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.
Apple Aims to 'Erase Distinction Between Live and On-Demand' TV Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think iTunes LIVE where just a test so see how well Apple could handle to deliver streaming TV ...
I always thought that Apple is going to be the first provider that take IPTV and go mainstream ...
If apple where able to have all content providers in one place then we as a customer could pick exactly what channels we wanted .. or shows ... so we just got thouse channels we would use ...
For example say we have A B & C .. A have a Sport Channel I wanted, B have a kid channel I wanted and C have a News Channel I wanted ..
to date I would need to have 3 satalite dishs from 3 different providers in order to get what I want .. thats insane ... and usually it ends up with me as a customer only gets 1 provider .. or two but not three .... in the end 1 provider loses a customer ..
if Apple where to deliver TV via streaming I think that the providers would have more paying customers ..
I always thought that Apple is going to be the first provider that take IPTV and go mainstream ...
If apple where able to have all content providers in one place then we as a customer could pick exactly what channels we wanted .. or shows ... so we just got thouse channels we would use ...
For example say we have A B & C .. A have a Sport Channel I wanted, B have a kid channel I wanted and C have a News Channel I wanted ..
to date I would need to have 3 satalite dishs from 3 different providers in order to get what I want .. thats insane ... and usually it ends up with me as a customer only gets 1 provider .. or two but not three .... in the end 1 provider loses a customer ..
if Apple where to deliver TV via streaming I think that the providers would have more paying customers ..
It could work but the content owners and producers are really going to be hard to deal with. Imagine if instead of the mobile revolution we saw in 2007 it had been the content/media/tv revolution instead. Imagine then that in 2012 Apple was going after the mobile market with a phone of their own, do you think AT&T and others would act the same way they did in 2007 if they knew what they know now? TV is going to be hard to crack but not impossible.
I can't see this being true - cloud PVRs are illegal under European law (the US's court verdict on them goes against virtually every other country in the world).
This makes much more sense than any Apple-branded TV. This opens up access to EVERYBODY with an HDTV, not just people in the market for a new one.
I would be very interested in this, assuming the cost isn't crazy. I would love for this box to not have some craptastic remote like every other cable box and instead to use an iOS device. Apple can create some ultra-cheap iPod touch if need be to include for $50 or something if people don't already have an iOS device. Buttons on controls are so 2000 and late.
I just hope this service doesn't require some 20Mbps connection and uses either satellite or cable lines to get the TV service. I'm sure Apple's engineers can put a shiny package on the content instead of making it all over the Internet.
I would be very interested in this, assuming the cost isn't crazy. I would love for this box to not have some craptastic remote like every other cable box and instead to use an iOS device. Apple can create some ultra-cheap iPod touch if need be to include for $50 or something if people don't already have an iOS device. Buttons on controls are so 2000 and late.
I just hope this service doesn't require some 20Mbps connection and uses either satellite or cable lines to get the TV service. I'm sure Apple's engineers can put a shiny package on the content instead of making it all over the Internet.
Though if they really are planning a cloud based DVR, it's something the US is already lagging behind in (I wouldn't be surprised if they have invented something totally new it's Apple )
But at least here in Finland we've had a cloud based DVR service for a few years now and it's pretty great (A couple of them actually, my favorite is called TVKaista). I rarely watch TV the old fashioned way because of it.
It automatically records everything that's on TV, on every (non subscription) channel, and you have a month to watch or save anything you want. You can naturally search for and subscribe to TV shows etc. And use just about any device for watching it. (A computer, games console, iPhone, iPad or AppleTV )
Let me get this right:
-- it will be expensive,
-- it will be like Tivo, but sexed up by being on a "cloud,"
-- it will have ATV-like UI and
-- it will be locked like Fort Knox.
Oh, and you still have to be locked to a cable provider, in addition to Apple.
I just can't wait for this cluster-fck between the Cable Cos and Apple!
All together now, grab your ankles and say "AH-pple!"
Somebody hurt your butt?
I think people are exaggerating how much the TV industry needs to be fixed and how Apple are the ones to do it.
