Apple Aims to 'Erase Distinction Between Live and On-Demand' TV Content

[NightFox]

I think there's a big cultural difference between TV expectations in the UK and the US - from what I see people in the US expect to have to subscribe to watch TV and are happy to have to pick their subscription according to what channels/programmes they want to watch. Despite the footprint of Sky and Virgin in the UK, I still think UK viewers live with a general expectation that quality TV content should be freely available to all licensed TV owners, and I like that model - I don't want Pay per View or to find that I can't watch a programme because I'm with the wrong cable provider or package, I just cant see how the viewer wins with that model. I don't expect to have to pay on ongoing subscription for TV functionality, maybe it's just because I've been spoilt to date.

However, I worry that such is the international strength of companies like Apple that they have the power to 'force' the American way of doing things onto other countries, and as a result, what are arguably better ways of doing things are eroded and eventually overcome by people's awe of shiny new boxes.

Microsoft dabbled a bit with consumer TV with Windows Media Center which, once you got it working properly, was actually a very good product which could be tailored to work in different TV 'cultures' with the addition of various tuner cards or cable cards. Unfortunately, this was also its downfall as it had to support so many different international TV formats and things like TV guides. I'd love for Apple to have a bash at producing even a simple DVR along similar lines, but I know that just isn't going to happen. The US is Apple's home and its biggest single market, so the US TV model is what Apple will slowly inflict on the rest of the world.

 

[MarkNY]

Something like this makes sense. I've thought for awhile that using spectrum to deliver non-live content was a waste. Save the spectrum for live sports and news, and let people watch non-live content on demand.

Obviously, there are massive contractual issues to deal with.

 

[dgalvan123]

"Apple aims to make it so viewers can watch any show at any time via a cloud-based DVR that would store TV shows online."

. . . You mean. . . like the iTunes store and iTunes in the Cloud? Because that's how this works right now. If you mean shows you don't have to buy, well EyeTV and Tivo already have explored this space. (I can DVR a show on EyeTV and stream it to my iPhone or iPad over the internet.)

*shrug*

"The service would be designed so viewers could begin streaming a show minutes after it began airing live."

. . . This seems the only bit that's really new. I don't see it as significant though. At least not to me.

 

[Perrumpo]

This is exactly what I don't want: dozens of icons all representing different sources, like what's on the AppleTV today.

They need to "erase the distinction" between any sources. I don't need to know if the feed is from Netflix, Hulu, HBO, ABC, YouTube, or whatever. I just want to say the name of the program (or description, or search query) and have the box give me what I want.

I think the point is we don't need all of those different sources to begin with. Do we search music on iTunes based on record label? Would we ever subscribe to music by choosing which record labels to subscribe to? No. We would just subscribe to iTunes or artists we like.

If Apple can get networks to join like they did with record labels, then we won't have to mess with choosing icons of sources on Apple TV.

 

[alent1234]

I think the point is we don't need all of those different sources to begin with. Do we search music on iTunes based on record label? Would we ever subscribe to music by choosing which record labels to subscribe to? No. We would just subscribe to iTunes or artists we like.

If Apple can get networks to join like they did with record labels, then we won't have to mess with choosing icons of sources on Apple TV.

MS might have a patent on that one

coming next month with the new xbox upgrade you will search for a piece of media and it will show you every service that has it

 

[Carniphage]

Channel matrix with live thumbnails

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

 

[Born Again]

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

jiminy whilikers! golly gee u solved it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

honestly it's a little too little to late.

 

[Nightarchaon]

So, let me get this straight, its an tv but instead of just buying a show and watching it, i have to subscribe to a service, and probably have unstoppable adverts inserted in my shows, think ill stick to ripping DvDs and recording live TV using Elgato EyE tv (i can edit the adverts out, save to iTunes and watch again at my leisure after tagging with subler)

 

[NEWUSER77]

I think the point is we don't need all of those different sources to begin with. Do we search music on iTunes based on record label? Would we ever subscribe to music by choosing which record labels to subscribe to? No. We would just subscribe to iTunes or artists we like.

If Apple can get networks to join like they did with record labels, then we won't have to mess with choosing icons of sources on Apple TV.

I know what you mean, but channels perform a kind of editorial function and you get to trust certain channels. In the UK for example, I know I like BBC 4 but don't like Channel 5.

BBC4 are commissioning and choosing programs that they think viewers like me will like.

I trust their judgement more than I trust the staff at Apple to 'feature' certain programmes on iTunes, Apple TV homepage or whatever.

----------

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

Like it.

 

[NightFox]

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE GOD NO!

My PVR currently does this for recorded TV, you go to the Rec TV page and every episode of Coronation Street that the Mrs has recorded is simultaniously playing back on the screen in miniature, complete with the soundtrack from the currently selected episode. At best it's nothing more than a distraction as all of the images are too small to see what's going on (a blessing), at worse you just want it to shut up and stop while you navigate to the prog you want to watch. And what's more, it's an eye-candy option you can't even turn off.

