is what Apple will release it fits within they Eco-system of small and powerful (opinion based).

I feel all the analyst, rumours, forum members, fans might have the wrong idea.

Think of a projector with AirPlay built-in and Siri as projectors can be mounted on the ceiling, beyond the reach and convenience of daily use. Thoughts?

Never would happen. Overly complex and the projector market is limited.

[Saladinos]

Originally Posted by damir00

Drawing a blank on the last piece of Intel software I used might have been...

They make decent compilers.

They've also had a hand in loads of low-level stuff (as that's kind of their area) - USB, Thunderbolt, WebKit, OpenGL, OpenCL, BSD, etc.

I thought it sounded weird at first, too; but the more I think about it - Intel still managed to create a strong consumer brand in the beige box years. They're still very highly thought of among European consumers, as far as I can tell. People don't hear about them as much these days, but I wouldn't say their brand has necessarily deteriorated. They're constantly in the news for process technology breakthroughs (32nm, 24nm, etc) and their processors are still in pretty much every PC, which still feel much faster than PCs of a few years ago.

It's strange, but if Amazon could make a splash with the Kindle... Well, let's just say stranger things have happened than Intel having a hit product with a streaming TV service that breaks the traditional cable price structure.

[Bill Killer]

Originally Posted by Manderby

I don't quite get the discussions about these TV services. It's TV. It always was TV and will ever be. Not matter if it comes from the cable, antenna, satellite, from a box, with paid subscription, with flatrate, ...

Have a look at Teleclub. It exists since 1982 and tried to deliver superior content. It never took off. Most people don't want it. They are happy with what TV gives them.

And even if someone like Apple or Intel comes and truely delivers a new way of experiencing content on the TV... Who will actually care? I mean, I know that overall, there will be millions of customers who might be interested in. But that's the point: They are just interested, not more. Nice to have an option but paying another yearly fee just for some shows?

The market is too small. Maybe in the teenage realms. Or adult contontent. Two opposites, two extremes which are not touched by regular TV. Guess which one will be targeted.

Besides: I actually don't know many people who DO watch lots of TV. Most of them don't even have a TV. And the rest maybe watches 15 minutes per day (the News).

You seriously don't know people that watch sports on TV?

[rdlink]

Originally Posted by ProVideo

I'm sure NBC Universal/Comcast will be very open to this idea and will surely give Intel a fair price for content from NBC, USA, NBC Sports, Bravo, MSNBC, Telemundo, E!, etc.

And herein lies the problem with the ridiculous FCC ruling that allowed the Comcast/NBC deal to go through. It set true choice and competition in the media world back decades.

[Kaibelf]

Originally Posted by Confuzzzed

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...

It can be text-based, and that doesn't change the fact that the actual content deals are on lock-down with long-term contracts. Who cares how pretty a house is if there's no furniture in it?

[yossi]

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

[nazaar]

Proof is in the pudding... I'll believe when I see it.

[TheHateMachine]

Originally Posted by Consultant

So Intel is resorting to copying actual Apple laptops to copying rumors of potential Apple product. That's going to end well.

Intel makes laptops? News to me.

[drblank]

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?

[bb426]

Originally Posted by Radio

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

Well good morning, negative nancy.

[adder7712]

Originally Posted by iGrip

Right. First Intel tries to kill off the Macbook Air. Now it is trying to kill off the Apple TV.

Apple needs to teach Intel a lesson, but good! Apple can make better chips than they can buy from Intel. There are plenty of options for better CPUs.

Like AMD?

Anyway, what's up with the Intel hate? I bet your Macs (including mine) run Intel CPUs.

[greenman45]

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?

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?