I can only speak from a UK perspective, but I'm actually happy with what's available in the market.
We have the BBC which I'm sure is the best broadcaster in the world hands down. It's free with no adverts and it's available on iPlayer already.
If you want more, you can get Sky. It can be quite expensive, but it's delivered quite well.
Would an Apple system of pay-per-channel or pay-per-program or whatever, be any cheaper? Doubt it.
And why do people talk of 'clunky' interfaces? I think Sky's TV guide is pretty good. I'm sure someone could make it sexier cosmetically, but fundamentally, it's good.
The reliability of the current system is excellent. No streaming, buffering, downloading or any of that bollocks. But I'm sure Apple's marketing department will convince us that we need to stream our TV (local storage is so last century!).
(As a side note, I'm surprised Sky haven't tried to reinvent their movie offering along the lines of Netflix, somehow delivered on their current platforms).
I can only speak from a UK perspective, but I'm actually happy with what's available in the market.
We have the BBC which I'm sure is the best broadcaster in the world hands down. It's free with no adverts and it's available on iPlayer already.
If you want more, you can get Sky. It can be quite expensive, but it's delivered quite well.
Would an Apple system of pay-per-channel or pay-per-program or whatever, be any cheaper? Doubt it.
And why do people talk of 'clunky' interfaces? I think Sky's TV guide is pretty good. I'm sure someone could make it sexier cosmetically, but fundamentally, it's good.
The reliability of the current system is excellent. No streaming, buffering, downloading or any of that bollocks. But I'm sure Apple's marketing department will convince us that we need to stream our TV (local storage is so last century!).
(As a side note, I'm surprised Sky haven't tried to reinvent their movie offering along the lines of Netflix, somehow delivered on their current platforms).
Are you sure about that ? Not according to the BBC. http://johnmaxwellhobbs.com/2012/07/13/cloud-pvr-spreads-over-europe/
That's not it at all.
Apple has high margins because they work differently with their suppliers as opposed to most of the competition.
Apple provides the capital needed to organise production, from machines to development costs, and the suppliers only organise and maintain production. In essence, they pay upfront. They are able to do that because of the cash they have. In essence, they are committing to buy big quantities. With the suppliers, that entitles you to lower prices, which means higher margins for a final product. But only to commit to buy still means that the supplier would have to look to the capital market for funds to expand production beyond a test phase. In this case, Apple gives you those funds. That entitles Apple to even lower prices.
Apple is, with this approach, willing to take the risk of selling enough devices. Since they are taking that risk and not the suppliers, it is only fair that they have a bigger share of the profits.
Samsung, or rather their mobile division, because of the things other devisions produce, are having some of the similar benefits, but realised through different methods. But it's a big reason they are showing a profit and everybody else is struggling.
This + Google's new internet (hopefully coming to my area) + my cell phone = the perfect escape from Comcast Triple Play.
My Virgin Media Tivo box is great for catch-up. If you miss a programme just open the TV guide and scroll back to the day it was aired and press play. Most of it's content is from the bigger networks but they are adding more channels all the time and the box gets regular updates to add more functionality.
Exactly. The market is so diverse and standards so different. In the UK, we're pretty lucky to have decent services - in terms of both content and delivery.
Maybe it's my lack of imagination, but I fail to see how Apple will revolutionise the industry.
FaceTime on my TV would be good, but I guess this requires a full Apple TV set. I can also see how some TV specific apps would be useful for home shopping.
But when it comes to the two fundamental issues - the delivery of professional broadcast content (not you tube crap) and the interface - I'm not sure how Apple can improve things massively for people in the UK.
----------
Also, I hoped Apple would be thinking bigger than just broadcast content. I was hoping the TV set would become the home hub from which all electronic devices can be controlled.
Surely that would be quite easy to do... manufacturers of refrigerators, ovens, burglar alarms, thermostats (Nest) etc. would simply have to make them wi-fi enabled and then everything can be controlled from the TV (or other idevice)
Apple cannot, and will not, succeed as an all-encompassing solution without live sports. If they cannot promise streaming NFL games on Sundays or easily accessible local baseball games without having to buy a (blackout restricted) Extra Innings package, then I'm sticking with cable.