 

[Carniphage]

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE GOD NO!

I'd happily bet that we will see this feature.
1) because its currently not possible with any live television receivers.
2) it would be genuinely useful.

I'd expect it to look a bit like this...

 

[NightFox]

I'd happily bet that we will see this feature.
1) because its currently not possible with any live television receivers.
2) it would be genuinely useful.

I'd expect it to look a bit like this...
Image

Yes, I could easily see Apple doing something like that, only I think that once all those thumbnails were moving images it would actually be very distracting to browse through. I think they'd also need to incorporate the programme name as half the time you wouldn't know what a programme was just from a live preview. I just think that in reality it would be one of those novelty things that people wouldn't use once the wow-factor had worn off. YMMV of course!

 

[cmwade77]

Yawn! Who pays for cable anymore? Get Netflix, Hulu+ and/or Amazon Prime with a Roku Box or possibly Apple TV, add to that free over the air TV and you can watch 95% of everything out there (except some sports perhaps, not sure as I don't watch them anyway) and the few items that aren't available can be downloaded from iTunes or Amazon (paid) and the total will be a lot less than the cable bill.

 

[skinnylegs]

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

You are a prophet!

 

[JAT]

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.

Touch screen remotes have been around for 30 years. If you like that, buy one. They aren't that popular because it's a pain to use. People use remotes without their eyes, and that is impossible on a touchscreen.

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.

All the good programming on PBS is from the BBC.

 

[SeattleMoose]

I Want A Divorce!!!!

I want a divorce from cable companies. The only reason I have Comcast is for college football. When the Pac12 Network debuted 2 days ago I thought, great now I"ll be able to watch all the game on the internet and stream them to my Apple TV (G2).

Nope!!! They are in bed with the Cable companies. PLEASE Apple, work with the Pac12 Network to setup game streaming. I would rather pay On Demand for 4 months of the stuff I really want to watch as opposed to paying ALL YEAR for a bunch of stuff I NEVER watch.

 

[kralnor]

This is it. This is what Steve Jobs ment when he said he "finally cracked it."

Nothing is "cracked" until a deal has been made and the content providers agree to something. It's not like this idea is anything new, the problem has been getting cable companies and networks on board.

 

[nevermind50]

If all of your available channels are amalgamated at a data centre - then the user interface can do something that no domestic PVR can do.

It can present a matrix of the available channels - with live thumbnails for each channels.

You could browse channels without channel hopping.

This makes sense. One thing I've been pondering is what input/outputs would be on an Apple branded TV set.

Multiple HDMI; Ethernet; SPDIF and WiFi?

That means no stuff like coax, composite; RGB; S-Video; Audio LR; common interface; PC In. Apple don't do legacy.

So it makes sense that Apple would provide a "TV in the Cloud" subscription service to replace all the set top boxes and attendant cabling. And apps so you can replace that ageing Xbox!

Of course you'll be able to use set top boxes/ games consoles providing they're HDMI capable, but that's not the way Apple want you to use it.

Revenue would be shared with all interested parties, no adverts, sign up via iTunes.

Nevermind.

 

[kralnor]

coming next month with the new xbox upgrade you will search for a piece of media and it will show you every service that has it

This is how you find on-demand movies and TV shows with Google TVs already.

----------

I love apple but am perfectly fine with how tv works now. My shows are recorded with a plain old cable HD DVD I come home and they are there,the ones I wanted. It takes seconds to fast forward through commercials and when I've watched I erase and done.

Guess TV isn't that important to me to take the technology a step further

Better to be able to subscribe to the shows you want rather than pay $100s each month for all the 1000s of shows you never watch nor have any interest in. This is what you can do now for most shows via iTunes, but there's no live functionality.

 

[tbrinkma]

I wouldn't be surprised. Apple needs to keep their profit margins high.

Apple products ARE low resolution. It's sub-HD.
The reason why Apple doesn't opt for 4"+ screens is because in order to get 300+ ppi on a 4.5-.8" screen, you'd need a 720p resolution, which would be expensive and Apple would never want to harm their profit margins. They're using cheap, 6-year-old tech screen with low resolution and covering this defect by using a small screen.

'HD' is a pixel-count, not resolution. In fact, even 'Full HD' is *lower* resolution than many computer displays were when the HDTV rollout began.

That 'HD' 45" Samsung TV has a resolution of 48.95 ppi. It is *incredibly* low resolution compared to the iPhone 4 screen's 326 ppi. Apple didn't go with an 'HD' display for the iPhone because it wouldn't have made a difference as far as display quality. A 720p display with the same width (not diagonal) would be 366.75 ppi. You can't independently resolve two pixels on the iPhone 4 display at 326 ppi, so there's absolutely no benefit in going to 366+ ppi for a display used at the same distance.

You claim the iPhone screen is a "cheap, 6-year-old tech screen with low resolution", but the screen of the iPhone 4 can't be accurately described by any part of that phrase. First, its quite a bit more expensive than the screens on any other phones released during the same period. Second, it's screen technology that couldn't have been produced in bulk at *any* price 3 years ago, much less 6. Third, it's *higher* resolution (by more than a factor of 6) than that 45" Samsung HDTV you're so hung up on.

I can say with confidence now that you don't understand what the word 'resolution' means, if you think that the 45" Samsung HDTV is 'high resolution', and the iPhone 4 display is 'low resolution'.

Tell me, if they're so "high quality," why are their profit margins so high? You'd think that high-quality products would be more expensive to assemble, yet the cost to assemble an iphone costs the same as a 3-year-old Samsung phone.

As for why their margins are so high, while they maintain their high quality? That's easy. They sell high-quality goods. They have a focused product line, which reduces a lot of the overhead necessary in managing their supply chain. (It costs less to produce 1 million of one hardware design than it does to produce 50,000 each of 20 distinct hardware designs.)

Additionally, they've made the investments necessary over the years to focus and streamline their supply chain. That gives them a cost advantage over most of their competitors.

Finally, they produce their own OS. You may try to argue that itt *must* be more expensive to do so, but given Apple's history, it simply isn't. If I want to license Windows, I'm paying a share of its development costs, *and* a (large) multiple of that in profits to Microsoft. Apple, on the other hand, simply has to factor the development costs of their OS into the cost of their systems, and can make a bit extra by selling the upgrades at a *very* reasonable price.

Developing their own OS also gives them a level of flexibility their competitors don't have. For example, OS X and iOS share virtually every piece of non-UI code (and have ever since iOS was released, even back when it was called iPhone OS). This means that most of the development costs can be amortized across Mac Pro, iMac, Mac mini, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iPad, iPod Touch, and iPhone sales, lessening the related price burden on each category of system.

With the numbers of systems sold, I'd be surprised if OS X and iOS development weren't *cheaper* (on a per-device basis) than the patent licensing fees paid to Microsoft by Android handset makers, and less than the cost of a Windows license.

----------

That has nothing to do with my post. I don't even know what you're talking about.

That's ok. He doesn't know what he's talking about either.

----------

Under what rock do you live? Time to get a clue.

He's completely hooked on the idea that 'HD' means 'high resolution', and that anything that isn't 'HD' is 'low resolution'. To him a 326 ppi display is lower resolution than a 48.95 ppi display just because the latter display is a 45" 1080p HDTV.

 

[tbrinkma]

COMPLETE BS. I buy ebooks.

Jul 2010 Game Of Thrones a book of ice and fire, I paid $4.15 ebook.
Today it is $8.99.

It's a fact before Apple stepped in ebooks were reasonably priced compared to their paperbooks. That is not the case today.

No, not 'complete BS'. One book does not a market make.

A tech example for you:
4 years ago, you could get more than 'HD', 21-inch, wide-screen LCD displays at affordable prices ($250-300, sometimes less if you found a good deal). These days, the market for 21-inch LCD displays in that price range consists *entirely* of 1080p displays. To get a display with a higher pixel-count than 'HD', you need to go shopping in the $500-750+ range.

Does this mean that 21-inch LCD displays have gone up in price? No. It means that a certain category of 21-inch LCD displays have gone up in price. (In this case, due almost entirely to the demand for 'Full HD' LCD panels for TVs.)

For the record, I buy e-books, too. And the prices I've paid haven't changed a dime since Apple convinced the publishers to use the agency model. (YMMV)

 

[X38]

This is the first actually useful cloud idea. Hopefully it comes true.

If the TV companies balk, Apple's got so much money and stock value, they could just buy them out, change their managent, and sell them off one at a time until they've installed reasonable managent in the bulk of the industry.

 

[KnightWRX]

You claim the iPhone screen is a "cheap, 6-year-old tech screen with low resolution", but the screen of the iPhone 4 can't be accurately described by any part of that phrase. First, its quite a bit more expensive than the screens on any other phones released during the same period. Second, it's screen technology that couldn't have been produced in bulk at *any* price 3 years ago, much less 6.

What are you babbling on about ? The iPhone 4's display, as impressive as it was, was late to the game of high pixel count and high resolution phone displays.

Heck, 300 PPI phones were around in 2007, when the initial iPhone launched. As much as I agree with you about that other poster's comment, I can't agree with you on the iPhone having "cutting edge" resolution in 2010. It was late.

 

[Lark.Landon]

In the US we already have DVR's, so that does not apply to us

I live in the US as well, had a DVR, and it's annoying having to fast forward through commercials. DirectTV = Devil.

 

[mattopotamus]

I live in the US as well, had a DVR, and it's annoying having to fast forward through commercials. DirectTV = Devil.

like someone else said though, there is probably a zero perfect chance of commercial/ad free style DVR. Actually, i'm sure ad companies would prefer to have the "on demand" style instead of DVR's b.c everyone does ffw through commercials. On demand doesn't let you do this =/