That has nothing to do with my post. I don't even know what you're talking about.
Apple has no advantage to making such a thing. A set top box makes much more sense and reaches a far wider audience for the content they want to tie into with the product.
Just like to correct one point......
The BBC is in no way FREE.
You are legally supposed to own a TV Licence even if you never Watch BBC TV in your home but watch other companies live TV services.
I do not believe such a system exists in the USA and think Americans would go ballistic if they had to pay by law for a TV service even if they never watched it.
Are USA TV shows any good?
I do not like most of them ( i do not watch TV nowadays, tho ), And UK makes BEST science Doc., comedy and crime shows.
Give me a cable news network, Disney channel, college baseball, pro and college football and I'll sign up for it in a heartbeat. Sports is the only thing holding me back from cutting the cable for television.
Oh, and Geaux Tigers!
Oh, and Geaux Tigers!
You have to look at the current Apple TV and ask why that is, after several years, still only a hobby, and the answer is that a lot of the content available for it (which inevitably becomes a USP) is only available in the U.S.
So the idea that Apple could enter the television market with a cloud-based product is even more bewildering, at this point in time anyway. How can they believe that a user experience held up by an internet connection is easier and/or quicker than simply channel surfing on a Sky+ box?
By Apple's logic, we should assume that the user knows what they're purchasing or downloading, forgoing the experience of picking up your remote and flicking through listings or channels. Isn't that how most people discover new programmes in the first place?
And then of course the users internet speed plays a part in how quickly they can access content. I wouldn't say that, on a broad scale, the public has reached a level playing field on this subject by any means... Most people in the U.K get the speeds well under 3mb.
So the idea that Apple could enter the television market with a cloud-based product is even more bewildering, at this point in time anyway. How can they believe that a user experience held up by an internet connection is easier and/or quicker than simply channel surfing on a Sky+ box?
By Apple's logic, we should assume that the user knows what they're purchasing or downloading, forgoing the experience of picking up your remote and flicking through listings or channels. Isn't that how most people discover new programmes in the first place?
And then of course the users internet speed plays a part in how quickly they can access content. I wouldn't say that, on a broad scale, the public has reached a level playing field on this subject by any means... Most people in the U.K get the speeds well under 3mb.
Fair point. You're right. The BBC is not free, we pay a licence fee for it. Don't forget though, that's all TV, all radio, all online... Excellent value I think.
Not sure about the USA, but I think there is an element of public broadcasting, which is paid for through general taxation. I've heard it's rubbish and is in no way comparable to the BBC.
I've lived abroad in various European countries and in my experience, we're very lucky in the UK to have decent content, delivered well.
That's not to say that I don't think Sky have too much control. They do. Particularly over sports. And I find their movie services a bit rubbish these days.
----------
Good point. I dont know how broadband streaming is better than play on demand via satellite (like Sky Anytime). If broadband streaming came first, everyone would be saying how cool it would be to stream via satellite!
I must admit, Ive been disappointed with icloud / itunes match. Its OK, but its not brilliant. And a TV streaming service needs to be brilliant to match or surpass the reliability we are used to.
In terms of cost, again, I dont think Apple will be the consumer champion here. The prices of episodes and films on itunes currently are a joke.
I called it too, I wrote an email to Tim Cook back in March about it and even wrote it on an article here: http://tinyurl.com/d4doo9z
Absolutely, 100% sure. InfoSoc directive (Directive 2001/29/EC).
This is then implemented into national law - for example, in England & Wales (and an indentical Scottish act) it was implemented by the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, section 19. This makes it clear that the defense against infringement of timeshifting a broadcast programme only applies to copies made within private and domestic premises, and you cannot create an additional copy of those recordings for any reason, nor format shift them, so uploading them to a cloud service would always be infringing.
This has already gone to court and the rightsholders have won in the UK.
That's not the BBC, that's a technologist who works for the BBC and isn't a lawyer, nor does it actually make any factual claims as to the legality of a cloud PVR.